Reply With QuoteI would raise a return via eBay.
Oh dear!
Bought a Tudor GMT from eBay with the watch arriving with me towards the end of May after passing through eBays authenticator. Initially very happy with my purchase albeit that I felt the bezel action was a little stiff.
eBay item 154961470980
Watch worn for several days in the house to check timekeeping, that was perfect but the bezel became stiffer to operate. A rinse under cold water freed it up temporarily.
As the watch was under a year old I asked the local Tudor AD to send it to Tudor for a warranty repair.
A little miffed to hear from AD today to tell me Tudor will not cover repair under warranty...apparently the watch and bracelet has been refinished and the warranty has been invalidated!
They want £440 to repair bezel, service movement (on a watch that's not a year old and working perfectly) and refinish case and bracelet.
I couldn't see any issues with the finish on head or bracelet when it arrived. AD has suggested it maybe residue from the polishing that's caused the bezel issue.
The written report from Tudor will be made available to me when the watch arrives at the AD.
I've sent a the seller a message to highlight the situation but I can't see him willing to front up the repair costs. Really don't think I want to keep the watch especially as the warranty is invalid.
Paid for with a credit card. Never in 20 years have I had to return anything to eBay...should I just make a return request to eBay or do it through my CC company. I will of course wait to see what the sellers response is.
Advice on best way to proceed please will be hugely appreciate :)
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Last edited by jacinabox; 21st June 2022 at 07:33.
I would raise a return via eBay.
Get that straight back. If someone's extensively refinished it, it may well have taken a hell of a knock, and so the movement could be compromised in various ways as well. Certainly in no way as advertised by the sound of it.
Can’t understand why the service centre do this, why not simply take the bezel off, clean everything and refit it? Unless the bezel is distorted this should fix it.
I would ask for better clarification and I would insist on speaking to someone at the service centre myself, seeking justification for their response. I would also demand to see the figures for the movement, with a full run- down of rate and amplitude in all 6 positions; where is the justification to service a 12 month old watch? I don’t accept the inference that refinishing is indicative of damage to the movement, if that was the case there would be evidence in the figures or some other supporting evidence.
Going down the ebay return route leaves you without a watch you wanted at a price you’re happy with.
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 6th June 2022 at 14:29.
The fact the seller lied (at the very least didn't disclose all facts) would kill it for me on a big purchase like that, I'd be returning for a full refund. It depends on whether you can live with it or not (which might be helped with some form of contribution or rectification by the seller).
Doesn't fill me with much confidence in the eBay authentication process either (not that I'll ever be testing it, I wouldn't buy an expensive watch off eBay).
Best of luck!
Original advert states 'If you're not happy with the watch, you can return the watch at your cost via the eBay authentication process.'
So if the issue is so bad that you are not happy, just return it and try again.
Return it. Not worth the headache.
Unfortunately I've experienced manufacturers coming up with 'excuses' to undertake unnecessary and potentially expensive work on watches (not Tudor).
If you were happy with the finish of the head and bracelet then, as suggested, it might just be cleaning material that has gummed up the bezel - I would get the watch back and try freeing it up with some graphite and, if that didn't work, cleaning under the bezel with carefully applied IPA. If that doesn't work then you've not lost anything and you could then go down either the service or return route.
I don't believe there is any evidence that the seller lied (other than the claim by Tudor that the watch has been refinished)...and as far as I know, the eBay authentication process is simply to verify the authenticity of a watch, not its condition/performance.Originally Posted by jukeboxs
Sounds like Tudor BS to force unnecessary work.
I'd love to know why they think the bracelet and case have been refinished.
Wait to confirm what the detailed condition report says then, if it really does say that the watch was refinished and if the seller did not state this, then return for a refund via eBay.
To my mind you should particularly return it if the watch was sold on eBay as being under the manufacturer's warranty but you now know that it is not under Tudor's warranty.
Definitely return via eBay's procedures.
Raising a not as described/return request via eBay directly gives the seller an opportunity to comment and form some kind of settlement with you. eBay will usually only step in once a certain time has expired and usually only then if you tick the box to ask them to do so.
(I say "usually" here because eBay can and will sometimes step in immediately (even before the seller has had time to comment) on much lower value items. However, from what I have seen this is usually only from professional sellers).
There are various comments that Tudor may be bullsh14ing but I don't think it actually matters from a product perspective. The key point is that Tudor will not now cover it under their warranty and they are (theoretically!) the ultimate experts on their own products. It would be sad to lose a watch you were otherwise pleased with but it has already become a headache, and no watch is worth that.
P.S. I just went to look for 154961470980 on eBay and it says "no exact matches found". Did you buy it on eBay.co.uk?
** update **
Crossed out text above as not relevant having seen the pics and description. But the watch is still not as described due to the warranty issue.
Last edited by markrlondon; 6th June 2022 at 16:57.
Mark. It was listed on eBay.co.uk, but it looks like they've been screwing around. Found it via eBay.com
https://www.ebay.com/itm/TUDOR-Black...orig_cvip=true
Top L.H. lug may have been polished to disguise scratches and dings, but seller did point that out in his description:
Being honest having thoroughly checked it over, the only mark I can see of any note, which you have to look hard to see is on the polished LH side of the case. I have blown up photo 12 and put a marker on to highlight.
Last edited by Seiko7A38; 6th June 2022 at 16:50.
Many thanks. Don't know why eBay didn't want to show me that via search.
Anyway, right there is the absolutely clear cut justification to raise a not as described/return request: It was advertised as having Tudor warranty until 2026 and it now turns out it has no such thing. It is quite simply not as described.
Ah, I see you updated your message.
Interesting. Yup, it does seem that the seller was honest about the polishing.Mark. It was listed on eBay.co.uk, but it looks like they've been screwing around. Found it via eBay.com
https://www.ebay.com/itm/TUDOR-Black...orig_cvip=true
Bottom R.H. lug may have been polished to disguise scratches and dings, but seller did point that out:
It seems quite likely that the seller had no way of knowing that Tudor would say that the warranty had been invalidated. Very unfortunate. Nevertheless, the manufacturer's warranty is gone and, since it was sold as being under warranty, that would be it for me: eBay return as not as described.
Last edited by markrlondon; 6th June 2022 at 16:52.
I don't think anyones lied. Seller has probably given it a once over with cape cod (did is smell of vanilla?!) and unfortunately something has worked its way into the bezel. Tudor spot this and quite rightfully wont get involved in footing the bill to rectify a problem that someone else has caused. It's unfortunate.
Had exactly the same on a watch I purchased here. HEQ and seller had chosen to DIY the battery change. When it came to battery change, it also developed a module fault but the manufacturer refused to assist because of the third party battery intervention.
I'm fairly certain one of the forum independents could remove and clean the bezel for not much dosh.
That said, the fact that Tudor now won't touch it under warranty makes me think a return is the only sensible solution.
This. Sound advice.
That’s what I’d worry about. But I couldn’t understand how, for example, they’d justify voiding the warranty on a movement if someone had lightly refinished a case. At the mercy of Tudor though which would make me more inclined to return it.
For what it's worth, the inference I draw is that they'll void the warranty if anyone but they have done any work of any sort to the watch.
I suppose they can justify this on the basis that it's their voluntarily-offered non-statutory warranty which they can offer or withdraw on any terms they wish.
I think perhaps we should think of it in less in horological technical terms (i.e. a movement inside a case) and more in luxury product terms (i.e. as if it was merely a sealed unit, a product, at least until the manufacturer's warranty had expired).
Last edited by markrlondon; 6th June 2022 at 17:10.
I’d do this. Ultimately, you’ve been a little screwed but move on and enjoy the watch. It happens.
If you do pursue some recourse just don’t give it too much energy. If it works great, if not just enjoy the watch
For me this situation is very, very simple.
You bought a watch that was supposed to be under warranty until 2026. The bezel is faulty, and rightly or wrongly the warranty is invalid as confirmed by Tudor. The item is not as described and this will be an easy return via the eBay process.
Therefore return it via the proper eBay process as 'not as described' and ideally include the info provided by Tudor to evidence this. eBay always side with the buyer in these scenarios, you have nothing to worry about. Under no circumstances send it straight back, raise a return and follow the eBay process to the letter so that you are fully protected. As it's 'not as described' you shouldn't end up footing the bill for the return costs either, but all will be made clear through the return process. There's no reason to involve the credit card company.
At the end of this you have your money back and the seller has their watch back, all is well again. And if you still want a Tudor GMT, it's not like it'll be hard to find another. I can see zero reason to get yourself involved in fixing an issue that shouldn't be there to begin with, and doing so jeopardizes any future return. Just don't do it IMO, it's a simple return.
Last edited by M1011; 6th June 2022 at 18:41.
First of all, thanks for all your thoughts.
I've spoken to the local Tudor AD again and although they won't admit it, I think they were a little surprised at Tudors response.
I asked that if I agreed to the repairs would Tudor honour the 4 years of warranty remaining - no. Two year warranty on their work and that's it. I've lost two years of the original warranty if I go that way.
Trust the AD completely - an independent who I've had a good watch purchase relationship for thirty odd years...no hanky-panky from them.
I feel Tudor are being somewhat harsh. But that's their policy apparently and there's no latitude.
They claim the case and the bracelet must be refinished, to do that the movement comes out and that happens it must be serviced...madness on a less than year old watch.
Seller has been fine but wants to see Tudors report before we agree, without eBays intervention, to do a return. If he doesn't want to do that then I'll raise a return via eBay.
He's offered to split the repair costs, but that's not what I want to do. Add £400 to the purchase cost I'm not going to be too far away from buying new and enjoying 5 years of warranty and having the privilege of putting my own wear&tear marks on it.
Absolutely no thoughts of the seller being untruthful, he seemed shocked to hear the story and I have sympathy with his position. However, I need that little blanket of security the warranty offers especially if the date change issue appears on the GMT watches later on.
I'm picky with my watches and turned away from quite a few GMT's because they looked iffy and some did look as though they'd been polished with the crisp lines on the polished shoulder looking poorly defined. When this one arrived I was very happy - no indication at all that it had any work done to it, just the less than perfect, IMO, bezel action.
I feel secure knowing that eBay will find in my favour especially as I have supporting evidence that Tudor will not honour the warranty and it was the outstanding warranty that sold me on the watch.
I've bought a few costly watches via eBay with absolute confidence using the authentication process. If, as is claimed, the authenticator removes the case back, I'd guess I would be in a similar position if Tudor had spotted this?
Finally, the seller bought the watch in March this year via eBay. Will he be time barred from asking for a refund from his seller? He thinks so. I'd have thought he'd have a good case and that'll be some compensation for him when he refunds me.
Sorry if it's bit 'wordy' but I do appreciate your comments :)
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
They lied about the warranty (it doesn't come with any remaining manufacturer warranty), and they decided to not disclose that they had refinished the watch.
They were mistaken about the warranty, they didn't lie.
Not disclosing something isn't lying either.
Agree. To lie is to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
Tudors stance is no different to other manufacturers in my experience.
The seller is probably gutted this whole thing has happened and I doubt was expecting it. I'd do exactly as the OP has done and seek a refund. Lets hope the seller can get a refund too.
Makes me wonder how much "refinishing" was done if it looked perfect to the OP. I wonder if Tudor are going OTT about a rub with a cape cod.
Last edited by Christian; 6th June 2022 at 19:32.
Have you lost sight of the fact that the bezel action isn’t right? The seller must have known but he still flogged it to you. I think you’re crediting him with far more integrity than he deserves.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder. As long as the authenticator doesn't actually do anything to the watch then perhaps it doesn't matter. Tudor wouldn't necessarily be able to tell, assuming there are no secret seals. (Do Tudors have secret anti-tamper seals?)
If he paid via PayPal I think they used to (perhaps still do) have a longer claim period if eBay's claim period has expired. I think he'd still be on the limits though. Been a while since I looked.
Good luck with your refund. Hope all goes smoothly.
Last edited by markrlondon; 7th June 2022 at 11:20.
All sounds OK, but just to be totally clear - when you say 'without eBay intervention' presumably you still fully intend to raise the return via eBay right? I can't stress strongly enough, do the return through the eBay process.
As for Tudor, I don't think they're being harsh to be honest. Can't see any justification for them to be left holding warranty on a watch that's been damaged by a 3rd party refinish.
Firstly, do not under any circumstances return the watch outside of ebay's return process. You will have no back up and risk losing money and watch. It happens.
Secondly, don't even think about this anymore. Start the eBay returns process. They will almost certainly side with you. Make sure you return via RMSD, input all the tracking details into the ebay case and let eBay do the rest.
Be polite with the seller but explain that you have a watch that was not as described, has a faulty bezel and has no warranty. Whether he can pass this on to his seller is his problem, but I suspect he will be able to.
The whole process will take up to 10 days and sometimes feels like pulling teeth, with some gentle cajoling required at times, but you will get there in the end.
I've just been through all this with a Steinhart that had an odd wrong rotor issue. It got passed back all the way to the original retailer, but I only know that because I kept in touch with the seller.
Have a read here:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...rt-rotor-issue
It's not worth considering anything other than the above, especially with amount of the money involved. It's not a rare watch so just wait a bit longer for the right one.
This, I would say is the exact process to follow. Don't continue talking with the seller about ways to solve it.
Good luck with it.
I echo these comments,tread very carefully.
Yes, thanks. Will follow eBay's procedure for returns...simply in informal messaging with seller at the moment to let him know situation.
Once I have Tudors report I'll follow the process.
Tudor being harsh? On reflection perhaps not, their brand and they'll apply whatever terms they want in pursuit of their standards.
While the watch is not my hands, I'm struggling to understand why or how they've determined it's been refinished. The AD gave it a good optical bollocking and saw no cause to say a warranty repair wouldn't be justified!
It is what it is and is for the best that the lack of warranty has been discovered now rather than a few years down the line.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Remember reading about your saga. Glad you got a good (and right) outcome!
Hopeful I'll achieve a painless and similar ending to my woes.
Minor headache for me, but sadly a bigger one for the seller.
I've said it before, I don't believe there was any dishonesty or withholding any facts on his side. He's as peed off as I am.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Reading this again, I get the impression the seller has been ambiguous in his description.
You can definitely read that two ways. He’s either saying he polished the left hand side of the case or that there is a small ding on the case in an area that is (Tudor) polished finish. I initially assumed the latter, now I’m not so sure.Being honest having thoroughly checked it over, the only mark I can see of any note, which you have to look hard to see is on the polished LH side of the case. I have blown up photo 12 and put a marker on to highlight.
If he bought it from eBay, I wonder if the listing he purchased from is still up.
Last edited by Christian; 7th June 2022 at 09:01.
I have to admit I wouldn’t ever consider buying a quality watch via eBay, not in a million years - now there are so many convincing fakes out there, and watches are so expensive it must attract a lot of con men and chancers. I’m not saying that’s specifically the case here, but buyer beware and all that. I’d much rather pay a bit more for the peace of mind tbh. I hope the OP gets the right result whatever that may be
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The polishing is certainly there. I can only imagine that any polishing that Tudor didn't do themselves under warranty is "refinishing" within their terms.
Agree. Looking at the close-up it does appear to have been polished by more than just a cape cod…I assume to remove or minimise some dings/pitting on the side. Wonder if a dremmel was used.
While the first part is absolutely correct, it will be up to the seller to provide the return postage label (as it will be a SNAD claim). This will need to be by a tracked service (not necessarily RMSD), and should automatically update within the eBay claim once it has been accepted by the carrier.
Personally, I would start the claim as soon as possible.
Also, to add to the above, since this watch came via the authentication service, I think (from reports mentioning it) that it will be returned via the authentication service.
Doing all this via a proper eBay not as described claim will ensure this is done correctly.
Last edited by markrlondon; 7th June 2022 at 11:50.
Started the process and it does have to be returned via authenticator. Unfortunately the authenticator fixes a security tag saying returns are void if removed.
Wondering if it'll be a problem as the tag has been removed? The seller also bought this up...the tag remained in place until I checked the time keeping it was fine and was otherwise happy with the watch. The bezel issue really only started to be of concern (getting increasingly stiffer) 3 or 4 days after I received it. I can hardly be expected to keeps the security tag on until the warranty expires 'just in case'!
I've started the return under item 'not working' - no SNAD option was available. I've attached a copy of Tudors report and explained the situation in what little space eBay allows for comments for returns; should be OK, yes?
Apparently seller has two days to respond, either way eBay will send a postage label.
Just a little twitches over the 'returns void if tag removed' bit! Anyone have a number for the authenticator?
Appreciate all your comments, if anyone thinks I've messed up on the process, tell me please :)
Copy of Tudors quote if anyone is curious
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
I don't know. I don't have experience of returning an item under this new scheme. As you say, there are legitimate situations, like this one, where a return is justified but the tag would obviously have had to be removed.
What's done is done but I have to say this would worry me a little bit.
It all depends on the probity of the vendor and eBay's attitude. Should the vendor try to be difficult, you might be in a difficult position because clearly the watch does (mostly) work, except for the bezel problem.
Then again, the bezel issue is quite enough on its own to warrant a return.
I'm looking at a (less valuable, not authenticated) recent watch purchase on eBay and the return reasons selection screen offers this:
Clearly, "Doesn't match description or photos" would be the preferable option (if it was available) due to the warranty issue.The seller may not accept your return request. If the item you received isn't to your expectation your purchase may be eligible for eBay Money Back Guarantee.
Return item
Why are you returning this item?
. Ordered by mistake
. Arrived damaged
. Don’t like it
. Missing parts or pieces
. Changed my mind
. Item is defective
. Received wrong item
. Doesn't fit
. Found a better price
. Doesn't match description or photos
If that return option was not offered to you, I wonder if it was removed due to the authentication step. That would be less than helpful where, as in this case, the item doesn't match the description for reasons that the authenticators could not see.
I think, for me, the tag thing would worry me less than the return reason. But then again the bezel is faulty so it is still true to say that the watch is not (fully) working.
I doubt the authenticators will speak to you and as far as I know they are not the return claim decision makers anyway.
It might be a good idea to contact eBay directly and try to explain what you've said here, at least to get it on record.
Very interesting. Thanks for that.
The "bezel malfunction" certainly supports the "not working" claim.
P.S. I've been thinking about this and here are two additional thoughts (added after main message):
(1) There are different sorts of return. I rather suspect that the authenticator's tag is really only relevant for returns that are being done just because the buyer just doesn't want the watch. However, you are returning the watch due to both a fault and because it is not as described, so I presume the removal of the tag will not matter in your case.
(2) I have been thinking in terms of returning the watch primarily due to the lack of warranty issue but I now see that you are leading with the bezel fault. That is most likely enough in its own right to return the watch. It doesn't really matter whether the warranty issue or the bezel are the primary reason for return/refund. Either way, the outcome should be the same for you, as far as I can see (i.e. positive).
Last edited by markrlondon; 7th June 2022 at 13:02. Reason: Added postscript
This is going to be a tricky one - I have no idea which way eBay would side because it has been through authentication and then had the tag removed. There are effectively three parties with an interest into this: seller, buyer and authenticator.
Reading eBay's authentication blub:
I'd bet they cover their own backs and say they did their job, inspected the bezel and it was in working order at time of inspection. I think this will come down to if seller and authenticator 'gang up' on the OP and claim buyers responsible for the bezel malfunction.Details make us tick: Multi-point inspection
Independent authenticators verify multiple inspection points, including the crown, bezel, dial, case, clasp/buckle, hands, end links, and reference number.
Authenticity Guarantee card: Once verified as authentic and matching its listing description, each timepiece receives a unique authentication card with detailed information about the watch.
The watch was sold with a Tudor warranty and it currently has no Tudor warranty. The item is therefore not as described and a justified reason to return. No argument can be made by the seller on that basis.
No point going into any other argument as that is the most black and white element.
It can still be authentic and have a faulty bezel, authentication is a red herring.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Absolutely true. But for that to be the case, seller needs to own up polishing the case and authenticator needs to own up that they didn't spot the polished case and faulty bezel. If they both claim everything was perfect and the buyer removed the tag to indicate they were happy, they could argue at point of receipt it did have a warranty as described the buyer is then under suspicion of voiding the warranty (even if it wasn't him).
I still hold out hope though that the OP successfully returns this.
Last edited by Christian; 7th June 2022 at 15:19.
Depends...what is the remit of eBays authentication service? I posted the blurb two posts up which is a bit ambiguous...is the multi-point inspection verifying just the authenticity of the bezel or that it is as described by the advert? Genuine question.
I don’t know either, but the whole issue arises from the OP noticing that the bezel was stiff. The watch is faulty and I’d be returning it on that basis.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Have gnawing feeling of apprehension along those lines.
Ebay have sent a message with return instructions and a pre-paid label - however they say security tag must remain attached. It's not. I have a real person to communicate with (email) and I've asked for clarification re.tag...Once satisfied with timing, condition and power reserve, it's not unreasonable to think all is well and remove tag, is it?
I fully believed I had the warranty to fall back if needed, I now know otherwise.
So if the watch malfunctions within 5 days of receipt I'm stuffed because I removed the tag? I'd like to think not.
The seller is getting somewhat aggravated now...believes I should've told him and he would've arranged a repair with his watchmaker. Doesn't seem to want to grasp the fact that if a warranty repair was needed in 1,2 or 3 years time it would still be rejected because of 3rd party dabbling.
To further pee me off he's agreed to accept a return and refund me purchase cost less 10% as a gesture of 'goodwill'
I'll see what eBay comes back with regarding removal of tags. I'm still of the view that with the bezel issue and more importantly zero warranty, I'm in the right.
For those interested, I'll keep this updated.
And as before, your comments and advice are appreciated, thanks
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
This is why you buy from shops with good reputations....
Would be sorted or refunded, no stress hassle etc. EBay "bargains" or good buys are almost always never that
Have gnawing feeling of apprehension along those lines.
Ebay have sent a message with return instructions and a pre-paid label - however they say security tag must remain attached. It's not. I have a real person to communicate with (email) and I've asked for clarification re.tag...Once satisfied with timing, condition and power reserve, it's not unreasonable to think all is well and remove tag, is it?
I fully believed I had the warranty to fall back if needed, I now know otherwise.
So if the watch malfunctions within 5 days of receipt I'm stuffed because I removed the tag? I'd like to think not.
The seller is getting somewhat aggravated now...believes I should've told him and he would've arranged a repair with his watchmaker. Doesn't seem to want to grasp the fact that if a warranty repair was needed in 1,2 or 3 years time it would still be rejected because of 3rd party dabbling.
To further pee me off he's agreed to accept a return and refund me purchase cost less 10% as a gesture of 'goodwill'
I'll see what eBay comes back with regarding removal of tags. I'm still of the view that with the bezel issue and more importantly zero warranty, I'm in the right.
For those interested, I'll keep this updated.
And as before, your comments and advice are appreciated, thanks
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
I think it is dawning on the seller that this is a problem he will shortly have to be dealing with, i.e. re-selling a watch with void warranty. Even if he gets wound up, stand firm, stay polite, and reiterate that you want a full refund and I reckon eBay will come good in the end.
The things than stand out to me in all of this...
- Did the seller refinish the watch, or did they receive it like this? Doesn't make any difference to your situaton OP, but they could also be an unwitting customer in this saga.
- The eBay authentication scheme sounds great, but WHO is looking at the watches? I've read in this thread they're opening case backs! With what tools? Are they re-sealing correctly? Do they know not to overtighten? To not pinch washers? What if they attempt to open a case back but can't (say if the threads are seized or stripped) - what happens next? What if all is good but they don't re-seal the watch correctly and the watch later suffers water ingress? Will they cop for a repair bill in those circumstances when it is unclear just what services they perform? ...eBay is itself a third party messing about with a watch and could themselves invalidate any remaining manufacturer's warranty.
I suppose when all is said and done, it still remains the best idea to treat any second-hand watch, with unknown history, as being in need of a service, and to get it sent off as soon as possible. Better you found out now OP. Got my fingers crossed for you.
Last edited by Dent99; 7th June 2022 at 16:50.
These are all very valid points. I reckon this is a really grey area and I doubt any transferrable warranty will be valid if a third party has found to have opened a caseback.
I suspect eBay already know this but the bigger 'fish to fry' is killing the counterfeit sellers so potentially voiding a warranty is the lesser of two evils.
I think you've got to assume any nearly new watch sold through eBay might not have a valid warranty and price that into your offer accordingly.
Posting Permissions
