stolen rolex

[noTAGlove]

I’d accept that if he hadn’t behaved the way he did in the past.

I had not, and still have not read the whole thread, so was not aware there was previous form.

But, the Op is very clearly stressed so it is only right to make some allowance, although not for any previous.

[Hood]

Not stellar behaviour by the Op, maybe give the benefit of the doubt, because if I had my lovely Rolex seized and told it wasn’t mine I’d be effing livid, and I am sure my behaviour would suffer as a result.

Op is clearly very stressed, whereas everyone else is not. Easy to lob grenades when you are not going through the sh1t show.

Exactly my thoughts until I read the link to the other thread.
I hope and have no doubts the OP will get sorted though and this could happen to any of us so we should all be hoping for a successful outcome on this.
If indeed the facts are as they seem.

[M1011]

I know what you mean but in fairness a lot of advice was proffered without actually considering that the watch was "acquired" four years before the theft was reported, not after.

I don't think that's actually true. Scanned the first 15 posts before the OP became belligerent, I see no instances of this.

[noTAGlove]

Exactly my thoughts until I read the link to the other thread.

Must keep up! Unfortunately the day job is in the way.

[Sinnlover]

I have just read the other thread.
It’s quite amusing that he bleated on about the importance of boxes and papers, yet a service document and receipt from purchase has been bu99er all help for him so far…

[TaketheCannoli]

Person sells Rolex to Goldsmiths in 2011 who then sell it to our OP the same year. Seller decides in 2015 they fancy a few quid so make a claim for loss or theft. They probably have the original purchase receipt or can show proof of purchase.

Alternatively, owner could have sold it privately and that new owner then sells it to Goldsmiths. Either of them could then claim loss / theft.

There are several other scenarios.

I'm at a loss here:

The OP bought the watch in 2011, and it has been in his possession since that year.

BUT

A theft loss was made by someone in 2015????

I'm not seeing that the 'owner' in 2015 actually had a Rolex?

[sickie]

I think this should go in the Classic Posts section.
It's priceless.

Sent from my SM-N976B using Tapatalk

[blackal]

Person sells Rolex to Goldsmiths in 2011 who then sell it to our OP the same year. Seller decides in 2015 they fancy a few quid so make a claim for loss or theft. They probably have the original purchase receipt or can show proof of purchase.

Alternatively, owner could have sold it privately and that new owner then sells it to Goldsmiths. Either of them could then claim loss / theft.

There are several other scenarios.

I opined the same, a few posts later. So much "victimless crime" insurance fraud going on - It is (to my mind) the most likely scenario.

[macdaddymac]

Ask for advise, get advise , be a d*klck because you do not like the advise.....wowzers

[Raffe]

Ask for advise, get advise , be a d*klck because you do not like the advise.....wowzers

advice

[xxnick1975]

I never realised the Datejust was a tools watch.....

Sent from my M2101K7BNY using Tapatalk

[kultschar]

On another note. In the event one was to buy it back from the insurers etc would they the insurers charge what they originally paid out, current retail value, or used market value? Ask out of interest since prices are night and day during this adventures timeline.

[blackal]

On another note. In the event one was to buy it back from the insurers etc would they the insurers charge what they originally paid out, current retail value, or used market value? Ask out of interest since prices are night and day during this adventures timeline.

Insurer would sell based on current market value.

I sense that would not happen, given the feeling of the OP

I Do think that if he does the donkeywork - there could be a decent outcome, as I have a hunch the original insurance claim was bogus.

[J J Carter]

This has escalated quicker than the price of a Tiffany dial 5711!

[watchlovr]

Made me laugh, what a dick.

[wileeeeeey]

Man attends steeplejack convention and announces he would like his 200ft chimney demolished.

Fred Dibnah steps up and says "'Appens as that's my line, Sir."

A couple of good sorts nod their approval.

"I didn't know we were in the presence of God incarnate!" retorts the visitor, before turning on his heels.

Dibnah returns to his sandwich, life unaffected.

And flask of tea still warm.

[J J Carter]

On a practical note, in the OPs position I'd negotiate with Goldsmiths on the basis of their negligence in reselling allegedly stolen property, in effect fencing. This would constitute a tort, creating civil liability for breach of obligations imposed by law.

As such, I'd set out my expectation for award of damages in the tort is to put the myself in the same position as I would have been in if the tort had not occurred.

That would mean either a cash settlement to the value of the watch at current market value OR replacement of the Rolex with one equivalent to the one purchased and now siezed.

[Captaincook]

Wow, what a great thread.

I imagine the knock-on effect of having the watch taken from the OP has caused this reaction, although reading the post linked, makes me doubt this.

Good luck in whatever you hope to get from this, I would be interested to hear the outcome.

[Haywood_Milton]

It turns out that the matter is a lot simpler than most of the hypotheses.

[demonloop]

It would actually have been of great benefit to the forum, had the OP not thrown the toys from the pram but instead kept us informed of the goings on and the eventual outcome

No one to blame but the author, but a shame for the forum

[markrlondon]

It turns out that the matter is a lot simpler than most of the hypotheses.

Have you seen more information?

[J J Carter]

It turns out that the matter is a lot simpler than most of the hypotheses.

Brexit?

[Raffe]

KN, I suppose?

[Haywood_Milton]

Have you seen more information?

Around midday today, yes. Not sure what I’m allowed to share. Perhaps the OP will oblige presently.

[wileeeeeey]

It turns out that the matter is a lot simpler than most of the hypotheses.

if you really worked in that sphere you would not be posting what you did - end of story/fantasy

did you forget to mention your a former Tier 1 Operator - pmsl

[Onelasttime]

It turns out that the matter is a lot simpler than most of the hypotheses.

Wrong serial number noted at service?

[macdaddymac]

advice

I can only apologise for the shame I've bought upon my family.

[J J Carter]

Now we're talking mahoosive compo?

[MartynJC (UK)]

Around midday today, yes. Not sure what I’m allowed to share. Perhaps the OP will oblige presently.

A summary would suffice?

[Haywood_Milton]

Now we're talking mahoosive compo?

Nil, I would say. [ edit : thought you were talking about the watch matter ]

[macdaddymac]

Now we're talking mahoosive compo?

A suitable donation will be made to a Ukrainian charity for my poor spelling

[TheGent]

Interesting thread this one.

[Haywood_Milton]

Wrong serial number noted at service?

Thinking the right way ;-)

[Raffe]

A suitable donation will be made to a Ukrainian charity for my poor spelling

[Christian]

On a practical note, in the OPs position I'd negotiate with Goldsmiths on the basis of their negligence in reselling allegedly stolen property, in effect fencing. This would constitute a tort, creating civil liability for breach of obligations imposed by law.

As such, I'd set out my expectation for award of damages in the tort is to put the myself in the same position as I would have been in if the tort had not occurred.

That would mean either a cash settlement to the value of the watch at current market value OR replacement of the Rolex with one equivalent to the one purchased and now siezed.

I'd push for some cost-neutral goodwill from Goldsmiths, like being put to the top of their Rolex waiting list for a new model.

[Jonesy9]

I'd push for some cost-neutral goodwill from Goldsmiths, like being put to the top of their Rolex waiting list for a new model.

Don’t know why but the old Mastercard adverts came to mind there. “Being moved to the top of Goldsmith’s Rolex waiting list? Priceless!”

[murkeywaters]

Christ, what a mash up this thread is, OP hardly uses the forum but when wanting help he comes running for advice, the most respected Rolex guy especially on stolen/missing/fake watches starts to give advice and time out of his day, OP then gets abusive and personal because he doesn't like the answer.

On top of that he makes the biggest mistake and mentions MODERATORS!!

This thread could have helped him out of a sticky situation, instead he just went all self destruction, whatever the outcome I couldn't care less..

[markrlondon]

Around midday today, yes. Not sure what I’m allowed to share. Perhaps the OP will oblige presently.

Wrong serial number noted at service?

Thinking the right way ;-)

Most interesting. Let us hope that the OP does return to fill us in on what seems like it could be a relatively happy (and quick!) outcome.

[dkpw]

By now, I hope that Nasty Nick has realised what a total arse he's made of himself. I further hope he appreciates the reach of HM who can determine what's happened to HIS watch, despite the haughty disdain he dismissively displayed.

Classic thread!

[markrlondon]

I'd push for some cost-neutral goodwill from Goldsmiths, like being put to the top of their Rolex waiting list for a new model.

LOL!

[seabiscuit]

Most interesting. Let us hope that the OP does return to fill us in on what seems like it could be a relatively happy (and quick!) outcome.

I hope he doesn’t return. Just a disagreeable presence who tosses insults around when wiser folk are offering sage advice.

[Rodder]

I don’t think TZ has ever been this toxic. There’s so many things wrong in this thread beyond the OPs churlishness (which was probably emotionally driven to be fair).

Generally if a man’s down on his luck you don’t put the boot in.

[nick h]

matter now kindly resolved by Kevin at LMG

- no fault by LMG i should add

apparently in the past a 'jeweller' doing a valuation entered the wrong watch ref number and somehow my watch had been reported to rolex as stolen

Kevin i understand has spoken to Rolex and corrected the error - the watch is now legally mine again

thanks for all comments/input

[Raffe]

An apology is in order. Just saying.

[Dave+63]

It may be maddening and I sympathise greatly, but I know KN and he is a brilliant guy. You will be fairly treated and I would suggest calmly waiting for the full facts to be shared. The law on title is clear enough. At the moment, all the details we need against which to apply it are not.

well i would hardly say KN is brilliant

he is covering the arse of the insurers who paid out

i mentioned involving the police and he said they are not bothered!!!

matter now kindly resolved by Kevin at LMG

- no fault by LMG i should add

apparently in the past a 'jeweller' doing a valuation entered the wrong watch ref number and somehow my watch had been reported to rolex as stolen

Kevin i understand has spoken to Rolex and corrected the error - the watch is now legally mine again

thanks for all comments/input

More than one apology, I reckon.

[dkpw]

More than one apology, I reckon.

That's a relief for the OP. Let's hope he does the decent thing either here or via a PM.

As you pointed out MH had the situation fully assessed within an hour of his post. As he began with some Latin, I'd offer this advice to the OP; festina lente.

[Kingstepper]

More than one apology, I reckon.

An apology from Rolex at least. Holding on to OPs property based on false information is out of order.

[Raffe]

That's a relief for the OP. Let's hope he does the decent thing either here or via a PM.

As you pointed out MH had the situation fully assessed within an hour of his post. As he began with some Latin, I'd offer this advice to the OP; festina lente.

After such public misbehaviour, there is only one decent way to handle it - and a PM it ain't.

[Onelasttime]

Thinking the right way ;-)

Oh dear

Edit: Oh dear indeed. One wrong number and suddenly it’s insurance fraud and your property is withheld from you. Bad juju.

[julian2002]

Having been in similar lift drop moments to the op I can understand his lashing out. It was ill advised and probably warrants some token towards those on the sharp end of his comments but public immolation as being bayed for here by some it a little over the top. I may be wrong but then I never did understand the attraction of soap opera.