Disappointing Deal With Tempoking (Anastasios)

[Andrés G]

Originally Posted by Greg G

I would have paid the $200 also. A watch described as a collectible with a 2 year warranty implies a watch that has been thoroughly inspected by a professional, is all original (unless otherwise stated), is water tight, and with a fresh battery.

The offer to buy it back for $700 less than paid is an insult IMHO. A seller trying to make a profit on a warranty?

I agree. I would have expected a trusted seller to make things right the first time he was contacted and told that the crystal wasn't original.

[Tridor]

I think this brings up an additional issue that no one else has mentioned. Just because one is a "trusted seller" does not mean that they have inspected the watch or even know much about its history. From what I can determine, many of those sellers either flip the watches they take in trade/purchase used or provide watches purchased from ADs directly. They are volume sellers and have little to do with the watch itself. Perhaps they have their "watchmaker" look it over and "service" it by simply giving it an oiling and polishing; however, there should be no expectation on the buyer's part that any such "service" is equivalent to one provided by an RSC.

That being said, if the watch had a number of counterfeit parts as determined by Rolex, and if paperwork to that effect was obtained from Rolex and given to the seller, then the full purchase price of the watch should have been refunded. If the watch indeed contained counterfeit parts, then the buyer did not receive that for which he bargained initially and should have been recompensed accordingly. Offering hundreds of dollars less to buy back the watch in this instance was inappropriate because the non-conformity was not the fault of the buyer and, in any event, should have been covered under the personal warranty included by the seller which was represented to be like a Rolex warranty. Now, if the buyer is unwilling to accept either a full refund or having the seller pay for an RSC service, then the seller should be relieved of any liability or further responsibility. Yes, the maxim caveat emptor applies, but given these circumstances as well as the reasonable reliance and good faith TRF members place in and upon their "trusted sellers," I think a higher standard should be implemented in cases such as this.

[springer]

As Greekbum noted in his post, I echo his sentiments and experience from the three times that I have been to the RSC here in Dallas for bezel or bracelet parts. Each time they told me that my watch needed a service, even though all were years away from needing one. The last time there, they took my watch to the back room and later came back with an estimate for the end link and said my watch needed a service. I asked them why they were opening my case back when all I needed was an end link to repair the one that had broken. I was told that they internally inspect every watch that comes in, even if it is for a replacement part. After acknowledging this, I told the lady that my watch had been serviced two years ago and was running fine. Her response, which shouldn't have surprised me, was that my watch hadn't been serviced by Rolex!!!

[Presa canary]

Well I guess this thread is over. The seller considers this particular matter closed... Op, guess ur sol. I would have just paid the 2 bills

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by old expat beast

it would be interesting and useful to hear the seller's definition of his "personal warranty similar to rolex new watches for 2 years".

+1

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by Andrés G

I agree. I would have expected a trusted seller to make things right the first time he was contacted and told that the crystal wasn't original.

This + a new battery.

[Britexpat76]

Originally Posted by Tridor

I think this brings up an additional issue that no one else has mentioned. Just because one is a "trusted seller" does not mean that they have inspected the watch or even know much about its history. From what I can determine, many of those sellers either flip the watches they take in trade/purchase used or provide watches purchased from ADs directly. They are volume sellers and have little to do with the watch itself. Perhaps they have their "watchmaker" look it over and "service" it by simply giving it an oiling and polishing; however, there should be no expectation on the buyer's part that any such "service" is equivalent to one provided by an RSC.

That being said, if the watch had a number of counterfeit parts as determined by Rolex, and if paperwork to that effect was obtained from Rolex and given to the seller, then the full purchase price of the watch should have been refunded. If the watch indeed contained counterfeit parts, then the buyer did not receive that for which he bargained initially and should have been recompensed accordingly. Offering hundreds of dollars less to buy back the watch in this instance was inappropriate because the non-conformity was not the fault of the buyer and, in any event, should have been covered under the personal warranty included by the seller which was represented to be like a Rolex warranty. Now, if the buyer is unwilling to accept either a full refund or having the seller pay for an RSC service, then the seller should be relieved of any liability or further responsibility. Yes, the maxim caveat emptor applies, but given these circumstances as well as the reasonable reliance and good faith TRF members place in and upon their "trusted sellers," I think a higher standard should be implemented in cases such as this.

I think this sums it up perfectly.

[crowncollection]

I agree with many posts above, as well as disagree with some, let me explain. Rolex will ask you to service if it's not serviced by them in the last 5-7 years, regardless of the watches need for service. It is unfair to expect a seller to pay for this if the watch is sold as serviced by an independent or as unserviced in general although it does not apply here. There is a big difference between a battery change to make it run and a full service + parts. The only part I can think of is a new step motor at that extra cost. That is the heart of an oyster quartz and if it's was working, no need to replace generally, that should be covered under the sellers warranty. Rolex are just covering there 2 year warranty from every angle from your pocket. The crystal should be replaced at a cost to the seller IMHO. I disagree with some statements that it is impossible to tell, well Rolex can and so can I but you must take the time to remove it, perhaps when I get time I will post something in the reference section with my other educational authenticating posts. A full refund is fair or free crystal under agreement it was all original and a battery. I did not see in the add anything about Waterproofness on this vintage watch, therefore it was probably shower and swim proof but not to 100m when Rolex tested it with the old gaskets. Most do not swim to 100m anyway, that is a deep dive with mixed air, if you do buy a sub. Once again Rolex are just covering themselves with your money to protect themselves against warranty claims. I am not against Rolex they do a fine job, but you pay, everything a little worn will be new and lower the risk to there own warranty. You cannot expect sellers pay for any suggestions by Rolex when you take your watch there for any reason eg. maybe a extra link for example or battery and they suggest service or seals. He should pay for the crystal IMHO.

[MonBK]

The Op has not asked to be reimbursed for the service.

All he's asking for is the $200 for a new crystal instead of the counterfeit crystal it came with which in my book is more then fair.

[mfnj]

A little humor to diffuse the situation - this is what happens when you don't have your girlfriend or secretary handle the transaction for you! (relevance to another thread )

Rolex, as do all manufacturers, just about always say you need a full service when you need a simple repair. My brother in law just freaked out when he brought his 1 year old chrono to IWC to replace a broken pusher. They told him it also needed a service. When he told them his watch was one year old under warranty (they didn't bother to check up front or ask) they said he can get by without it!

As is often the case, things tend to get more complicated over time as buyers and sellers dig into their positions, right or wrong, relying on emails for communication where there can easily be misunderstandings of intent and tone. Happens to the best of them. Simple solution, pay up for a new crystal and call it a day. Small price to pay in the scheme of things

[77T]

I can't tell an aftermarket crystal from a Rolex crystal (except for the LECs). So 100% of the watches I take in go to a certified watchmaker. He was the one who caught my prior aftermarket crystal experience.

I am not a high-volume guy - just serial flipping and trading.

But before I ever sell one from my collection - it has been gone through and if it needs something done I have it done.

[simbal]

Originally Posted by Tridor

I think this brings up an additional issue that no one else has mentioned. Just because one is a "trusted seller" does not mean that they have inspected the watch or even know much about its history. From what I can determine, many of those sellers either flip the watches they take in trade/purchase used or provide watches purchased from ADs directly. They are volume sellers and have little to do with the watch itself. Perhaps they have their "watchmaker" look it over and "service" it by simply giving it an oiling and polishing; however, there should be no expectation on the buyer's part that any such "service" is equivalent to one provided by an RSC.

That being said, if the watch had a number of counterfeit parts as determined by Rolex, and if paperwork to that effect was obtained from Rolex and given to the seller, then the full purchase price of the watch should have been refunded. If the watch indeed contained counterfeit parts, then the buyer did not receive that for which he bargained initially and should have been recompensed accordingly. Offering hundreds of dollars less to buy back the watch in this instance was inappropriate because the non-conformity was not the fault of the buyer and, in any event, should have been covered under the personal warranty included by the seller which was represented to be like a Rolex warranty. Now, if the buyer is unwilling to accept either a full refund or having the seller pay for an RSC service, then the seller should be relieved of any liability or further responsibility. Yes, the maxim caveat emptor applies, but given these circumstances as well as the reasonable reliance and good faith TRF members place in and upon their "trusted sellers," I think a higher standard should be implemented in cases such as this.

I tend to agree with this, there is a reason that we go with trusted sellers on TRF - for the higher standard.

[canwatchco]

I would like to weigh in on this topic right now. Tony (Spartan) and I have done many deals over the years and I know him well. He is a gentleman in all respects. Very few of you know him, but I assure you he is not a pushy guy.

The watch was a present for his father, so returning it for a full refund (never offered), or a partial refund was never an option. Also, considering the counterfeit parts and the damaged caseback, Tony felt that he wanted Rolex Canada to do the service and had zero intention of asking for Anastasios' help either physically or financially. In fact Tony said he didn't even want to bother the seller with it. He was content to pay for the service entirely by himself with no issues.

So number 4 in Anastasios' summary is basically incorrect. Tony did not go after him to pay for a service, reject all options offered, and then "settle" for the simple extortion of $200.

I have seen the entire email thread between the two of them. It was mostly civil. Anastasios did make it seem like he was offering Tony fair options with real value, but the value had to have been less than $200 or else why would he have bothered going that route. That is the part that confuses me.

The ONLY reason why he contacted Anastasios was because of the shock and embarrassment of the counterfeit crystal.

No one has ever suggested that the seller "intentionally" sold a modified watch, in fact he may not have had any knowledge of the flaws. However, he did highlight his personal warranty, and so far that warranty has shown to have been hollow in all respects.

Tony asked me what I would do, and my response was, as many here have echoed, apologize for the counterfeit crystal and offer to pay for it.

Since Anastasios was NOT asked to do anything else, IMHO he should have done just that.

I do not believe that it is too late for this story to have a happy ending.

[Tridor]

One more point ... If the buyer will be satisfied solely with the cost of a replacement crystal, then it seems that the matter should be resolved that way.While I would not be willing to accept such a solution, this buyer is. So, the seller would be saving himself a great deal of money as well as further questions as to his reputation by paying the cost of the crystal replacement. It seems like a simple resolution and should not be as complicated as it has been made to be.

[77T]

Originally Posted by canwatchco

Also, considering the counterfeit parts

Just for clarity - maybe I missed it - what "parts" were counterfeit? I only saw an aftermarket sapphire crystal. And since this wasn't an LEC-era crystal - why are many saying counterfeit? I get the fact it was non-Rolex and Tony had a reason to expect 100% Rolex on the watch. But the crystal has no Rolex trademark infringement.

I only ask in the spirit of fair communication if there were other parts that were non-Rolex.

Originally Posted by Tridor

One more point ... If the buyer will be satisfied solely with the cost of a replacement crystal, then it seems that the matter should be resolved that way.While I would not be willing to accept such a solution, this buyer is.

A new crystal was the only part I see Tempoking having a stake in...
Of course the battery had gone dead, but that would've been a simple replacement.

If the watch had been returned for the 2-year warranty from the beginning, the case back, crystal and gaskets would have been handled at no cost once they were discovered to be sub-par, right?

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by 77T

Just for clarity - maybe I missed it - what "parts" were counterfeit? I only saw an aftermarket sapphire crystal. And since this wasn't an LEC-era crystal - why are many saying counterfeit? I get the fact it was non-Rolex and Tony had a reason to expect 100% Rolex on the watch. But the crystal has no Rolex trademark infringement.

I only ask in the spirit of fair communication if there were other parts that were non-Rolex.



A new crystal was the only part I see Tempoking having a stake in...
Of course the battery had gone dead, but that would've been a simple replacement.

If the watch had been returned for the 2-year warranty from the beginning, the case back, crystal and gaskets would have been handled at no cost once they were discovered to be sub-par, right?

Both the OP and the seller make reference to "counterfeit parts," so I take that to mean more than the crystal. Perhaps the OP can shed some light on this.

[greekbum]

I think the best way to determine counterfeit is on Rolex letter head from the rsc.Anything less is an opinion. I would like to see the word counterfeit crystal as this would help all understand what original aftermarket and counterfeit. Until this document is produced the crystal issue for me is ...the word counterfeit is a good buzz word for attention but I don't see how a non lec crystal can be called counterfeit .I have no bone here and have done business with both and they are both good guys.

[canwatchco]

In writing, Rolex service uses the expression "Non-Rolex". In direct conversation they actually state "counterfeit" as opposed to "aftermarket".

At least those are the words that Rolex Service Canada uses....

[Jocke]

Battery replacement at RUSA is free on a Oysterquartz throughout the clock's lifetime. What it comes to identifying a fake crystal
so this can probably only be done if it is picked out of the case. A story like this should be resolved without it coming to the
surface in a public forum IMHO. We're talking coffee money here.

I am now even more convinced that I should keep my watches.

[Presa canary]

Originally Posted by Jocke

Battery replacement at RUSA is free on a Oysterquartz throughout the clock's lifetime. What it comes to identifying a fake crystal
so this can probably only be done if it is picked out of the case. A story like this should be resolved without it coming to the
surface in a public forum IMHO. We're talking coffee money here.

I am now even more convinced that I should keep my watches.

I think the op attempted to resolve it without it being made public. He only came forward after he felt slighted. I'm happy the op came forward, it may put the who's who in better perspective

[Incredible Hulk]

I'm very pleased Spartan came forward. IMHO the seller is 100% responsible for the product he sells. And if he's not aware of this product being "Aftermarket or Counterfeit" and has no way of determining if the watches he posts are 100% genuine or not then he should announce the fact that he's not sure on his for sale post. I would request every penny back. The seller in this case is completely in the wrong.

As it stands right now with the response i've seen from the "Seller" i would NOT buy anything from him. I don't care how long his resume is.

[theseira]

If I am the seller I will would have paid the $200 and get the situation remedied. Bad reputation is not worth it.

"It Takes 20 Years to Build a Reputation and Five Minutes to Ruin It" -WB

[SohAIS]

agreed with every one here. At the least i would pay for the crystal

Originally Posted by theseira

If I am the seller I will would have paid the $200 and get the situation remedied. Bad reputation is not worth it.

"It Takes 20 Years to Build a Reputation and Five Minutes to Ruin It" -WB

[Andad]

I am sure the seller will fix these issues and ensure that the buyer is not out of pocket for any work done to this Rolex within 'his' warranty period.

[threemonkeys]

Originally Posted by MonBK

Would you still say that if Rolex said the same thing to you within the 2 year warranty period?

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the seller was offering to provide that at no charge.

[applebook]

If the crystal is the only aftermarket part, I can see how it can be overlooked by even the best seller. Like others have said, it's virtually impossible to tell the difference without very close examination. The crystal should be unsigned and as such, IMO, isn't "counterfeit" but is more "generic."

Having said that, I think that the seller should replace whatever parts aren't genuine Rolex at his own cost.

Completely disagree that this issue should have been kept private. The buyer and the seller couldn't resolve it privately. If nothing else, this thread provides valuable education for most of us.

[Bangel]

It's disappointing to hear how this transaction has played out.

I feel that the OP is correct in the expectation that the watch should only have genuine Rolex parts.

I also believe it would be appropriate for the OP to receive reimbursement for the cost of the genuine replacement crystal.

[Tridor]

This thread should be posted as a sticky or at least people should be referred to it as a "must" read. We rarely, if ever, see the problematic side of dealing with "trusted sellers," and I'm sure this isn't the first time something like this has happened. This can lull people into a false sense of security. Perhaps TRF should have a dispute resolution page where sellers and buyers can air both sides of the story, and the community can weigh in with its opinions.

[nickb732]

Originally Posted by Tridor

This thread should be posted as a sticky or at least people should be referred to it as a "must" read. We rarely, if ever, see the problematic side of dealing with "trusted sellers," and I'm sure this isn't the first time something like this has happened. This can lull people into a false sense of security. Perhaps TRF should have a dispute resolution page where sellers and buyers can air both sides of the story, and the community can weigh in with its opinions.

This is a very good point. If i'm not mistaken just a few weeks back someone posted a question on the general forums about this. The seller may well have honest intentions, but how is he to know if there is an extremely good counterfeit or the parts have been switched out? This thread should be made a sticky in the who's who as a warning to all potential buyers. Pity he couldn't just hand over the $200, this whole saga was unnecessary.

[AbsolutelyROLEX!]

The general consensus here is, Tony should pay for the crystal, and it would be settled.