Originally Posted by
Haywood_Milton
Answering various points made in the this thread:
Service replacement cases are typically very easy to identify.
I would expect easily to sell such a watch as a 16600 with a replacement case (though not a "more vintage" piece) with full disclosure at no more than 10% discount from the price of a watch which had its original case. Our "bubble" of hard-line watch forum views would be completely alien to the majority of the public with better things to do.
Sometimes Rolex will agree to service work with a disclaimer that they do not guarantee water resistance.
If such a watch were in the hands of many in the trade, they would service it through independents or put it through auction where it would of course achieve a price from bidders ignorant of Rolex's wish to replace the case. However, had it been returned from Rolex with the work not done there would typically be a "work declined" coding inside the case-back. Yet another reason, anyway, why we should laugh at daft bidders paying more for watches at auction without warranty than they could pay for better watches from dealers, with a warranty.
As I said earlier in the thread, it is my clear impression and that of others that Rolex UK's service department appears, shall we say, to be finding a lot more work that needs doing these days.
As for professionalism etc, my eyes were opened by a staggering incident recently.
I had sent a 16610LV for service and a new bezel insert.
It returned with the work done, but a badly scratched bezel insert.
Rolex UK said that this watch could not have left them like that as their Quality Control would not have allowed it. Rather, they said, it simply must have happened when we opened it. They would fit another --- but at my cost.
I refused and told them that we had video of the parcel being opened and the scratch immediately evident.
They must have thought I was bluffing, maintained that the insert could not have left them with a scratch, and said that they would need to see the video.
No doubt to their surprise and some middle-management bum-clenching embarrassment, I sent them the video.
They rang and said that they now accepted my version of events. No meaningful apology for the bad job, the failed quality control, doubting my word (it's not as if we're unknown to them) and forcing me to go to the trouble of downloading and copying them CCTV footage.
I referred them to their previous comments and misplaced certainty that their QC would not have allowed such a damaged job to be packed and dispatched.
"In every other, recent case," I argued, "where you have rejected a client's claim that a watch was marked or damaged upon receipt, will you now reconsider whether your confidence in the Quality Control function was entirely misplaced? Will you now revisit those cases and consider reimbursing those clients who may have been charged to correct your own mistakes that you wouldn't acknowledge?" They would not comment.
For me, this was a disgusting disservice that poisoned a relationship with the brand I have always championed and whose products' virtues I still extol daily.
It's not for me to quote main agents here, but it is fair to say that many are increasingly unhappy with their lot and for a number of reasons. Service costs and "required work" are on the list. They cannot win; ask for jobs to be returned undone and it's apparently a black mark against watch allocations! Consider the Hugh Grant "Love Actually" press conference scene with the American President, as comparison may be valid.
There are some great individuals at Rolex UK, largely from the Henry Hudson era. Some observers may feel that they are overwhelmed, sadly, by a strange corporate hubris led by others.
Nothing ever stays the same. I will hope that things get better from here.
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions