Real nice watch you got there hope you enjoy it for the years to come
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
At the risk of sounding disingenuous should we announce all calls and purchases or is it just Rolex?
FYI I got a call from an AD in Cheltenham about an Omega he had got in but I didn’t buy it.
Anyone who wants a watch to keep would just swallow it - I would. It’s a daft situation but hardly the end of the world and, in theory, it’s part of a process that increases the chance of getting the watch. In practice, once some people have lots of £ waved in front of their eyes, they’ll happily ignore whatever commitments they’ve given.
Jeez, some of you guys! Give something to get something.
You want a watch that has a market valve of £thousands more than the retailer is selling it to you for, then sign the paper. How hard can that be?
If your pride is so wounded at the prospect of signing a bit of paper, that it causes you to flounce out of dealer without purchasing watch, then please PM me the reference and dealer - you'll make me happy at least.
Here we have an AD that's trying to do something to try to deter would-be amateur traders that are only buying in order to flip for a quick tax-free profit. Bravo AD!
OP - this is a great result for you. Sorry your thread attracted unwarranted negativity. Enjoy the watch.
nice watch...stupid contract.
You give money to get a watch, not cretinously stupid contractual terms.
It is "hard" because it is morally wrong. Surely you can have the intellect to see that it's not the piece of paper, per se, that is the issue but the insulting, abusive (and yes, I do call this abusive), customer-hating, guity-until-proven-innocent terms that the vendor is attempting to impose.
Who in their right mind would sign away their liberty over their own property? That's not a matter of "pride", as you put it, but of basic common sense and self-respect. The watch just isn't that good. It's not worth it.
And it's not a matter of "flounc[ing]" as you again put it, it's a matter of keeping one's money to spend on a product or at a vendor who does not exhibit utter contempt and hatred for its customer.
(a) No they're not. They are just frightened of losing their AD franchise and they think that this fear-driven customer-contempt strategy will help them keep it.
(b) Even if they were trying to "amateur traders", what of it? That would be their problem with Rolex, since we know it is Rolex putting pressure on them. I will not tolerate them trying to make their problems into my problems. That's what they are doing (so as to keep their franchise) and it is contemptible.
(c) Why is it bad to make a profit with one's own property? Both Rolex and the AD do exactly that. Are their profits more magically special than other people's possible profits in your mind? If so, can you really justify such fantastical thinking?
Last edited by markrlondon; 5th September 2019 at 06:50.
This contractual garbage is why I will never buy another Rolex. Rolex and their AD’s are presumably happy with their substantial and ever increasing profit margins, it astonishes me that they have the arrogance to think they can control what customers subsequently do with their purchases. Flipped for a profit? Well done mate, is is nobody’s business but yours!
What's wrong with 'innocent-until-proven-guilty'? Guess you meant the other way round.
IMO, your post and reasoning are rather OTT but then, you and I are clearly not going to agree.
I am pleased to hear of a dealer that's trying to do something positive to support collectors who favour ownership over flipping. It may not be ideal but it's a move in the right direction.
Last edited by Monkey Queen; 4th September 2019 at 12:13.
I agree, anything that can benefit the collector over the flipper is ok in my book,..........., however how do you explain the many many reports of AD's bulk selling unicorn models directly to grey dealers, thereby bypassing the good collector and helping fuel this current scenario?
Unsubstantiated reports
I am sure Rolex would know if that were occurring
The AD I bought most of my Rolexes from ( Tourneau) told me they had to take a picture of all sales receipts and submit them to Rolex. I doubt Rolex ADs in UK/US are doing this channelling.Gray dealers get their stock from somewhere- so they must have a channel which may involve some ADs somewhere but I doubt if that is your high street AD.
Last edited by RAJEN; 4th September 2019 at 12:39.
Welcome to the world of a predictable, single agenda, repetitive, one track multiquoting machine.
My responses to these are predictable too, as some would love to point out:-)
I would love to know when was the last time the multi crapping machine with so many watch related opinions posted a picture of a watch on the ‘watch’ forum.
Last edited by RAJEN; 4th September 2019 at 12:52.
My view is that it’s not the dealers selling the models to the grey market, it’s the flippers that keep perpetuating the problem.
Although, judging by this forum, there's no shortage of ‘collectors’ whose idea of ownership is to proudly boast of having the watch (always a Rolex for some reason …) tucked away in a safe, ‘all stickered-up’ to use the nauseatingly smug common parlance, with seemingly no intention of actually wearing it. Not sure there’s much moral high ground to be claimed there either, nor justification for preferential treatment.
Is any chance we keep it civilised in the thread without resorting to name calling directly or by proxy ie references to 'idiotic' opinions etc if you cannot help yourself why not go back to the BP and enjoy yourself there among fellow namecallers and keyboard warriors?
Your fellow member opinion is as valuable as yours. Unless you think you’re somehow superior and your posts carry more weight.
Last edited by VDG; 4th September 2019 at 13:04.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I only respond this way to those who habitually crap on all such Rolex threads. There is nothing new.
If you don’t like Rolex or their ADs or their practices or the owners, fine. No need to crap on all such threads. It really shouldn’t be so much of a concern for them what goes on in the Rolex world if it doesn’t interest them. The fact that they
feel obliged to express the same/similar opinion on repeatedly on all such threads.........
It’s a forum R and people join forums to express their opinion. We all different and have different taste in watches among other things, so different opinions are expected, and Yes people will express the same opinion again and again, it’s pretty much expected, hence hostility is contra productive it will only cause further agro and animosity it won’t change people minds especially if hostility is involved. If you do not like some people's opinion, repeated or not, just ignore them or put them on your ignore list - everyone wins.
As for AD experience and purchasing process, it is an intricate part of owing Rolex as a watch for people who buy new, so you cannot just dismiss it out of hand and it will always attract different opinions esp with the recent AD practices.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Perhaps we should pay for the watch and let them keep it in their safe for two years ensuring I do not sell my own property.
What I don’t understand is why folk think a green sub is amazing when three years ago they were not that great.
If it’s just fashionable now buy something else and wait it’s time will come.
Or buy something you like yourself and just let the haters hate
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I remember the abuse DateJusts used to take here - now there's waiting lists for those, and fawning comments. I also remember saying here that I preferred them to steel sports Rolex (back in 2014ish) and being 'smirked' at (or whatever the forum equivalent is!). The only other person supporting me was WebWatchMaker (I think is the correct username).
People will always be drawn to hype - it's like a whirlpool - if you're a manufacturer and you hit the golden ticket of stirring one up, then it becomes a self-perpetuating mania and people lose all focus, as more and more get helplessly sucked into the centre, unable to escape the current or see the horizon above the foaming waves.
I understand perfectly what's happening with Rolex, and why, but it's become tedious beyond belief to see this once glorious, diverse and quirky sub-forum turn into a constant generic discussion on Rolex SS watches.
Or chucked into a drawer, or three :-)
Imagine the "OCD" of members here (never met so many people with "OCD*" !!) if they saw that again!
* yes, tongue firmly in cheek as it's an offensively childish phrase to use when men-children get upset over micro-scratches on steel watches.
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry, I appear to have got out of the wrong side of bed this morning!
Back to lurking!
Have to say I too am non-plussed at that! Told the story before but my AD said a few years ago (maybe 5/6) he had several LV Subs in his safe; no-one wanted them. Similarly, I don't recall anyone hankering after GMTs and now the old ones are hot, never mind the new ones!
That's fine if you are buying from the AD on the understanding that you are going to flip for a profit. Whatever the legal position, I would have thought that the "implied" deal, in all but the most unusual situations, is that they are selling you a watch to wear.
If you buy a watch purely to flip, without telling the AD that is your plan, you can hardly take the moral high ground!
Surely you are missing the point. The idea of the restrictions are to make it harder for the watch to be flipped for profit. The watches will go to people who actually want to wear them rather than to make a quick buck. If you don’t like the restrictions then don’t buy the brand or use another dealer.
I did. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
LOL! As I observed, there is no such thing happening. First of all, trying to control what people do with their personal property is not in any way, shape, or form "positive". It is an entirely negative thing to do that is insulting to the customer. (And it clearly cannot and is not hampering the grey channel).
Secondly, the dealer is not trying to do anything other than keep their franchise! It's wholly selfish of them. They don't really care about flipping (of personal property, remember) at all. They just fear losing their franchise. I understand their fear but I do not accept that their problems should become my problems.
Last edited by markrlondon; 5th September 2019 at 11:24.
No, that's stuff you've invented in your own mind.
Once you buy a thing, you are able to do with what you wish within the law. Once it is your property, you are entirely entitled to sell it for a loss or a profit, as you wish.
No, no such thing. When you buy the item it is yours to do with as you please.
An AD trying to restrict this right for their own selfish benefit is just hating and insulting their customers.
And, make no mistake, the ADs doing this are doing it for their own selfish (but understandable) benefit. They are doing it solely to try and help retain their AD franchise. They fear losing it. They do not directly care anything about who sells their watches further down the line; they have only come to seemingly care because they fear losing their franchise for something that is, in truth, outside their control.
Yes you can as there is nothing in the slightest bit immoral about it. It is wholly right, proper and moral, in every possible respect, to sell on one's own property whether it be for a loss or a profit.
Last edited by markrlondon; 5th September 2019 at 11:25.
Quite so. Very well observed.
Is a person who buys a watch and seals it away in a safe someone morally better or worse than someone who sells it on? It seems not to me. Both are morally neutral: People are rightly and properly doing what they want with their own personal property.
Well, I think it's immoral to lie and if you buy a watch to flip you are, at some stage, lying to the dealer about your intentions. That is unless you tell the AD what you are planning to do and tell them not to bother sizing the bracelet as it's going straight to WF or on eBay.
You have your view; I have mine. What's legal is legal and what people do to make a few £ is for them to decide. At the end of the day, the people disadvantaged by flippers are watch enthusiasts.
But I think even that needs qualifying: certainly watch enthusiasts who don’t want to pay more than RRP are disadvantaged, but those who are prepared to do so are benefitted as they now have much faster access to their model of choice.
I understand how it can seem unpalatable but is the situation any different from that of an IPO where it is known that the initial share price is lower than where it will subsequently trade? In that sense flippers are doing no more than providing liquidity to the market and allowing the desirable models to be traded much more quickly in line with their actual market value.