Disappointing Deal With Tempoking (Anastasios)

[Mosco]

I love it how positive threads get 1-2 comments, but when there's a chance to skewer a dealer (who has been selling here for years with an exceptional record) everyone wants to chime in.... Why do we seek drama so badly?

[Tridor]

It has nothing to do with "drama," Greg. This thread confirms that there are two sides to every story. Further, I think the term "trusted seller" gets thrown around freely and, as a result, folks get complacent and can't even conceive that something could go wrong. That may be due to the overwhelming amount of good faith and camaraderie here on TRF. Trusted sellers here enjoy a special status because of all the good many have done; that is beyond dispute. Nonetheless, there are some issues, no doubt, which should be addressed openly when reconciliation between the parties privately cannot be achieved. I think that most folks have an unrealistic view that trusted sellers are intimately familiar with a specific watch and advertise it based upon that purported familiarity. Many sellers will come right out and say that that the service history is unknown, will acknowledge that aftermarket parts are used, and/or will point out cosmetic or mechanical defects; some either fail or refuse to do so, whether as a result of intentional or unintentional omission. In any event, a full and fair discussion of these matters, with the opportunity for both sides to explain the situation, benefits the entire TRF community.

We read here typically about people's problems and frustrations with ADs. So, why not the same with trusted sellers? Certainly, there must be problems with them as with ADs. If there is no objection to disclosing difficulties with ADs (and I have not read a thread where a trusted seller excoriates any criticism of ADs or otherwise objects to it), then there should be similar disclosures with respect to trusted sellers.

[Gaijin]

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.

No. I disagree. Being able to buy and sell on TRF is a privilege, not a right.

It is not up to the Forum or the Mods/members to set up and monitor any disputes via a dispute resolution page. If this nonsense keeps popping up I suspect that eventually being able to buy and sell on TRF may be suspended.


That would be a shame.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by anderl712000

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

Maybe you should read this thread again?

[canwatchco]

I disagree with you here, Greg. I don't see any skewering or piling on at all. It seems to be an open debate on how to treat hidden defects such as counterfeit or aftermarket parts. If it were a skewering people would be chiming in with their own experiences with the buyer or seller. I don't see that here at all.

Nobody is suggesting that the dealer is not trustworthy, and no one thinks it inappropriate for a buyer to expect genuine parts on a watch purchased through any seller on this site, "trusted or otherwise".

People have been simply weighing in on the topic.

Absent, as well, is the open mudslinging that has been witnessed during other reported altercations.

I don't find this thread that dramatic at all.

[Knappo 1307]

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.

A sticky really?? Most of these issues are solved with PM's between the buyer and seller. If they're not, then you post it in the watchout section. That what this section is for.....

[nickb732]

Originally Posted by Mosco

I love it how positive threads get 1-2 comments, but when there's a chance to skewer a dealer (who has been selling here for years with an exceptional record) everyone wants to chime in.... Why do we seek drama so badly?

I don't think it's about drama, mate. You know what they say - you do a thousand good things and no one remembers. One slip up and no one forgets. I think as a general rule, the sellers are expected to be trustworthy. No one comments on the positive threads because we all love and expect our sellers to be trustworthy, and that's really a reflection on how good you guys all are. It's a big thing because this is an anomaly and we're all rather surprised, really, especially given TempoKing's stellar record.

[mfnj]

I think that this thread has been quite civil and respectful. There has been no name calling or inflammatory statements, just opinions and debate relating hidden or unknown defects/counterfeit parts at the time of a sale which were unknown to both seller and buyer. It is up to each member to draw their own conclusions as to what is potentially a right or wrong decision by the parties to the transaction

[Old Expat Beast]

Paying up the $200 would be a no brainer for the average businessman interested in maintaining his good name. It's a trifling amount.

[Cru Jones]

who is to say the watch wasn't sold by tempoking with an original crystal? the "problem" only surfaced MONTHS later....

this is the problem with settling things over the public internets....no one really knows anything.

just my two cents....

(btw, OP, just playing devil's advocate here....not suggesting in any way that you are trying to get $200 from tempoking after having switched crystals. i'm with greg ---- there's a lot of piling on here.)

[greekbum]

For the sake of educating all of us on crystals I think the OP should chime in with a document from Rolex on Rolex letter head stating the crystal is in fact counterfeit or aftermarket as claimed. Counterfeit in this case imho is a word used to add shock and aw...lol. The crystal does not have any branding on it like the new style LEC crystals so i don't think you can counterfeit a non marked piece of glass but i learn something everyday and maybe i am wrong? The oysterquartz in question i believe is from the 80's and during this time rolex did not make there own crystals. So if they did not make there own crystals and there is no branding on them who can tell?Since the OP has been to rolex and is getting the watch serviced there he can post pictures of the letter that states the crystal is counterfeit (maybe they can explain in detail how they came to this conclusion) as claimed and we can all learn from this. Again i have no interest in this other than learning about crystals and how to tell them apart.

[Jocke]

Is it possible to see in



who have made the crystal?

[DCgator]

Originally Posted by Mosco

I love it how positive threads get 1-2 comments, but when there's a chance to skewer a dealer (who has been selling here for years with an exceptional record) everyone wants to chime in.... Why do we seek drama so badly?

Greg, what do you suggest the buyer do after being told by a qualified person the crystal is after market, etc?....just STHU and let it go, be passive and never mention it at all? Is that what you would do?

I'm simply asking what you would do if you were in the OP's place. I don't think the OP posted this to give us drama.

[mannyv11]

I would like to hear an update from the OP or another update from tempoking to see if the situation is being resolved behind closed doors or what is possibly happening....

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by DCgator

Greg, what do you suggest the buyer do after being told by a qualified person the crystal is after market, etc?....just STHU and let it go, be passive and never mention it at all? Is that what you would do?

I'm simply asking what you would do if you were in the OP's place. I don't think the OP posted this to give us drama.

I'm seeing this point. To Greg, put yourself in the sellers place. You have sold thousands of watches, what would you do to fix this situation ? Would you buy the watch back, at the price you sold it? Would you fix the problem, at your expense? Or would you wash your hands of the buyer and move on? I think I know what you would do....

[c.capt]

Originally Posted by greekbum

For the sake of educating all of us on crystals I think the OP should chime in with a document from Rolex on Rolex letter head stating the crystal is in fact counterfeit or aftermarket as claimed. Counterfeit in this case imho is a word used to add shock and aw...lol. The crystal does not have any branding on it like the new style LEC crystals so i don't think you can counterfeit a non marked piece of glass but i learn something everyday and maybe i am wrong? The oysterquartz in question i believe is from the 80's and during this time rolex did not make there own crystals. So if they did not make there own crystals and there is no branding on them who can tell?Since the OP has been to rolex and is getting the watch serviced there he can post pictures of the letter that states the crystal is counterfeit (maybe they can explain in detail how they came to this conclusion) as claimed and we can all learn from this. Again i have no interest in this other than learning about crystals and how to tell them apart.

Just a quick note about the word "counterfeit" - that's how Rolex describes any watch with non-genuine parts in it. It says it right at the bottom of any service paperwork you have from them:

"The addition of non-genuine parts to any Rolex watch renders it a counterfeit as defined by Federal Law. It is therefore unlawful to sell or offer such modified watch for sale. Rolex will not service watches altered with non-genuine parts or accessories."

I don't think it was wrong of the OP to use such language.

Like most people, I don't have a horse in this race but I hope the issue was settle amicably to both parties.

[AbsolutelyROLEX!]

Personally I dont think this will hurt Tony in any way, I would still buy from him so will many others.
This is just a small "hiccup" and will not alter my thinking of both involved.

Just an encouraging positive comment.....

[drifter01]

At the risk of being a "Johnny come lately" in this, Tony is more than likely totally innocent as far as the crystasl goes. Having been in the watch repair business, I know many people would opt to use a less expensive aftermarket crystal than a much higher priced Rolex one. The crystals are basically the same and may even be made by the same business. Tony bought the watch (I assume) and believed it to be a gen crystal. How Rolex could determine it was aftermarket is beyond me. I've looked at gen and non-gen crystals for years, and other than the newqer ones with the LEC I cannot tell the difference in most cases.
He sold the watch in it's present state assuming a gen glass and the buyer purchased it assuming the same. Who's at fault? WHo knows...my point is as far as the crystal goes, I don't believe either party is at fault. Both assumed it was gen, both got burned when they bought it.
The whole issue should, in my opinion, never have been made a public matter. It should have been handeled by the two in PM or email. All we did was muddy the waters, possibly hurt feeling, possibly offend.
JMHO

Dave

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by drifter01

He sold the watch in it's present state assuming a gen glass and the buyer purchased it assuming the same. Who's at fault? WHo knows...my point is as far as the crystal goes, I don't believe either party is at fault. Both assumed it was gen, both got burned when they bought it.

Ignorance is never an excuse. All watches sold on TRF are assumed 100% authentic unless otherwise stated. Somebody correct me if I am wrong. Like many have said, it is almost impossible to differentiate between a genuine crystal and an aftermarket one. Surely one can not tell the difference with the naked eye. I am sure Tempoking had no idea, but regardless, I still think it is his responsibility to replace it.

[drifter01]

Wesley, I'm not arguing that point, I'm just saying that he possibly (probably) didn't know, and when told yeah, probably should have replaced it, but like I said, it should have been done all in private between the involved parties, not in a public forum.

Dave

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by drifter01

Wesley, I'm not arguing that point, I'm just saying that he possibly (probably) didn't know, and when told yeah, probably should have replaced it, but like I said, it should have been done all in private between the involved parties, not in a public forum.

Dave

Agreed. I think issues should first be handled privately. If they cannot be privately resolved, it's ok to make the issue public. I think we should all be aware of shady sellers and buyers (in general).

[ViperB]

I've purchase two white gold President and made many other deals with Tempoking/Anastasios. He's honest and has always been very helpful.

[nickb732]

I agree that this should have been solved privately if possible, but I think OP saw no other recourse than to post it here.

[Welshwatchman]

It would have been a whole lot easier if the buyer took the seller up on the 2 year "similar to Rolex" warranty.

There would have been the opportunity to fit a genuine crystal, gaskets, battery all free.

Failure to undertake these repairs through would have made Anastasios's word worthless here.

I know it's not easy to send watches into the USA but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I'll not comment about how things actually transpired other than when one party gives it the "that's the end of it as far as I am concerned", it rarely turns out this way.

I am ever mindful of the threat of seller blackmail but it does not seem to be a case of this here. Some may wonder that the fear of this is what makes the exemplars of service such as Davdsw, Greg, Tony, Alfred etc truly Trusted Sellers. I'm not so sure.

There are a few here who go all the way and a little more. It's a combination of true character and also a little business "savvyness".

The OP made a mistake in not getting the watch back to A and put the warranty to the test.

Can't this still be done?

There a lot of money to be saved.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

It would have been a whole lot easier if the buyer took the seller up on the 2 year "similar to Rolex" warranty.

There would have been the opportunity to fit a genuine crystal, gaskets, battery all free.

Failure to undertake these repairs through would have made Anastasios's word worthless here.

I know it's not easy to send watches into the USA but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I'll not comment about how things actually transpired other than when one party gives it the "that's the end of it as far as I am concerned", it rarely turns out this way.

I am ever mindful of the threat of seller blackmail but it does not seem to be a case of this here. Some may wonder that the fear of this is what makes the exemplars of service such as Davdsw, Greg, Tony, Alfred etc truly Trusted Sellers. I'm not so sure.

There are a few here who go all the way and a little more. It's a combination of true character and also a little business "savvyness".

The OP made a mistake in not getting the watch back to A and put the warranty to the test.

Can't this still be done?

There a lot of money to be saved.

I don't think that was ever a option, the 2yr warranty was Tony doing the service and parts replacement for $1200 instead of the OP paying $1600 at the RSC. I could be wrong, but that's the way I read it. If the OP was offered the option of having Tony fix the problem under a warranty for free, I think he would jump at that.

[FTX I]

I still can't figure out why a watch with a 2 year similar to rolex warranty would have any cost to be repaired.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I still can't figure out why a watch with a 2 year similar to rolex warranty would have any cost to be repaired.

X2!

[Presa canary]

I just read the ops initial post again. The seller offered to buy back the watch at a lower cost?! If that's true, I don't have much " trust" in this " trusted seller"

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by FTX I

I still can't figure out why a watch with a 2 year similar to rolex warranty would have any cost to be repaired.

What costs are you talking about because aside from the cost of the crystal there are no other costs. The OP chose to get the watch serviced. That cost can't be included because that isn't covered under any warranty. Any parts they replaced he had to pay for can't be included either because Rolex replaces those parts - at the owner's cost - so the originals won't fail during the two years the service warranty will be in effect. They didn't replace them because the watch was sent in with broken parts.

Had the watch not had an aftermarket crystal, this thread would have never happened. The OP had his dad's watch serviced and he wouldn't have bothered the seller to pay for it, just like a lot of people who buy a used Rolex send them in for service when they first get them.

The only costs really should be to replace the crystal because the aftermarket part wasn't disclosed (even if the seller didn't know it is his responsibility).

[FTX I]

Originally Posted by Spartan

In his ad he posted the following:

"personal warranty similar to Rolex new watches for 2 years".

10 months after purchasing the watch the battery stopped so I had it sent to the ROLEX Service Center here in Canada expecting a simple “service” , the usual stuff…. usually runs about $600.

I had no issue with doing that, despite the implied warranty that was provided with the watch when I purchased it. I am not that fussy.

I was shocked, to say the least, when I received the estimate of $1600 from Rolex! Not so much the fact that there were worn out gaskets and that the watch had zero waterproof protection, or that any of the near 30 year old parts that need replacing. No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT crystal on the watch first.

I have purchased many used Rolex through this forum and others, and I have personally sent more than 10 of them to the Canadian RSC for servicing. Never have I received an estimate stating that "The watch has undergone significant modifications". I was embarrassed!

Tony.

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

What costs are you talking about because aside from the cost of the crystal there are no other costs. The OP chose to get the watch serviced. That cost can't be included because that isn't covered under any warranty.

The seller should not have stated the watch had a 2 year similar to rolex warranty if that kind of cost would not be covered.