Reply With QuoteShouldnt the 233 come with the warranty booklet rather than warranty card?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
Bought a lovely PAM233 via eBay, the seller is UK based b&m retailer with a presence on Chrono24 too.
Described as 2015 with b&p, it arrives; late O series (2012/13) with a warranty card stamped by Laings, dated mid 2015. When I add it to my pam-guard collection on-line it shows as 1st registered in mar 2014 , which is probably more believable from the O series production #. Don't think the guarantee booklet is correct either, it's a booklet of T&C's in umpteen languages with a rear flap to hold the plastic card. 233 would have had some certs from the QC process similar to COSC.
The watch is mint.
I contact the retailer & there is no problem, they have apologised & offered either to take it back at their cost for a full refund, alternatively £200 reduction to keep it.
Pure conjecture on their side, their theory is it was registered with the AD (maybe to hit targets) & sold sometime later hence the date anomaly. I don't know where that means for the warranty card supplied?
Could this be an issue for me later on, I'm thinking to keep it. Or is this inadvisable?
TIA
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Shouldnt the 233 come with the warranty booklet rather than warranty card?
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
That's what I thought, thanks & what I meant by the guarantee book doesn't seem correct.
The card is filled out with the right serial number if a bit smudged.
It's looking more like I should regard it as effectively not having papers, hmmm.
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Does the missing cert book pose a big problem & best avoided?
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Is it the watch you thought you were buying?
You seem to have acknowledged already you knew it might be old stock when it was first sold.
Do you doubt the authenticity of the paperwork or are you just miffed that it hung around in Laings for ages before somebody bought it?
If the serial number shows it to be genuine then you seem to be fretting over a bit of paper.
I would worry too much,I had a 389 and all numbers and papers were correct,but the thing was the letter code seemed wrong has it was saying something like 2014 but they didn’t come out until 2015.
Has long as the watch is what you expect I wouldn’t be too concerned,and the price you paid was decent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for your reply aldfort.
The paragraph about the pre registration is conjecture from the seller when I noted the discrepancy, not a pre-sale disclosure.
Expected; 2015MY watch in mint condition with box & papers to correlate. The price paid reflects this.
Arrived; 2013MY watch in mint condition with box & incorrect to the reference warranty card dated 18months after the watch was registered with Panerai. The earlier Panerai registration date seems more likely from the production date.
The 2015 dated warranty card is very likely bobbins.
So why is the (wrong) card there at all? I doubt Laings are anything to do with it, why would they not sell as used with or without the correct booklet? It looks like someone 5 years ago has tried to pass the watch off as BNIB some 18 months after it was 1st sold.
As I type this, maybe I should just send it back. They'll be others, however, it is mint no question and that is why I asked the Q as my first thought was to keep it.
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Last edited by JayGee; 21st December 2020 at 19:07.
The warranty card was probably a pre-stamped one, that’s been filled in after the fact to make it look like a full set to bump up the price.Originally Posted by JayGee
I’ve Noticed blank Laing’s and Berry’s cards floating about ebay before like this
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284119186034
Very interesting, I think that's what has happened. Not by the retailer selling to me, prior.
Possibly the same story for the strap change tool which has had a busy life, sourced to make up the "full set" before seeking a trade valuation
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Last edited by JayGee; 22nd December 2020 at 00:58.
Regardless of what happened, sounds like there's sufficient doubts in your mind about it so I suggest you return it. At the end of the day, it isn't as advertised.
You will always have your doubts, I would return it.
If you ever decided to move it on would prospective buyers be willing to accept the explanations given? Or would you have to settle for watch only prices.
It isn’t what was described, so for me it would be going back.
I doubt the people you are buying from would be as understanding if the roles were reversed.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
This is sound advice for the OP. Clearly this is a major purchase and in those circumstances the OP needs to know he can get his money back out of the watch. (All other market factors being equal in the future of course.)
Thanks all, appreciate the advice.
It's going back.
Sent from my motorola one action using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
