[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