Is the GMTII one you bought off smokey in 2014? Or the gmtII pepsi you nearly lost this year? As I remember your slogan everywhere on the forum "never sell a Rolex"
Sent from my SM-A245F using TZ-UK mobile app
Jeezus! This one ain't for flushing away.............
If as you say you have a low value watch with you then there is nothing stopping you showing us a photo.
This is the same sort of Obfuscation I had to endure many times this year with Walts giving me excuses as to why they couldn't/wouldnt/cant remember there military number.
Let alone unit/weapons/drill/slang etc.etc.what you are doing is exactly what they do,it hacks me off.
No one here cares what value your watch is just that you have one, so Here is a good solution buy a cheap Casio of Amazon then post a picture wearing it,I will treat you if you like.
I beg to differ: 'because some companies' has morphed into 'if the insurance company', which is the broker advising Mick P on his own policy, as in 'got wind of us'.Originally Posted by ralphy
Along with 'it would compromise any claim made' which is only a 'could', not a 'would'.
But of course if he is 'self-insuring' as claimed then it's somewhat of a moot point.
R
Last edited by ralphy; 1st November 2023 at 15:47. Reason: spelink
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Please make it stop.
Can the nurse have the meds on standby, ready for the Iberian sunrise over the mediteranian coast tomorrow.
Potentially not moot if it complicates any household contents claim covering non-watch items (I'm assuming that self-insurance only covers watches). This would apply to most on social media I imagine. [Anyway, I don't why I'm posting on this, I find it incredibly dull / childish, I must do better ... ]
Last edited by jukeboxs; 1st November 2023 at 03:07. Reason: Grammar
Dangling your arm out of a car window is OK.
But using a digital camera to take photos while at home, or out and about is frowned upon.
It just doesn't make sense.
I assume the insurance companies would be keen to claim contributory negligence if a property owner was lax enough to divulge on social media when the second home might be empty during the months of December and March.
Presumably self insuring means not insuring?
Indeed, although it may imply the maintenance of a discrete "insurance fund" where one might pop a monthly payment that would otherwise go towards a premium. I always assume that those who claim to "self-insure" simply do nothing and hope for the best, though (and inevitably just sound a bit pompous).
That is correct, you basically insure yourself. I stopped paying into BUPA at the age of 60 because the premiums rocketed and I have a pile set aside if I need any treatment.
Anyway it's a new day and I am now going to shut down this gormless discussion because it has been flogged to death and it's become brain dead and boring.
The answer is simple. I am not going to send in any pics in order to keep the insurance safe and neither am I going to put myself at risk by taking a box full of Rolex somewhere just to verify I am not lying about them. Two people were given the chance to make a bet and they declined. The time has passed to call it a day.
In return I will never mention my Rolex collection again on this forum and for safety I will not even type the word Rolex again. Also the word insurance is on my banned list
If anyone wants to chuck back insults, they can do so, but I am no longer going to defend myself because it just feeds this squalid discussion and keeps it going.
I just wish some of the other contributors were as level headed as you.
but in the event of (say) a fire, the underwriters if they know the watches exist - will claim 'underinsured' on the contents.
if you had £40-£50k in watches - that is a severe dent in your overall payout.
They'd laugh at "Yeah, but I self-insure the watches"
What's to say that the watches are even kept in the house and not in a storage locker somewhere. If they're not listed on the insurance then the presumption has to be that they're not on the premises.
On a different note, I find it odd that this thread is titled "Rolex bezel insert policy" which I started to read out of curiosity until I discovered that the last two pages seem to be an onslaught against a forum member called Mick P and whether or not he owns several Rolex. Honestly, who gives a ****
It's a conundrum similar to Schrodingers cat.
No-one knows if it exists until the (safety deposit) box is opened.
Can OP change the title of the thread?
This is more about Mock and his watches and insurance than Rolex Bezel Insert policy.
Only with the benefit of the Wolseley's finest kedgeree can a man grow a moustache so luxuriant! Nutrition in its purest form.
I used to like the "Ten Deadly Sins" at Simpson's. No longer a thing I'm afraid.
p.s. We can't see your watch, missed opportunity.
Last edited by Fullbreakfast; 2nd November 2023 at 18:43.
We should have a breakfast or lunch meet-up there at some point...