Reply With QuoteShould do what anyone who finds stolen property does, hand it over to the police I imagine.
Why on Earth would they destroy it?
As for fake parts etc, nothing illegal there and shouldn’t even retain it.
If Rolex identify a stolen watch or one made up with non Rolex parts and decide to retain it, any idea what do they do with it?
Do they store it, dismantle, crush it, etc.
Just curious.
Should do what anyone who finds stolen property does, hand it over to the police I imagine.
Why on Earth would they destroy it?
As for fake parts etc, nothing illegal there and shouldn’t even retain it.
Now - I'm pretty sure that Joe was not aligning stolen/destruction.Originally Posted by Kingstepper
I reckon he was offering that for fake parts.
For kicks and giggles they send the fake ones to Humbert Ellis.
Exactly. I have a recollection of a steam roller driving over fake watches but that could just be a trading standards stunt.
I would expect there’s some risk ‘returning’ a watch registered as stolen to the ‘legitimate’ owner. Keeping it may be considered theft.
Shame not to recycle the parts.
Maybe there’s a rogues gallery somewhere ?
The only place that a stolen/recovered watch can go to is the original owner (or insurers if the owner has been paid out).
Fake goods recovered by trading standards are, I believe, destroyed as a matter of course.
Whether Rolex would be allowed to destroy a fake watch owned by an individual is another matter though.
Last edited by Dave+63; 23rd March 2022 at 10:52.
I was in the London Service Centre last year when a young chap came in and presented his father's Daytona for servicing. After examining the watch the technician advised him that the watch was recorded as stolen.
Lots of things happened after that but what didn't happen was anyone from Rolex making any suggestion that they were entitled to take possession of the watch. Indeed, the technician said clearly that they had no right to take the watch from him and couldnt stop him from leaving with it if he chose - after all it was no more their property than anyone else's, and they're just a business.
In the light of this, I'm sceptical that this can ever happen, except perhaps in cases where the watch has actually been stolen from Rolex themselves, if there are any.
But what about Franken watches and bitsa’s ?
Super fakes with correct body wrong mech, etc.
Anecdotal, I know: I was talking to a Dive superintendant back in 2006, who related that he had sent a Comex SD for service via his dealer to RSC, and got told by his dealer on the phone that RSC did not recognise the model and was going to destroy the watch.
(that the person who received the watch at RSC - that is). He said that it took much threatening to get them to pause and spend some time checking.
Even allowing for a bit of grandstanding - I suspect that most of that was factual.
LOLz
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Whether they should or not, they do retain fakes sent them for servicing. They send back a so called red letter explaining that they are destroying the watch because it infringes their copyright. I have this first hand from a trained watchmaker and former WOS shop employee who has received 2 of the letters and had to pass on the news to the customer, who understandably were not happy.
Not sure what if anything they do with those registered as lost or stolen.
Last edited by Padders; 23rd March 2022 at 11:22.
Do they not become the property of the Insurer?
There’s no legal basis for this, are they above the law?
TBH probably an urban myth
Interesting. But it does happen, there was a thread started here yesterday where someone was told they can't have their watch back that they sent for servicing due to it being recorded as stolen. Wonder what the criteria is they follow.
I don’t think that case is typical though as some of the finest legal brains were amassed to develop a very compelling case in the example you cite.
I think there must be a distinction between 'reported as stolen' and 'on a register of settled insurance claims following theft' if there is such a thing.
Presumably, this would tend to give the insurer concerned good title, allowing Rolex to say 'Not only is it reported stolen but we also know who the current legal owner is and are bound to return it to them.'
That ‘legal team’ was unbeatable:-)
Unlikely their register has any more legal basis than one I might set up.
As shown in case on TZ now, it's not entirely accurate anyway. Legal title shouldn't be based upon this.
I can't see anything illegal about choosing to replace an OEM part with one that is non-OEM. Tring to pass it off as 100% Rolex would be problematic, but I'm not sure what would stop you, for example, legitimately buying a genuine Rolex then deciding to service it yourself with an Omega mainspring? Where could they draw the line - using a non-OEM link (eg using an Uncle Seiko half-link in a Tudor bracelet), using a 'customised' dial. When you buy a Rolex, where does it say you are contractually obliged to only use Rolex parts? I dunno!
I was thinking more of an official register similar to CUE / MID if there is one, which might confer title.
I’ve seen photos a few years ago on TRF of a fake which was sent for service. It was returned with any Rolex wording and logos filed off. The rehaut was quite funny.
Some years ago my Mother gave me her partners Datejust after he had past away. The bracelet was particularly nasty and I suspected it was not 100% legit. On removing the bracelet I found no ref or serial numbers. Just bare stainless steel.
I know someone who works for Rolex and contacted them, explained the situation. They said they were happy to inspect it for me and if it turns out to be fake “we will happily return it but we might insist on removing any Rolex trademarks that are visible”
I declined to take it in and it currently sits in a box unworn upstairs. I can’t bring myself to part with it as the old guy was good to my Mum and to our family, at the same time I don’t want to wear it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they retain a watch they believe to be stolen then they return it to its rightful owner. Most likely an insurance company.
In the UK at least they will NOT retain a watch with non-Rolex parts. They will return it to its owner. Maybe they will remove their trademarks if used improperly.
Last edited by markrlondon; 23rd March 2022 at 18:13.
By the way, this subject has been done to death.
There are lots of myths, many of them wrong.
The last thread on this subject got so heated that I recall Eddie deleted it.
They are not. They have no more or or less right to destroy someone else's property than anyone else. That is to say: None without legal sanction.
They will return it.
Have you personally seen these letters?
When I speak with him next week when I get my SMP he is servicing back, I will ask to do so. It is doubtful he still has one but I will ask.
Cheers
ps note we are talking about a fake watch here, not a genuine watch with non standard parts, you said yourself they will act to protect their copyright. How exactly do they do that on an out and out fake I wonder...
Thanks. It would be interesting to see one and see if it really does claim that they will destroy someone else's property. If so, it would, as Kingstepper put it, be putting themselves above the law.
A fake watch is merely one that has one or more Rolex trademarks used on it without permission. Whilst they might be justified in removing their trademark(s), that does not justify destroying someone else's property as a whole.
Last edited by markrlondon; 23rd March 2022 at 18:41.
I heard some years ago that they WILL retain a Rolex sent for servicing if they judge a watch to be fake. When the very *issed off owner demands HIS property back they just advise ‘Sue us if you don’t like it’ knowing very well that the regiment of lawyers Rolex retain do not lose many cases!
I would have thought you could just report to the Police it as theft, you wouldn’t have to sue.
Cheers..
Jase
A lot of people have heard many things. Unless you've seen it happen with your own eyes, it's still just hearsay. :-)
The guy I spoke to -related his own experience.
I've never actually HAD a broken leg - but I'm pretty sure it's gotta hurt.
It would probably not be theft. Theft/stealing requires some key tests to be met, one of which is dishonesty. In such a hypothetical scenario, Rolex's actions probably would not be dishonest.
Furthermore, even if it was categorised as theft, that would not necessarily get the owner's watch or compensation back.
This is a hypothetical scenario where I think suing would be warranted and would, I think, be likely to succeed. Yes, even for a counterfeit watch.
But remember that this is a hypothetical scenario.
I've looked for years now and I've never found anyone who has seen this happen with their own eyes. There are lots of "I heard" or "XYZ told me", but no one so far who has actually seen it personally.
Note that I am referring to the UK; other jurisdictions may vary.
Is he here? Unless he is willing to relate his own experience here then you passing on the story is still hearsay.
Perhaps it's true, but unless you've seen it with your own eyes and are passing on your own experience then hearsay is what it is.
As I said. Lot of people have heard stuff. But no one I have ever been able to find has seen this happen with their own eyes in the UK. I await personal testimony or physical written evidence with interest. I've been looking 11 years so far.
A small claims case would be very simple and I’d be amazed if a representative from Rolex showed up
Possession is nine-tenths of the law. I can’t see how an administrative list would prove ownership more than possession. And it appears, that it’s been proven today, that list is not even accurate and they make mistakes. So to take someone’s property based on a third party adding a serial number to a list that is known to contain mistakes seems extreme.
I’m sure there’s a Paul Thorpe video on YouTube that tells his story of having a GMT stolen and reporting it as such to Rolex. Years later it found its way to Rolex Italy, it was held by Rolex and he was told. From memory, he gave up after years of battling with them and the Police over proof of ownership and in the end told Rolex to return it to the person who sent it for service (as they were unlikely to be aware it was stolen prior to sending it in) and at least someone other than Rolex could enjoy the watch. I don’t think he was told where the watch ended up…
I would take anything 'wide boy' says with a pinch of salt TBH.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Is Paul Thorpe available for cross-examination from Markr?
I do know that EU Customs can and do seize counterfeit goods (e.g. Rolexes) that have been purchased from any non-EU country and destroy them. They do so on the basis of copyright infringement and the rights-holder isn't involved, nor does the end purchaser have any right to compensation for their loss.
Given that, it does seem feasible that Rolex can destroy any counterfeit Rolexes that come into their possession without any compensation to the owner.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Thanks, will do. Sounded like a genuine story of frustration to me but perhaps I read the situation wrong.
They wouldn't need to have personal representation present at the case hearing, they could simply write in their position on the claim - I imagine they have a *legal team who're well versed in doing so.
*A real one at that.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
No, it does not seem feasible on that basis. What a customs agency does in one country has no relevance whatsoever as to what an individual or company can legally do in another country. Different laws, different types of entity, different scenarios.
Rolex in the UK has no such legal right, any more than anyone other individual or company does. I.e. None.
Last edited by markrlondon; 23rd March 2022 at 22:32.
Remember that this is a purely hypothetical scenario and discussing it to any depth is just a red herring.
Legal team preparing to take down briefs.
Are any of them wearing any?
Trying hard not to over think this.
Posting Permissions
