Reply With QuoteI should add that I've refunded the TZer in full and apologised profusely.
I wouldn't have noticed anything amiss if I hadn't been looking at other examples that evening.
This is a weird one and I'm not sure what, if anything, I can do.
Last month I bought a Steinhart Ocean 39 Premium GMT Vintage Ceramic (snappy title) from a 100% seller on eBay. Watch arrived in good time, well packaged, kept great time, looks lovely. A month later I need to flip it so out it up for sale here and elsewhere.
I sold the watch to a TZer on Tuesday and was idling googling the model that evening when I spotted the problem. The rotor on Steinhart's Premium model is gilt and engraved. The movement should be élaboré:
My watch looks like this:
I started a flurry of messages to the ebay seller and he directed me to his ebay seller. This original ebay seller sold four Steinharts at the same time last month, three of which were Premium, two of which had the gilt/engraved rotor, and my watch, which didn't. This exonerated my seller, but why would this original seller have bothered to flip a movement out on one watch, and one with a display case back. He's 100% feedback and has been on the bay for years. It doesn't make sense.
He bought all his watches from Neil at Chronomaster. I made contact with Neil and Steinhart and asked what they thought. Immediately they both said that isn't the correct movement and wouldn't have shipped like that.
I've asked Neil to push back to Steinhart as I can't believe the eBay seller would have flipped one movement out of four watches that were all bought from him, and all sold on eBay at the same time.
Neil says he can't remember every watch that passes through but claims he would have noticed something like that. I'm not so sure he would have but won't go into that now.
I can't help but think this is a Steinhart QC issue where an undecorated movement has been fitted and no one noticed. I can't see any other explanation unless it was Neil or the first eBay seller who flipped the movement, neither of which sound plausible.
I'm still waiting for a final answer from Steinhart but not holding out much hope.
What can I do? Does anyone have any alternative explanations? Do I have any rights to redress?
Phew! Thanks for listening.
I should add that I've refunded the TZer in full and apologised profusely.
I wouldn't have noticed anything amiss if I hadn't been looking at other examples that evening.
You could raise a case with eBay and let the seller you got it off take it up with his seller.
I also agree most likely oem QC issues.
Last edited by Arcam; 28th April 2022 at 09:02.
What Steinhart, Chronomaster, or the previous eBay seller did or did not do doesn't matter at all.Originally Posted by Onelasttime
All that matters is that the eBay seller who sold the watch to you sold you a watch that is wrong. Open an eBay case against him, send it back, and get your money back. That's it, as far as you are concerned.
I should say, I was all set to open the return case but then conscience got the better of me because it wasn’t his fault.
That said, maybe I need to be ruthless and pass it back down the line.
Bloody watches
It’s about them accepting they might have shipped a watch with the wrong movement. But it won’t happen.
The eBay seller you bought from supplied you with an incorrect watch. It is his responsibility, both moral and legal.
Fault isn't actually important but the responsibility for you having this incorrect watch is his.
Open a case, send it back, get your money back. It's honestly that simple.
You're not being ruthless. Starting the process of passing it back down the line is the right and proper thing for you to do.
P.S. Yes, this could seem unfair on the eBay seller but so be it. That's how it works. You've refunded your TZ-UK buyer because you sold him an incorrect watch. Now it's the turn of the person who sold it to you to refund you because he sold you an incorrect watch.
Last edited by markrlondon; 28th April 2022 at 09:37.
Not your problem. You didn't buy it from Steinhart or Chronomaster so what they did or did not supply is of no relevance to you and does not affect the transaction between you and the eBay seller you bought from.
I don’t believe for one second that the company would ship that without noticing. Take it up with the guy that sold it to you and let nature take its course.
Seems strange to me, I can’t believe that Steinhart fitted a movement with such an obvious visual difference.
OP doesn’t say how old the watch is, is it possible that Steinhart didn’t fit the customised rotor at some point in the past?
Regarding the value, I think its important to establish that the movement is genuine Sellita or ETA and not a Chinese clone, the mainplate should be stamped beneath the balance.
Its possible that the rotor itself has been swapped or the whole auto- winding bridge.
There are several possible scenarios that we can debate however Mark's right. It isn't ruthless, it's just how the process works.
Thanks to everyone. I'll open the return case.
The challenge you will have is time - you said you bought it from Ebay last month, the longer you ponder making a claim the weaker you become. I cant recall the timescales but they arent infinite and at some point you wont be able to claim the seller sold you a duffer. If you left positive feedback about the watch when you bought it he will use that in any defence against your claim and may also suggest that you swapped the movement..blah blah. If you are a good Ebay member they tend to look after buyers more than sellers, if he is a well rated seller with a long history of trading its less clear cut.
Changing out a movement is often less expensive even for ETA and Seillita than a full service so not beyond the realms of posibility that this has occured but you dont mention the age of the watch or was it new?
Keith
Did the eBay listing have photo of the caseback?
OK. Some more details.
Watch was purchased from Chronomaster in May last year, so under a year old.
Original eBay listing from the Chronomaster buyer (including his name and address on the original receipt) sold on 4 March this year. Images show plain rotor.
I bought it 24 March this year from the buyer of the above. Images clearly show plain rotor.
I have 100% score of 800ish. My seller has similar 100% record. The previous seller has same 100% with 900ish. I did leave positive feedback so we'll see.
It's just a shame I wasn't clued up enough on these to realise the rotor wasn't correct. It was an impulse buy, which I'm prone to now and then, ahem … cough.
I've found the likely item and I note that (although the plain rotor is visible in the pics) the text description states that the movement is the premium one which it definitely isn't. Hopefully you'll have no problem with eBay deciding in your favour if the vendor isn't willing to refund.
Last edited by markrlondon; 28th April 2022 at 18:31.
I'd have thought the pictures would form the main part of the description and the buyer obviously looked at the pics and bought it in that respect.
Pictures of what you are buying are paramount IMO.
He got what he saw in the pics.
The buyer no doubt just copied the description from the Steinhart site.
Cheers,
Neil.
It's a unique Steinhart - call it a 'Special Edition' and flog it for double its value on ebay...
If the listing I saw is the right one then the watch definitely does not match the listing taken as a whole. The supplied watch does not have the explicitly stated premium movement.
It's not that simple. Photos are not the only aspect of a listing. As per my comment above, the watch supplied definitely does not match the listing as a whole (if the listing I found is the right one).
It's easy to find the listing and you can see for yourself that the listing specifies the premium movement which is not what has been supplied.
In others words, were I in Onelasttime's position then I'd definitely go ahead with the eBay claim. The watch as supplied is (a) not as described and (b) is now known to be incorrect for its headline description, regardless of pictures.
My seller has been in touch to say that his seller had been in contact with Neil at Chronomaster, who said the following:
Steinhart fitted what they had at the time and as such the warranty is not invalid as the watch has not been modified.
So surely this should now be remedied by Steinhart to fit the movement that was paid for?
Anyway, I'm still pushing for the return and refund and the original buyer can solve it.
That seems like a rather odd statement. The "Decorated movement, blue screws and golden Steinhart rotor" (in bold, no less) is a key part of the specification of the watch on Steinhart's website: https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/o...d-keramik.html. I find it unlikely that Steinhart would just fit a standard movement and let it out of the door.
Also, you're not making a warranty claim to Steinhart or Chronomaster, so it's not your problem if the warranty is valid or not.
And not least, have you directly asked Neil at Chronomaster if he really said this? Not that it's your problem, but it would be interesting to find out.
It would also be interesting to directly ask Steinhart whether or not they'd ever release a 'premium' range watch without the decorated premium movement that they promote, although it's still not your problem.
Not your problem. The watch doesn't match the description on eBay (regardless of the pictures) and doesn't match the specification on Steinhart's website. That's the responsibility of the person who sold it to you to sort out by taking it back and refunding you.
Excellent. This is the way to go. Stick with it. :-)
Last edited by markrlondon; 28th April 2022 at 18:39.
For Neil at Chronomaster to say that suggests he knew before he sold it. Probably because he questioned it upon delivery and Steinhart gave that answer.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard dodgy stuff floating around Neil at CM. Seems like the prices are good but customer service and communication is less than stellar. I’m not saying this issue is his fault but seems like at first he said he would have spotted that, then says that’s how it must have come from the factory.
Is there any paperwork with the watch i.e. an original warranty card or certificate that has the original movement number on it? You can xref that to the movement or serial number to check if it's been swapped out or if Steinhart has not put an elabore movement in from the point of assembly.
I had really good service from Neil at CM a couple of years ago. OVM I bought had a piece of debris on the dial, I only noticed it many weeks after wearing the watch, sent him a pic and he said to send it back. He switched the watch head with a new OVM for me and sent it back on my bracelet straight away. He inspected the original watch and advised it was a piece of lume that had flaked onto the dial and he was sending it back to Steinhart. I was really pleased with his service and communication to be fair.
Note that we have no direct confirmation that Neil at Chronomaster really said that the watch was shipped like that.
Onelasttime only got the claim from his seller, who alleges that he was told it by his seller, who alleges that he was told it by Neil.
I would not base any opinion on such hearsay. In my last message above, I suggested to Onelasttime that he ask Neil and/or Steinhart directly. I don't think it actually matters from Onelasttime's perspective, but if Onelasttime could get confirmation (or denial!) direct from Neil and/or Steinhart then it wouldn't be hearsay; it would be evidence.
But, as I say, I don't think it really matters as far as Onelasttime's eBay claim against the person who sold him the watch is concerned. The fact remains that the watch is not as described in the sales listing and is not as specified for that model in Steinhart's own description. And so a refund is due.
Last edited by markrlondon; 4th May 2022 at 11:24.
Neil confirmed to me that Steinhart said it was possible that they might have fitted what ever they had to hand at the time, but have no way of knowing.
Both Neil and Steinhart are working to the assumption that the original seller is telling the truth, which I have little doubt he is.
I had to wait until tomorrow to open the 'not as described' case so will see what transpires.
Thanks for the update and I have to say that I am absolutely gobsmacked that he says that Steinhart would fit whatever they might have had to hand at the time. If true, that would seem like a surefire way for them to get chargebacks for shipping watches that are not as specified on their own website.
It also doesn't fit with my own experience of Steinhart who have tended in my experience to be extraordinarily precise in what they sell. But I've not bought from them in a while.
Good luck with it.
Remember (and I know that I've belaboured the point so apologies for doing so again), what anyone else said is interesting but isn't really relevant to your case with the person who sold to you. It only matters that the watch you received isn't as described (both compared to his listing and compared to the Steinhart website's specifications for that model).
I don't believe for a second Steinhart would fit the wrong movement. There will be an assembly and QC procedure they follow and anything like that would be picked up.
So who is lying in this scenario?
I know you didn't address the question to me but I'll butt in anyway: Since you've spoken direct to Neil, it would seem it would have to be either him or Steinhart.
Unless you can put the question direct to Steinhart, it's difficult to know more.
I can only say that if Steinhart were to say that they'd ship the watch with whatever movement they have to hand I'd be shocked and astounded. I'm willing to be shocked and astounded but I hope not. :-/
Anyway, as I keep on saying ad nauseam (sorry!), I don't think who, if anyone, is lying matters in the context of you, your vendor, and eBay.
It’s only the rotor that’s different!
God knows where the truth lies on this, it is strange, but you’re painting an unrealistic picture of a manufacturer fitting ‘whatever movement they have to hand’ in an ad- hoc fashion.
I would certainly want confirmation that the movement is genuine Sellita/ETA and not a Chinese clone, this point seems to be getting overlooked in the debate.
I don’t know how Steinhart work and at what stage their customised rotor gets fitted, but lets be clear on one thing: the only part of the movement that’s Steinhart- specific is the rotor and that isn’t difficult to swap.
I dislike glass-backs on watches, a pointless gimmick in my view. I also can’t see the point in Steinhart’s custom rotor, it adds nothing to the watch.
Given the relatively modest value involved I think I’d be happy with a few £££ returned by way of compensation if I was the OP, but I would seek assurance that the rest of the movement was genuine before agreeing to that.
According to https://www.steinhartwatches.de/en/o...d-keramik.html, this model should very explicitly have an "automatic ETA 2893.2/SW330 premium" with "Decorated movement, blue screws and golden Steinhart rotor".
First the watch as supplied does not have the correct rotor so the watch is wrong in that respect, according to Steinhart's own definition. There is no equivocation on this: This means that the watch as a whole (i.e. the product supplied from the eBay vendor to Onelasttime) is simply not correct, even if this was the only issue.
Secondly, is the rest of the movement decorated? Looking at the pics in the original eBay listing (it's easy to find), it appears that there are no blued screws and the movement doesn't seem to be decorated.
So it's not the "Decorated movement, blue screws and golden Steinhart rotor" that Steinhart explicitly say it should be.
The Sellita logo is just about visible in the listing so I believe it's a Sellita SW330 but that doesn't mean that the watch is as per specification. It doesn't matter if it's a genuine SW330 movement; it's still a not as described product as far as the eBay sale goes.
For this reason, the watch fails to match the totality of the eBay listing description which specifies the "premium" movement as well as Steinhart's own specification.
I am merely quoting the words that Onelasttime used. E.g. "Neil confirmed to me that Steinhart said it was possible that they might have fitted what ever they had to hand at the time" (from #30, bold added by me).
I agree but ironically that's the one part I don't personally doubt. As I mentioned, the Sellita logo is just about visible under the balance wheel in the listing so I can believe it's a real Sellita movement. Just not the right one to the right spec. The watch is a 'premium' model so it's important that this be right.
(I accept that a Chinese cloner could easily enough apply the Sellita logo if they wanted to fake it but it seems unlikely).
Look at it as a luxury product, not a watch. :-) Shiny rotors and decorated movements are 'premium' consumer features and therefore add market value and price to the watch. If they are not there when you get the watch (and, as in this case, it was sold as having them) then you are entitled to a refund.
As you say, a partial refund might perhaps be acceptable but in practice on eBay in my experience it's often easier to just go for a full refund (both as vendor and buyer).
Last edited by markrlondon; 5th May 2022 at 16:17.
Couldn't agree more. I really dislike display backs on very ordinary watches.
If it had had a solid back no one would be fretting.
Cheers,
Neil.
Hopefully I can put this to bed now as eBay has asked me to send the watch back to the seller for a refund. He tried to appeal but eBay reviewed his case and stuck with me. I feel for him but he now needs to open a case against his seller.
I suspect we'll never know the truth about the rotor but it is a weird one and I agree about display case backs. In this case it was only after I'd received the watch and researched the model that I realised something was amiss.
Lesson learned and must resist beer-fuelled impulse purchases in future
Glad it got sorted.
Well done, glad you got it resolved in your favour.Hopefully I can put this to bed now as eBay has asked me to send the watch back to the seller for a refund. He tried to appeal but eBay reviewed his case and stuck with me. I feel for him but he now needs to open a case against his seller.
I suspect we'll never know the truth about the rotor but it is a weird one and I agree about display case backs. In this case it was only after I'd received the watch and researched the model that I realised something was amiss.
Lesson learned and must resist beer-fuelled impulse purchases in future
Yes, it is unfortunate for the seller but such is life.
And I agree, it is frustrating to not know the truth about the rotor and movement.
I can only say that if either Chronomaster or Steinhart had sent that model of watch to me with that rotor and movement, I'd be sending it back for a refund since they would without doubt have supplied a product that was not as specified.
Just to put this to bed, I've finally received a full refund from eBay.
The seller is returning it to his seller, who will then pass the problem back to Neil at Chronomaster.
Thanks to everyone for their advice and a lesson learned.
^^^ Excellent, must be a relief.
The right outcome. Well done.
Posting Permissions
