Reply With QuoteThey do, but you had a choice and took it.Originally Posted by paskinner
I really do not understand this 'storm in a teacup' stuff.
The lesson to me is that retailers need to be open and upfront when doing business. If they are going to require specific security information, they should say so before accepting an order. That way, the customer can choose.
They do, but you had a choice and took it.
I really do not understand this 'storm in a teacup' stuff.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Fair comment. However, the OP seemed to be talking about direct shipping and during the current 'lockdown', if your nearest AD is an hours drive away or more, you may not want to travel (or really shouldn't be).
I agree with this point.
Rather than getting annoyed about the situation, have you tried contacting WoS and asking the question? You want to buy a watch from them, they've done something that you don't like. How about telling them and seeing what their response is. They may be prepared to arrange an online video call with you, they do arrange Zoom appointments.
Yes a simple check would confirm that someone of that name lived at that address. Not necessarily that they were talking to that person though.
I think some people use online information including photos posted on social media to verify who people are.
I don’t think it’s a lack of respect for the customer to be honest, but obviously some would take the ‘how dare they ask me’ stance.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
For once I agree with you.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I believe the lack of respect is when they inform the customer of the hoop they have to jump after having taken the card and personal details.
When you give your card details, you have mentally purchased the watch. Anything that then stops you from getting it will generate frustration.
They should inform them before, and they should also state the security measures they have to keep the data safe.
If they did that, the customer could choose to purchase from them, or not, and there wouldn't be any cause for any aggravation.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I can see your point but to me it's still like 'who cares?'. It wouldn't stop me buying something I wanted.
By refusing they probably think you have something to hide anyway and feel justified in asking!
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Watchfinder - kapow!
“Special Relationship” AD - blam!
Watches of Switzerland - ooofff!
No retailer can escape !
Indeed, many compliance managers might consider it a trigger for a Suspicious Activity Report. "He refuses to show you his papers! Fill out this form and send it to the NCA immediately!"
Complaints should be directed to B. Obama esq, ref. "Operation Choke Point" etc.
- Banks get caught with fingers in 9-figure money laundering cases.
- They are too expensive to prosecute and too big to put out of business, but regulators apply pressure so they can say what a great job they are doing.
- In order to show how fastidious and upright they now are, the banks turn screws on every reliant business below them in the food chain, where there was no such problem of money laundering.
- You in turn end up going through seven circles of hell just to go about your business of opening an account / accessing your money / spending your money.
- Honest businesses chase their tails endlessly to meet ever-expanding AML compliance rules, even though "GlitzyKettlesofEssex" trades through Instagram and will accept a Lidl carrier bag of strangely-scented bank notes for a platinum Daytona. *
- The bank carries on working its next 9-figure money laundering business.
- Repeat.
* Obviously the three pillars of trust when it comes to selling high value watches on social media are
1. Images of an anonymous hand wearing the watch against an AMG steering wheel
2. A white glove handling aftermarket kack as if it is the crown jewels
3. A thousand Trustpilot reviews, even though the business started only last month.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 1st February 2021 at 12:59.
I plan to steal your ideas next time we draft a remediation program for an obliged entity in the high value goods sector.
Who’s the ‘special relationship’ AD? Beats me. I’ve never had one. But I’ve bought a lot of
watches from retailers with excellent results. I would say 90% of the traders I have dealt with have been very good. .Only a small handful have been problematic. Your reference to ‘no retailer can escape’ is untrue and insulting.
The thread made no reference to you, or any business other than WOS. Who are big boys well able to look after themselves.
As for banking and security. I’ve gone fifty years without a single issue . And that would be easy to check. Rather better than an internet picture of my passport! If it was my real passport of course. If that’s supposed to constitute ‘security’ we are all in trouble.
Last edited by paskinner; 1st February 2021 at 13:46.
Didn't you have a Day-Date with a problem, bought new from an AD? I seem to remember too much discussion at the time about having it corrected etc. You may not have used the term "Special..." but the Bear Pit certainly did.
Holding the passport / live photo? It's a fairly standard procedure in the world of online KYC, generally held in tandem with the checks which you might deem sufficient on their own. Similarly, if you need a criminal record check, part of that may involve using the Post Office service which includes holding your passport and turning your head to the side etc.
You were insulted by my light-hearted post as well ? Is there a pattern of feeling insulted ?
I can see the use in Click and Collect operatives knowing what face to expect coming to collect which watch, particularly when purchased remotely at a time when online fraud is at its zenith.
Its the same for us if we deliver a watch by hand when selling via ch24 etc. We have to take a photo of their ID sat next to the watch as POD, otherwise no pay-out by ch24.
Its just a security measure which can be used to protect either party.
Agh, the DayDate. 2016 . The issue was a major problem with the date changeover on the new model, , which was later proved to affect every single DD40 issued over that period. Rolex had to introduce new parts which were retro-fitted to many watches. I was, according to Rolex,probably the first owner to publicise that (because I was an early adopter. Not a good idea ).
The dealer (Bruford’s if you want to know) was superb. I don’t deal with them much now because I’ve moved to another town. But all Rolex ADs have been good. They get a lot of stick but are usually pretty attentive.
Incidentally, one of the reasons the DayDate problem was spotted quite slowly, was, apparently, because owners tended to be asleep by midnight. Lucky people.
Two years later I bought another DD40, and it worked.....I won’t be an early adopter again.
Maybe this can help: https://www.koffeeklatch.co.uk/provi...tity-and-gdpr/
It's far from a proper legal guidance but it will give you a hint of what is involved.
This is more exhaustive: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations...gulation-gdpr/
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Well, you live and learn. The basic point is for us punters to be very careful when asked to provide security documents through the internet . (Less is more). I’m glad I refused to co-operate and will be extra careful in future.
I suspect this is all going to get messier and messier.
Yes banks love spending tons of money on AML, putting barriers in the way of onboarding new business and of course are regularly asking regulators to increase requirements in this space. That's exactly how it happens.
I think there are a few sides to this. The anti fraud checking I understand - there are better ways to do it than to send a clumsy email that sounds a lot like or is an ultimatum. That’s poor customer service. It might have been classier to call and explain and to ask you to bring it with you for them to take a look and verify. It’s a shame they emailed you for it - email can feel very blunt.
Then there’s the fact they solicited your business and didn’t tell you about this upfront - again, clumsy and poor service. I think they got you excited for a new watch, as any of us would be, and then threw cold water on it with this rather unfortunate way of dealing with a sensible precaution. I think I’d react badly to that.
Then there’s the question of sending sensitive personal information to a shop, who, we presume, will hang on to it. A frustration of mine with modern life is the need to have an account with everyone and his dog. I want to buy things, I don’t want shops storing my data just to sell me whatever it is I want. Take the order, take the payment, don’t hang on to my details any longer than it takes to send the order and for nothing more than to record a sale. Checking out as a guest is always my way where possible.
Given the numerous stories about companies losing data hand over fist again and again, the less I dish it out, the happier I feel. So to answer your original question - no, I don’t think I’d want a shop having a copy of my passport knocking about.
Not sure if you’re trying to paraphrase my narrative, but I did not suggest the banks enjoyed it or were pressing for more regulation. Rather, they misbehave and when squeezed tend to over-compensate by kicking everyone else rather than their own criminal elements.
When I bought my Seamaster from Chrono24 they asked for a copy of my driver's license. I paid via debit card rather than credit, so I don't think that is related as someone suggested in an earlier post. They didn't make me hold it and smile though!
Sent using Tapatalk
I'm sure that's an interesting perspective, but it's not accurate.
I am sure you are unsure who you are challenging.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
That is all about you, not the AD.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I'm not challenging anyone, I just disagree with his statement. If there's some relevant point I'm missing I'm all ears?
Last edited by M1011; 2nd February 2021 at 04:04.
Posting Permissions
