Reply With QuoteHow old is the watch?
Trying to do my bit for a client, this morning I received this response about their watch:
Talk about moving in mysterious ways!
It is an 18ct gold Day-Date model 18038 with case number 5830857, a watch sold circa 1979 and a model that they will still service today.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 21st May 2019 at 10:42.
How old is the watch?
That is bizzare.
Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk
What a ridiculous fob off,you try so hard as well.
I was just editing to add that before you replied. Sorry....before someone else jumps on you and calls you a daft rotter or some such.Originally Posted by Normunds
Hopefully the Watch Register will be more accommodating! Rolex have lost the plot.
:-(
Could this be a data entry error (ie too many/few serial number digits) resulting in computer says no?
Have any other watches been registered that are older?
Very strange.
I've just had it confirmed by a third party, though apparently it is not consistent.
An older watch that has recently been serviced may be added to the list!
I have expressed my consternation to RUK and asked if there is a policy or guidelines so that I don't waste their time with any more such reports.
As Rolex main agents may typically check watches only with Rolex UK, I wonder if this exposes them to the risk of buying an older stolen watch, which independent dealers using the Art Loss Watch Register or the Safergems Watch Register might identify... That is just the sort of opportunity for which those like Nadeem Malick might hope!
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 21st May 2019 at 11:23.
I can see no reason for this ... can anyone think of a single logical reason for this policy apart from some IT issue?
Does this just not expose owners of vintage Rolex? 1979 is hardly old in the context of a Rolex.
To deter the purchase of older watches and encourage the purchase of new/newer? Though this would only apply if they advertised this fact..and that wouldn't go down well given the behaviour it may encourage.
Just smacks of an arbitrary cut-off point to me
That’s mad!
Deleted.
Last edited by Toast3d; 21st May 2019 at 11:52. Reason: Double post
That's poor. If they will service it, part of that service is a check of authenticity and, I'd hope and expect, a confirmation that it hasn't been reported as stolen to them. What RUK seem to be saying is they can't make any such statement about a reported stolen watch, or not. That undermines their service a bit.
There have been / are some aspects that a "gap analysis" might highlight!
I am currently dealing with the case of a watch apparently received by Rolex UK for service on 30/4/2014.
Following a reported loss / theft some short while earlier, this same watch was apparently added to the Rolex UK Lost & Stolen list on 13/5/2014.
Because it had already been booked in for service, they did not make the connection and it was released when finished!
Messy and on-going, with added complications....
oh my!
Understandable, especially if the theft wasn't reported right away.
Really? They would release a knowingly stolen watch to a thief because someone was slow reporting?
Sent from my SM-G950F using TZ-UK mobile app
I believe Haywood is saying that Rolex released a watch that was in their possession and that they knew, before releasing it, to have been stolen.
That legendary customer service that Rolex have...yes about that... errrmmm
No of course not. It wasn't knowingly (to them) stolen when they checked.
Also, highly unlikely that a thief would think to get his stolen watch serviced.
Presumably their procedure is to check incoming watches. If someone was slow reporting it wasn't on their register at the time.
Last edited by Kingstepper; 21st May 2019 at 22:01.
Interesting! So the safest place for a thief to stash a recently stolen watch is to send it to Rolex for a service.
Comes with fresh service documents, thus most (if not all) buyers would take that as a guarantee that it was not stolen, and is also authentic.
It’s all about the money. Disgusting!
I thought sending it to rolex for a service just after you brought it was the mitigation in case you have brought a fake or hot watch.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I am not sure what the logic of some of posts is here.
I think it is obvious that if a watch is accepted for service before being reported stolen, there is no way for Rolex to know it is stolen. Obviously they wouldn't check again before returning the watch if it had been reported in the interim period.
It is unfortunate but it has nothing to do with Rolex service or it being all about money.
Absolutely Raj.
How many times would Rolex be expected to check if it’s on the register? If it’s checked on arrival and not on the register, it’s probably a one in a million chance that it’s reported in the interim period. Should they then check it again before collection?
Haywood has happened upon what I believe must be a very rare occurrence. I’d be interested to know how it pans out H, I’d be doubly annoyed as the customer having paid for the service before having the watch taken away but I can see that Rolex aren’t at fault.
As a matter of interest, how was it later discovered that the watch was stolen?
There must be a simple way to join up their databases though, the serial number would be inputted at a fair few stages in the quoting service and billing process to automate the stolen register process rather than having to check each time, sort of like a ANPR for watches.
Cheers..
Jase
I am not sure how many brands provide this service.
Why is that obvious?
As this example demonstrates it’s actually the most important time as it is the point it changes possession.
It’s all computerised, should be an automated check.
I’d have thought it quite common for a new owner to send a watch in for service so this is probably more likely than you may think.
Doubt it's common for a thief to do this.
But a thief needs to find a new owner for what they've nabbed
If they had only a half-decent IT, the entry into the stolen watch register would flag the watch as being currently in the house for service. What an archaic way of working, not connecting all their data.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
... thieves usually dispose of stolen goods to unwitting new owners ... who then may send them off for service ... keep up at the back ;-)
Exactly ... and what better time to know than when Rolex has possession of the watch.
I know but was suggested earlier that the thief did so.
Would be a pretty stupid thief to send a watch he'd stolen off to Rolex so they could catch him ... but I guess it could happen ...
The point is that currently, if the thief gets it in to Rolex before it's reported as stolen, Rolex will service and return the watch because they don't have a system that alerts them to already being in possession of a reported stolen watch.
As such, not stupid of the thief at all. They get a watch with fresh extremely recent service, which plenty of buyers would take to mean the watch wasn't stolen, as Rolex had just serviced it (because they're not aware of this currently flawed system). But the thief takes the risk that they were quicker to the draw than the original owner!
Last edited by hughtrimble; 22nd May 2019 at 11:07.
Well prior to this thread the thief would not have know that ... but now it is on record this would certainly be a way of adding some authenticity to a stolen watch although still pretty risky for the thief as they don't know how quickly Rolex would have been notified.
Absolutely - the likelihood of this having actually happened intentionally must be extremely low.
I don’t think there’s anywhere where it was suggested that the thief sent it to Rolex for a service.
My thoughts were that the person who bought the watch unwittingly sent it away for the service.
MickP must be slightly worried right now!
Posting Permissions