Reply With QuoteIf it's determined to be a fake, will you name the seller? We're not falling for this again!
Hi Chaps,
Ive recently purchased a watch off SC in a bid to cheer myself up, I've been abstaining from buying watches for some time, so this was a bit of an "out of the blue" purchase, but it was from a brand that I really like and thought it was a reasonable price.
Having got the watch delivered and actually being able to handle the piece, I'm very suspicious it may be a wrong-un. I've contacted the seller, who has gone very quiet and appears to be refusing to engage in any conversation/discussion.
I asked for any history on the watch and then a refund as I wasn't happy with the watch...all with no replies.
I'd checked his H&V history and the recent stuff seemed fine, but I've since found a post where he was "outed in 2015" for buying a pair of boots off eBay for £200 and trying to sell them here for £250...strangely he failed to make any reply to this post, despite him coming in for some pretty dire comments.
I'm now worried I've been sold a duff watch and he's not even bothering to reply to me or even log on to the site now.
My concerns for the watch (I've got a couple of genuine Anonimo's that I've compared it to) are as follows:
- The papers are with the watch, but haven't been stamped (seller made no mention of that).
- The instruction manual states the date window should have a magnifying sapphire attached to the dial, this watch clearly hasn't got the internal cyclops and doesn't look like ones ever been fitted.
- The lume is very very weak and only lasts a short time.
- The buckle is signed but not very clear or well defined.
- The watch doesn't seem to have a great power reserve.
On the plus side, the watch looks very cool and has some heft to it. It appears well made and crown screws down very smoothly. The winding mech feels right and second hand is quite smooth. The date change works as it should.
If the seller cant be bothered to reply to my PM's to either refuse a refund or accept the watches return, I think I might as well get some opinion as to whether the knowledgeable people on the forum would give an opinion as to whether they think its "right".
If there is a genuine reason why he hasn't replied, then I'd happily offer an open apology to him (especially if he was to honour a full refund).
As the seller is in Scotland and I'm in Manchester, its not a simple case of popping round to discuss the issues.
Fortunately, the seller sent the watch in a recycled jiffy bag with his address still attached underneath the address label that had my details on (gotta love the canny Scots, who'll save a penny at every opportunity)!
So I have the sellers bank details, name and address. If worse comes to worst I can always look at the small claims court/simple procedure in an attempt to get my money back.
I've NEVER come across ANY issues with this fantastic site before, so I guess I've become a bit lax when buying stuff on here, having only ever dealt with perfect gentlemen.
Ive uploaded some photos to give you guys a chance to pass judgement.
The photos a pretty big, but they might help give an opinion on the watch.
The watch may be correct and my worries unfounded, but as I'm not happy with it, so would it be unreasonable to ask for a full refund?
I made the seller aware very promptly after receipt of the watch, that I wasn't happy with the watch and asked him to refund the full purchase price.
I've not had the case opened, as there are no Anonimo dealers that I know of in Manchester, plus if returning the watch, I wouldn't do such a thing in case it affected the waterproof qualities of the watch.
If this watch is know to any forum members, I'd appreciate a Pm to advise if its right or not.
Thanks in advance,
Stuey
R1033400 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
R1033392 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
R1033393 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
R1033394 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
R1033403 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
R1033397 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
R1033402 by stuart e smith, on Flickr
If it's determined to be a fake, will you name the seller? We're not falling for this again!
Tbh you don’t have to be ‘Inspector Clouseau’ to see who’s just sold an Anonimo in SC that also had some boot trouble in 2015.Originally Posted by jimmbob
My feelings say no, this is not a fake. It looks like a well-worn watch of good quality to me, probably in need of a service, but not a snide. But then I'm no expert on Anonimo, you've handled way more than I have.
Tbh I'd never heard of the seller or noticed any of his posts before you posted this so I can't comment on whether his disappearance from the forum is normal or not, but it does feel like that particular monkey is being dragged through the mud somewhat unnecessarily at this point.
Hi,
Absolutely will...I was going to put it in the original thread, but decided against it.
It wouldn't take much to find the seller, as I only bought this watch this week.
I'll stick it in H&V too, as his lack of response has been very poor.
When I was interested in buying his responses were lightning quick...but now nothing!
Cheers,
Stuey
The lack of internal cyclops is a sticking point with me at the moment and the unstamped papers, not the wear.
If the seller had made it clear the cyclops wasn't there, I doubt I'd have pulled the trigger.
Then you begin to look closer at the watch and it just worries me!
Then the seller refuses to respond despite having logged into the site, which makes things worse.
Ive sent him numerous messages (I get notifications on my phone and computer...I'm sure I'm not the only one) asking for a response.
But nothing.
On the internal cyclops, I'd be prepared to give that the benefit of the doubt and call it a replacement crystal rather than taking it an an indicator of the watch being fake. And although that isn't ideal, his photos were pretty clear in that regard and maybe he himself didn't know it should have had one.
Didn’t think these were faked. Curious about the cyclops missing but perhaps some were made without? Anonimo made relatively small batches.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regards the internal cyclops, the small booklet actually refers to it which is what alerted me to it.
(This is why I asked him for any history on the watch, at which point he went quiet).
it quotes (in reference to the diagram in the very short booklet):
LETTER F : Magnified date window display with sapphire glass applied on the dial.
I suppose it is clear in the photo when looking for it (even the booklet shows one applied in the photo), but I didn't notice it at the time.
I didn't think Anonimo's would be faked really, as they are quite niche, but if fakers will copy toothbrush heads I suppose anything is fair game.
Can't help with the fake factor unfortunately but I'm sure the lack of response is the most worrying issue. I hope there is a good reason for it and this is resolved.
Yep, thats just adding fuel to the fire, as Ive sent him several messages and advised him I wasn't happy with the watch.
He may have a valid reason for not replying, but I think most people get notifications of messages these days.
He responded when selling in an instant.
Every picture of these in google images has the cyclops so yours is definitely different.
Anomino have been faked but not recently. Whether this particular model was, I don't know.
Based on the photos, my instinct is that it's fine. I guess the crystal has been replaced at some point and it would be nice to know why.
I agree regards the photos, it does look right.
It feels right in the hand too, but the issues re the cyclops, lume etc just make me nervous.
The cyclops is not attached to the main crystal, it should be attached to the dial over the date window separate from the main crystal.
If the seller would have replied to my questions I'm sure it would reassure me, but lack of response is driving me up the wall.
My Polluce has a gasket on the main crystal which this doesn't have...but I'm bot sure it should have one anyway.
I'm feeling more reassured about this watch after several positive comments.
Thanks for the consideration and opinions so far
I had an Anonimo once and the case back did not match the model correctly. When I checked with them directly it was deemed to be part of a low batch they did. The crystal could be this or simply it could have been replaced. Apart from that it does look legit ( their buckles were never that brilliant ) and unless the lume is c3 I wouldn’t expect it to be that great.
Looks like the cyclops should be mounted directly to the dial so the crystal replacement theory may be off?
Does seem odd it doesn’t have one but then I guess you could say it’s pretty obvious in his pics on SC that it didn’t have one. Some people hate them and maybe someone removed it. You’d imagine even if they did a fake, they’d have easily faked the cyclops so not sure that means anything other than someone removed it.
Paperwork not being stamped wouldn’t bother me as they seem to be sold at online dealers who often don’t stamp them. But the main reason is it’s 7 years old so doubtful you have any warranty worries due to blank paperwork.
I don’t really see cause to be so worried about it all being worthy of returning though, maybe the lack of replies has got you worried and you may have been ok with it had he replied straight away.
He does seem to have been last online on the 23rd at 7pm so perhaps he has greater worries than here.
If you hand wind the watch how long will it run for?
I'll try hand winding the watch, I've not been using it as I still hope that the seller may accept a return, as I've pretty much lost faith in the watch and am not happy the seller didn't mention it or the unsigned papers.
Like I said earlier, it is reasonably clear the cyclops isn't there in his photos, but if you're not looking for it (ie not made aware its not there) I didn't notice it.
The time he was last on line was a short while after I'd sent him a PM regarding the watch and its history...which wasn't replied to. But you may be correct about him having more pressing worries, I can accept that. I've sent him numerous PM's since, but if he contacts me and explains I'd be happy with that. Although he did say he was after something specific on the SC page, which was the reason for the Anonimo sale.
I'll give the watch a wind now and see how long it lasts, but its reserve didn't seem very long after I'd took the watch off.
I am no expert, but I would have thought that the lack of a cyclops actually makes it more likely that this is a real one as the fakers would surely go to the minimally extra trouble of making their fake look like all the others and include a cyclops!
I hate cyclopses (is that the plural 😂) with a passion and I have had the crystal changed on my Rolex sub-date for that of a sub non-date. If I owned one of these I would get a watchmaker to remove the cyclops for me, and I guess that is what has happened here.
That is not to excuse the lack of a response from the seller, which is not acceptable.
Jack
If you are worried to this extent and the burden of proof is difficult to establish, I would get a refund and walk.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
He can’t even get a response from the seller - never mind a refund!
Thats exactly what I was asking for...which is shortly after the conversation stopped. I thought that was a reasonable request (i was willing to pay the postage) and the request was within a day or two of receiving the watch, when I'd had chance to look at the watch properly.
But total lack of reply when I asked about history of the watch only heightened my concerns.
He probably used the money, if so he probably wanted to curl up!
It does seem like maybe a touch of buyers remorse though, only basing that on an unemotional view of the situation as an outsider. Essentially it boils down to the fact it doesn’t have a cyclops being the only real reason you want to return for a full refund.
If others think it’s legit - that’s that ticked off
Papers - a moot point due to age
Power Reserve - you are yet to really test
Lack of cyclops
I’ve no knowledge of this Watch but it does seem the only others for sale at the moment are considerably more expensive so maybe it’s not all so bad?
I know if it were me who’d bought I’d take the cyclops on the chin as you’d admitted you were only alerted when you read it in the manual. It’s annoying but I’ve bought a few watches on SC and it’s very rare people mention all the faults. I’ve had unmentioned scratches, damage and even a totally dead movement on a Watch that allegedly showed signs of life & should come good with a service (where in reality part of the circuit wasn’t even there it’d disintegrated from rust) I’ve never even so much as complained but that’s because I know it’s not WF.
I think even I'd struggle to spend the money that quickly...but its possible.
No buyers remorse at all...I love Anonimo watches, I have a Polluce and Fleet and thought this one would be a nice addition, as its similar to the bronze Polluce, but different enough to be interesting.
The price was reasonable I agree, but if upon receiving the watch things jump out at you, is it so wrong to request details of the history of the watch to make a reasoned decision as to whether its right.
Then no reply just makes things worse!
If it were a £100 beater I would probably accept it, but its not.
Nope, not at all I haven’t said that’s wrong. I was only trying to add some reason to the mix, it read to me like you’d worked yourself up to the original post. It’s a lot easier to join in with the usual angry mob mentality, I was trying to make you feel better if anything.
Given that the seller only seems to use the forum to buy and sell perhaps he has 'notifications' turned off?
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
Or...
https://www.ebay.com.sg/itm/Anonimo-...edirect=mobile
Sold with no box or papers on eBay...
eBay pics:
No cyclops and same marks on bezel at 2 and 11 o'clock.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/jXkAA...Hf/s-l1600.jpg
Buckle.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/C7cAA...Hh/s-l1600.jpg
LE no. can just be seen, 075/499. edit - number is given in eBay description.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/0QcAA...Hb/s-l1600.jpg
Sale in SC with pics, sold WITH papers...
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...hlight=anonimo
Last edited by bobbee; 26th October 2018 at 03:23. Reason: more stuff
Great detective work....but a shame we have another of this sort amongst us.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nice detective work there^^^
I hope the OP gets looked after now the cat is out of the bag.
Good work. An unfortunate turn of events.
I think you said you only received the watch this week earlier, so regardless of the backstory or provenance of the watch I think there’s every possibility of life and more likely workstuff getting in the way of messages on Tz.
Suggest giving it the weekend to maybe hear back.
Re the price, it’s not mentioned but he might have bought manual and box separately which would add to his cost. All I’m saying is don’t hang anyone till all the facts are known.
Watch does look cool. Hope it all gets resolved one way or another for all concerned
Have to concur with this pragmatic approach at this early stage.I think you said you only received the watch this week earlier, so regardless of the backstory or provenance of the watch I think there’s every possibility of life and more likely workstuff getting in the way of messages on Tz.
Suggest giving it the weekend to maybe hear back.
Re the price, it’s not mentioned but he might have bought manual and box separately which would add to his cost. All I’m saying is don’t hang anyone till all the facts are known.
Watch does look cool. Hope it all gets resolved one way or another for all concerned
A leopard doesn’t change its spots...
I don't really understand the excitement over this. He bought the watch in May, sold in September. That is about twice the length of average holding period in TZ-UK, where is the issue?
The watch was quite clearly advertised without a cyclops, there is even a picture where it is atop a picture of the correct configuration with cyclops:
Also the watch in the WUS reference link clearly has a cyclops, so he certainly wasn't hiding it. I cannot say anything about reserve and strength of lume, but the watch is from 2009, so 9 years old! Maybe due a service?
The seller states clearly he has had a few of these watches, maybe the papers were from one of them? They are not stamped, which is probably true for at least half of the watches in circulation on TZ.
Honestly, I fail to see the scandal here. The seller made a few quid, which is also true for many others - but it wasn't 'forum profiteering'. He is a dealer, using TZ only for sales transactions - which puts him in good company with the buyer, who himself hasn't posted outside the SC/WTB/H&V triangle for more than a year.
Buyer feels remorse and is looking for reason to fault the transaction. Let the two professional dealers sort out the case between them.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Thats a brilliant bit of searching, that HAS to be the exact watch I've bought (it has the same scratch on the case and serial number).
I'm feeling a bit more convinced that the watch is genuine, so thanks for your great input.
Its a bit naughty saying it had papers, which suggested it has provenance, but then they arrive unstamped/dated.
I'm glad I didn't pay his initial asking price.
The sellers refusal to reply about the history of the watch (he stopped logging on here AFTER I had made the enquiry about the history of the watch) just made my worries escalate about the authenticity of the watch.
I feel a bit happier that the watch appears genuine now, but its still left a very bitter taste in my mouth and has caused me a lot of anxiety.
I doubt the seller will offer a refund, but I'm willing to see where he goes with this if he replies to any of my PM's.
Thanks to all who have offered opinion and done some marvellous digging about the watch...I wish I had some of the skills needed to search stuff like this. Its been very reassuring.
Not convinced there's any misrepresentation here. The addition of the box and papers whether stamped adds value IMO. Completists pay more.
Sent from my CLT-L09 using Tapatalk
Absolutely; that's why there is such a strong market for period correct boxes, papers, anchors and all the other paraphernalia relating to various brands/models.
The absence of the cyclops is a different matter and, as has been suggested, maybe it was never there; or perhaps it came unstuck and was not refitted for fear of damaging the dial?
Last edited by Stanford; 26th October 2018 at 09:34.
There was no box according to the original SC link. Sold as it was bought from the auction site. If the price is reasonable then I don't suppose there is an issue here.
Sent from my SM-N960F using TZ-UK mobile app
No idea about the watch but for that sort of price is it normal for the engraving on the buckle to be at a slant and for the stamp on the strap to be off center? Or is it just the angle of the pictures?
Lovely looking watch, I hope you get this resolved .
The strap photo makes the off-centre stamp look a little worse than it is, but its certainly not central.
The buckle is as in the photo.
From whats been said, I think the watch is probably right.
Henry D Johnson in Alderley Edge were Annonimo dealers ,I would expect them to reassure you or not .
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Thats great information, If I dont hear from the seller (which I still haven't) I'll has a drive down to them and see what they say.
I'm generally reassured by the comments on this thread, but its always good to know.
Thanks for all the input and advice.
I think a H&V post is appropriate now, just to outline the lack of communication as soon as an issue was raised.
I wouldn't want to deal with anyone who communicates perfectly ably and quickly during a transaction, but then goes to ground as soon as the sale has been completed. Unless he's trekking the Amazon basin, there's no reason he wouldn't have received the messages and been able to reply.
He could have had a terrible accident of course, but what are the chances?
To try and be fair to the seller, I'm going to send a letter tomorrow, to ask him to reply via email or the forum.
If that doesn't work, I'll put something on H&V.
Although quite a few see this as buyers remorse, it really isn't, as the watch looks cool and nicely used...but I genuinely didn't notice the missing cyclops and as it wasn't mentioned this caused the alarm bells to start ringing. The more I looked at the watch I became more concerned...then the seller going on the missing list immediately after me asking for some history on the watch just really added to the concern.
The power reserve when fully hand wound ended up being 24hrs which isn't too bad I guess.
The lume is still poor (especially compared to my Anonimo Polluce which is considerably older) and only last a short time.
As for me being a dealer, I still have most of the watches I've bought here and rarely sell them on (usually when they are too big on my smallish wrists). I do tend to buy coats and jeans on SC and then find they dont fit so sell them on again. I've not been buying watches for quite a while as I have too many all ready, but the Hi-Dive piqued my interest when I saw it.
My H&V show total honesty and satisfaction.
People are entitled to their opinion regards buyers remorse/being a dealer though and I can accept that.
I think most people that are at all interested in this thread will have worked out that I was the seller of the Anonimo to Ducatiist (Stuart) and I am of course not happy with the way this has played out and of course that Stuart is now unhappy with the Anonimo.
Until tonight, I wasn't aware of this thread as I have not logged on to the forum in a little while, as has been stated many, many times, my main activity on the forum is buying and selling watches (I have sold or tried to sell other items - not too many though - boots of course), people will make up their own minds as to the merits or lack of, with my main activity being in SC and I understand that, but I am basically a 'flipper' who has had an interest in watches for many years and I can see I USE the forum for my own ends, and although I have bought and sold probably hundreds of watches on this forum, I have made a profit on some watches, 'lost' money on many more and I am sure a few members on here have benefitted by receiving a nice watch at a nice price.
I will discuss the Anonimo below, but regarding the lack of communication which I think has been the main source of Ducatiist's frustration, I do occasionally log off for extended periods, and once I had received the initial PM from Ducatiist stating the Anonimo had arrived safely and was a 'keeper', I felt he was happy, he did mention the papers were unstamped, but at that time I didn't think it was a big deal as he was happy with the watch (unstamped/open papers are not a big deal to me especially on a watch of this age), but with hindsight I should have replied, I then logged off the forum and thought all was good, I think I logged on briefly after that but at that time as far as I am aware there were no further PMs at that time. Until yesterday I was not aware of Ducatiist's concerns, I received a couple of letters in the post and I replied last night via email to answer these concerns.
Although the detective work in the thread is admirable, and although I did purchase from eBay, below (can't seem to post a link, this is from my purchase history) is where I purchased it from not the original thread posted, I sold to Ducatiist for £680.
This will be long-winded, but I'll post our comms to this point below, hopefully we can resolve between us and I guess people will see from both sides, but after reading this thread and the comms so far there is definitely a strong element of buyers remorse in my opinion.
From me to Ducatiist via email, after receipt of the letters yesterday, no mention of power reserve issues in his letter:
************************************************** ********************
Stuart, I have just received your letters regarding the Anonimo.
Apologies for the lack of any response via TZ-UK you are indeed correct I have not logged onto the forum recently and I often do this for periods, I certainly have not been avoiding you at all, which you seem to strongly infer, indeed the last time I read a PM from yourself you told me you had received the watch and were happy/impressed with the watch, which of course I was delighted you were happy. I have logged on after that response but have read no PMs from anyone. At that point, or any other previous to that did you ever question the authenticity, papers, cyclops or strap or buckle or anything else, neither did you mention any of the above, you did not ask any questions at all about the watch, just made me an offer you thought yourself would be too low, which I accepted as I wanted to purchase something else. If you had aired any of these questions I would of course have responded to all, I have/had nothing to hide and still do not.
The watch is 100% genuine, I have no doubt.
The papers are unstamped, this is not unusual as I am sure you are aware, I have received many watches, without stamped papers, I did not see this as an issue, but as I said if you had asked and it was an issue I would have gladly told you they were unstamped.
The lume on any watch can vary, again I am sure you are well aware of this, I didn’t have any problem with the lume and definitely in no way unusually weak or odd and again if you had asked I would have given you my opinion on the strength.
I genuinely was not aware the Hi DIVE had an internal cyclops, and they do have a history of some variations in their models, but it is not something I noticed, and the crystal seemed perfect to me and I don’t think you noticed yourself.
The strap and buckle didn’t seem correct, I am not sure what specifically you mean, they seemed perfectly OK to me.
Stuart as I stated when I accepted your offer (without any questions at that point) I wanted you to be happy with the Anonimo and still do, and you initially confirmed you were, I think I did disclose all details as much as I could in my post, but to be honest the reasons you have stated don’t really warrant a return in my opinion and genuinely none of what you question are or were a problem for me and although I appreciate your frustration at any comms delays, although my forum habits are frankly irrelevant and I do not appreciate your inference that in effect I have sold you something iffy (for want of a better word). I am not in a position to buy back the watch right now, but would be very happy to do so in the future as I believe the watch is a cracking watch and I have no problems with it, I’ll keep in touch and when I am in a position to buy back I will happily do so.
I hope you are happy with this resolution.
Many thanks
Keith
************************************************** ***************************************
Ducatiist's reply today:
************************************************** ***************************************
Keith,
Thanks for getting back to me regards the watch, I will explain why I became concerned about the watch and your lack of reply.
Upon receipt of the watch, I unpacked it and was initially really impressed with the watch, I did indeed advise you I was very happy with the look of the watch and thought it a “keeper”, as an addition to my little collection, although I did notice the guarantee papers weren’t stamped (which I found unusual on a limited edition watch, as they are normally stamped and numbered).
I dont have any watches that have unstamped papers.
Within my message, which you clearly read, I asked if you had any history due to the papers being unstamped, which in your email you state I had never mentioned (see underlined part of first message).
Once I’d sent the message (which I did pretty soon after receiving the watch) I then read the manual, which has a total of three pages of information in English, which is where I found that one the watch’s features is the internal cyclops applied to the dial (ie an internal cyclops which is not obvious unless you know it should be there), which was not present on the watch in front of me. I would have expected this to have been mentioned in the description of the watch for sale, but if you hadn’t noticed it I suppose you wouldn’t highlight it, despite it being in the very brief manual. This caused alarm bells to start ringing and I examined the watch in more detail.
I compared the lume to my Polluce (which is older than the Hi-Dive) and it had very little strength or longevity.
Having also looked at photographs of the Hi Dive on the net, their lume is far far brighter than the feeble lume on the one I have purchased.
Heres a link (admittedly form 2011) https://forums.watchuseek.com/f16/an...es-506771.html
The power reserve was well down at only 24hrs (fully hand wound) compared to the specified reserve for the Hi-Dive of 40hrs.
The strap and buckle also seemed of a lesser quality to my Polluce…that may be a general production trait, but it certainly caused me further concerns.
With concerns about the above issues I contacted you in the only way available; via the TZ-UK Private Message page.
I sent the following messages:
At 10:11 on 19/10/18
Morning Keith,
Anonimo arrived safely this morning and wearing as I type.
I love the look, the case looks exactly like my Polluce (obviously not bronze) and wears smaller than the dimensions suggest.
I think this will be a keeper (third Anonimo I have).
I dont suppose you could give me any history on the watch, as the papers aren't stamped.
Cheers,
Stuey
At 21:26 on 22/10/18
Hi Keith,
I hope you're well, I sent a Pm to you a couple of days back enquiring if the Anonimo had any history, but you haven't got back to me yet.
Having had a good chance to look at the watch "in the flesh" I'm a bit concerned that it might not be right!
The date window should have an internal magnifier which appears to be missing.
Alos, having compared the buckle on the Hi Dive, the Anonimo logo doesn't look as sharp.
I'm really concerned about the watch and am requesting to return it if possible, for a full refund?
I'm happy to pay the return postage.
I bought the watch in good faith, but am somewhat concerned about the watches authenticity, as the papers aren't stamped and the above anomalies.
Please can you get back to me in relation to this issue.
Many thanks,
Stuey
At 19:21 on 23/10/18
Hi Keith,
getting a little worried about lack of replies.
My concerns about the Anonimo are actually reinforced by the little booklet supplied, it actually describes the date window as follows :
LETTER F
Magnified date window display with sapphire glass applied on dial
Also on the picture on the supplied booklet, the dial clearly has an applied cyclops on the dial (under the main crystal).
As mentioned earlier, the date aperture doesn't have this magnifier (applied to the dial), which is the cause for me wishing to return the watch for a full refund.
I'm very worried that the watch is not quite correct, but I dont wish to take it to a dealer to confirm, as I dont know of any Anonimo dealers in my area.
I'd appreciate contact from you, as the watch was bought in total good faith.
Many thanks,
Stuey
Due to the lack of replies, I checked your “Last activity” which shows 18:29 on 23/10/18. If this is correct I would have thought you’d have seen the first two messages, but you may have not read them I suppose; so I’m sure you can see why I concluded you must be ignoring my messages.
These issues all compounded my worries, as I have bought watches on the forum previously and then asked questions once delivered, always with prompt replies from sellers. It is also quite common for watches to be returned if there is an issue found once received.
Regards my offer, it was rather speculative as I love Anonimo watches and was very surprised that you accepted it and I suppose I should have asked more questions prior to sending the money, but I thought the watch looked fine and I have only had good experience on the forum.
I continued to send you messages via PM, all with no response.
As the only other method of contact I had available (as you had re-used the padded envelope, which had your address on), I sent you 2 x letters.
If its any help to you in future, as you have an iPhone, its possible to get notifications of TZ-UK Private Messages direct to your phone...which can be read in full without the need to log onto the website.
You have stated “The watch is 100% genuine, I have no doubt” if you'd supplied some history I’d have been able to make a better informed decision myself, or if you’ve had it checked over by a watchmaker that would have helped dispel my concerns.
I’m not sure what the difference between a refund and buying the watch back are, I presume its a timescale issue?
I’ve not worn the watch since this all began, so is in the same condition as when it arrived.
I haven’t meant to offend you and have tried to be as courteous as possible. I didn’t think I “infer” anything, I was more pointing out my concerns, which were made worse by the lack of response, but as you say you haven’t logged onto the forum for a period; which would explain my concerns that you was ignoring me.
If you are happy to take the watch back, I’d be happy to pay the return postage, as I should have made more enquiries prior to purchase.
If this is the case, what sort of timescale would this involve?
I apologise for the long winded email, but I felt that I needed to explain my side of this watch purchase and my concerns.
Many thanks,
Stuart
************************************************** *********************************************
My latest reply
************************************************** *********************************************
Stuart,
Thanks for the expanding on the concerns you had regarding the Anonimo itself, I have explained my position on any perceived lack of response and although I understand/accept your frustrations there was definitely no intention of avoiding you, for any reason at all and no I do not think you have been discourteous, nor have I. I respect all your concerns, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them.
I don't find it unusual to have papers unstamped, and have owned many watches without and this would not cause alarm bells with me personally at all but again if this was a concern to me personally (as it is with yourself) I would have definitely asked prior to purchase.
I have nothing to compare the strap and buckle to (i.e. another Anonimo), but the quality of both seemed high and I would find your opinion on this subjective. Both perfectly acceptable to me.
Regarding the lume, again a subjective judgement, the Hi Dive and the Polluce have different hand sets and the Hi Dive most probably has a different application method so comparing doesn't mean like for like results, and comparing images online is not something I would judge the lume on, again the lume on this watch was perfectly acceptable to me.
Regarding the cyclops, I really didn't notice and to be honest I very rarely read the paperwork for a three hand watch and this case I didn't read the paperwork and having owned a few Millemetris back in the day didn't notice a lack of cyclops.
The power reserve is not something you have mentioned previously so I'll conclude this is an additional concern.
I’m not sure what the difference between a refund and buying the watch back are, I presume its a timescale issue?
The difference is stated above, if I agreed with your concerns it would be a refund, I don't so as I believe the watch to be not only authentic but perfectly acceptable I am offering to buy it back from you when I can.
As I stated, I cannot do that at the moment and can't put an exact timescale on this it may take a few months to get the cash together, alternatively I can offer another watch as a potential replacement but if that doesn't work for you other than that as I say when I get the cash together I would willingly purchase the Anonimo from you.
Thanks
Keith
************************************************** ***************************************
I am sure Ducatiist, and others, will reply and have sympathies with Stuart, but that is where we are at for the moment.
What a complete mess.
For me personally if I had sold the watch, just based on the feeble power reserve I would have offered a refund but then that’s just me.
Sell a watch, buyer not happy for whatever reason, accept the watch back. This isn't eBay, it's a watch forum and community.
I would also suggest that the seller links his PM notifications to his email so logging off the forum for weeks on end after he's completed a sale is no longer an excuse problem.
If the power reserve really is only 24 hours, then the buyer has a case. Everything else I would classify as buyer's remorse.
But since both members are only here for Sales Corner, I would argue to let them sort it out themselves.
Someone who lies about the little things will lie about the big things too.
Just a quick note, I had one of these watches (and several other models too) several years ago, I cannot remember whether or not it had a cyclops. As stated above Anonimo manufactured in small batches, this meant inconsistency, however, it also resulted in a build quality up there with Panerai but one was less likely to see another in the wild.
That said, there was one area in which the Hi Dive failed miserably, and that was lume. The different colours used simply seemed to serve to ‘dim’ the light absorption capabilities of the Luminova. It looked great in daylight/ low light - but in darkness was not great initially and plain poor shortly after - particularly the hour hand.
Posting Permissions
