Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt
Thanks for sharing 
So very gracious of them.
The old, "you must have knocked it on something trick".
The classic response being repeated all over the world now that warranties are expiring, so it's only a matter of time before the consumers wise up through conditioning, that they need to pamper their Rolex watches more and or wear them less so they can't say it's a result of lifestyle factors which is their little discussed caveat around the 10 year service interval.
Maybe it's time for Rolex owners with 32xx movements to invest in a timegrapher to provide periodical data sets to Rolex with each dodgy watch in order to refute their nebulous claim "you must have knocked it on something", by being able to demonstrate a noticeable decline in functionality  |
Do you know what the facial expression of a RSC worker looks like if you say to them these are my timegrapher results? My mate tried once. They give you the “oh please that’s cute look” and say their watchmakers will look at it thanks.
Thankfully this issue is for a watch and unlike Porsche unlikely to result in a class action but they are being a not behaving with much integrity here.
These estimates of 0.1% are not remotely correct and as the years go on there cumulative effect is really going to build up.
Timegrapher shouldn’t have to be part of a watch owners experiences. For the 32xx issue the key issue is it slows down. The timegrapher just helps confirm amplitude.
Should every car owner own a car scanner tool? They shouldn’t have to right?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk