Advice from TRF

[Micha]

he should buy a Quartz...

[GoldenBear]

I remember back in 1991 when I got my first Rolex, I was very disappointed with the accuracy, losing 3-4 seconds a day. I assumed it would be spot on because it was SO expensive. When I brought it back to the AD he said "Unless you are going to the moon you don't need that kind of accuracy" and "You'll need to reset it every month anyway". Kind of rude I thought, but in the end he was right. Once you understand the "range" you can enjoy the watch.

[Bisquitlips]

Originally Posted by lobo58

Both of them!

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by lobo58

Both of them!

You're giving him a lot of credit aren't you? Thinking there might actually be TWO people in this world that can call him a friend?

[lobo58]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

You're giving him a lot of credit aren't you? Thinking there might actually be TWO people in this world that can call him a friend?

Friends? I was talking about when he brushes his teeth!

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Jimbits76

All I can say was that I wasn't me giving him that advice!!!!

I often set mine with an estimate from how much time has passed since I saw the time on the Sky digital or Sky news info banner!!!!!!!

As long as I'm within 5 minutes +/- I'm happy!



J

You and me both mate although not being as rich as you rural folk I can't afford Sky, so I make do with Teletext

Scott I feel your pain mate

[Timber Loftis]

Frankly, the deviation described by this customer can somewhat attributable to his own human error. If you go on a website that provides accurate and exact time and set your watch and pull your watch crown out and get ready to push it back in when the exact second you are waiting for rolls by -- you can still easily miss the mark by 1-2 seconds.

[Tools]

there is plenty of advice, both good and bad, on the internet...

There are also plenty who interpret the exact same information in completely different ways...

I am constantly amazed by the conduct and attitude of otherwise normal human beings after spending time on a Forum..........

[Imtiaz]

Scott, no one can expect the TRF to be full of experts and your customer is therefore totally wrong in even quoting TRF.

If he would have quoted the Rolex company, that would be fine but other than that the reference to TRF is totally invalid.

And Scott, you cannot expect, us, TRF members, to be responsible for one person running around making statements attributed to this august forum.

[Wildwing]

The amazing thing to me is not so much that he was unaware that the overall performance was within acceptable specs, but that he expected you, an independent watchmaker to make things right under a Rolex waranty. That's the amazing part.

[AIKO]

I have never seen anyone here give advice to complain about a Rolex operating within COSC.

[Lol-x]

TRF and other forums for that matter have varied opinions. Some are right, some are wrong, some are good some are bad.

It is hoped that on the whole opinions are right. The forum does not become responsible for the opinions of its members or statements as to their accuracy.

Moreover, at the top of every page is the statement to the effect that we are not associated with 'Rolex' in any way so we do not speak with the authority of the Rolex company.

If I was a watchmaker and someone came to me and said so and so on TRF said 'xyz'. I'd tell him that I follow Rolex standards and TRF is not Rolex.

As for the warranty, well just tell him to read the warranty, it's a "Rolex" warranty, not an independent watchmaker's warranty.

Sounds like this guy was just being obnoxious, or trying it on, or stupid. I'd have given him the way to the door in about 30 seconds and got on with my work

[allanofcalifornia]

For what it's worth, here's my thoughts. Everyone should read comments with a grain of salt and not absolute fact.

I know my RSC told me that they try to regulate a watch when getting serviced so that the watch is running about 2 minutes fast per month (+4 sec/day). I assume they do this because over time the watch will slow down. He also said that when it starts to be around 5 minutes slow per month (-10 sec/day), then it's time to get the watch serviced.

Does Rolex publish a guideline on the regulation of a Rolex watch?



Allan

[Andad]

Hi Scott,

Not all the information on this Forum is 100% correct and neither is the interpretation of threads by Forum members. RTFT is being used more and more often in threads. We rely on information from many sources and even you have posted incorrect information on the Forum which if I remember was corrected by another watchtech.
I suggested on the particular thread quoted that if the OP wasn't happy with +2.5 seconds he should have his Rolex adjusted. If he is not happy and wants to keep trying for perfect timing he could have it adjusted every week for all I care - at his expense of course.
As to who pays for adjustments to a Rolex that is outside of COSC? I would expect that each individual case would be evaluated at a RSC. I am surprised that you gave this incident the time that you did.
Time to move on IMO.

[Skutt50]

"By the way, we're looking at ~ +6 minutes a YEAR. Pretty darn good for a mechanical watch!"

My calculations tells me that +4s/day equals some 24 minutes per year.

[Andad]

Is this an error in calculation giving incorrect information to the Forum?

Will we now have Forum members claiming an accuracy of 6 minutes a year is guaranteed by Rolex?

C'mon David, show us your calculation sheet.

[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

TRF and other forums for that matter have varied opinions. Some are right, some are wrong, some are good some are bad.

It is hoped that on the whole opinions are right. The forum does not become responsible for the opinions of its members or statements as to their accuracy.

Moreover, at the top of every page is the statement to the effect that we are not associated with 'Rolex' in any way so we do not speak with the authority of the Rolex company.

If I was a watchmaker and someone came to me and said so and so on TRF said 'xyz'. I'd tell him that I follow Rolex standards and TRF is not Rolex.

As for the warranty, well just tell him to read the warranty, it's a "Rolex" warranty, not an independent watchmaker's warranty.

Sounds like this guy was just being obnoxious, or trying it on, or stupid. I'd have given him the way to the door in about 30 seconds and got on with my work

Spot on, Steve.

Scott, I hear what you're saying, and to the extent that each person here is individually responsible for getting the facts right, you have a point.

On the other hand, let's get it straight that what people choose to do with available information is beyond the control of this forum. If some guy off the street picked up a medical textbook and went out to perform surgery, is the publisher responsible for the consequences?

That said, I can empathise with your frustration about the time wasted on this person's stupidity. I would support Steve's advice to show this fellow the door, and if he does carry on about TRF, send him my way and I'll give him a dose of reality, guaranteed.

[Jimbits76]

Originally Posted by Spark

You and me both mate although not being as rich as you rural folk I can't afford Sky, so I make do with Teletext

We need Sky old boy, us Rural folk don't get terrestrial signals!!!!!!!!!

I think too much is made of accuracy to COSC standards.

When I bought my LV I checked it over a day and it lost no time at all...I was all overjoyed and even posted here about it.

Now, like I said, I usually set it via approx time or use my kitchen clock which is probably about as accurate as pulling a time out of thin air.

Interesting in my office, the wall clock, digital phone display, pc Windows clock and my watch are all at different times but within 5 mins of each other hence +- 5 mins!

J

[jdc]

I get all my advice from redadair1957 and gymslip'76.................if anyone needs help fishing for crabs or sourcing high heels in large sizes I highly recommend them

[Dalton]

What did this graph look like? You should've just sent his ass home.

[bradiowausa]

My 2 cents,

Look, there is no doubt that the customer had unreasonable expectations (from the perspective of the AD and Rolex policy) and there is no doubt that the customer didn't handle his complaints the right way.

However, if you consider the non-WIS perspective, miscommunication regarding expectations for a 6 thousand dollar ss watch is inevitable. People save many years to make such a purchase, and when the product doesn't meet their expectations, they are likely to interpret the warranty information in their favor. Perhaps, the customer wasn't given enough information about the warranty terms before he bought the watch.

There were plenty of people who sided with the AD, I just wanted to play devils advocate for the customer (and give my humble opinion).

[LuvMyRolex]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

I know these people are few and far between, but they are very disruptive. What people may not realize is that if I leave my bench for 15 minutes to deal with this kind of situation, it isn't 15 minutes work I fall behind with. Taking into account the fact that you get into a rhythm when fixing watches, I could easily lose an hours work time getting back into the rhythm.

A bad day at the office. We've all had plenty of those. As you acknowledge, these people are uncommon. When you look back on this post I'm sure you'll feel the tone was a bit off. The point is it's the guy, isn't it? One guy. It's not the forum. IMHO I wouldn't change a thing about this place.

Here's to a better week for you next week

[Chozn1]

Some people are just a pain in the ass, pure and simple. In my line of work I generally talk to people when they are uncomfortable and about to pay a lot of money to be comfortable again. Not fun.

With that being said, a lot of those same people who are a pain like to embellish to get their point across. Did he reference the thread and were you able to see for yourself where this misinformation occurred?

[sexner]

Originally Posted by DSJ

By the way, we're looking at ~ +6 minutes a YEAR. Pretty darn good for a mechanical watch!

Finally a voice of reason.

[sexner]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

For the record I'm not condeming people here, I'm not after a pound of flesh. It was just a story of my day at work. Sure there is a subtle hint in there, but I do think trf does more good than bad.

I agree TRF is a good source of info as well as a place to vent among like-minded people when required. Guy with the GD graph should have had a look into the 3 "R's" (research, research, research) before he went off half-cocked.

[mattyb65]

...bbbbbut people on an internet forums told me otherwise!!

Obviously this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Who cares where he read it from? Tell him the deal and let that be the end of it. Sometimes people misread or misinterpret things. It happens.

In an unrelated note: Rolexes are guaranteed to attract unicorns. Contact your AD if you don't have one in your back yard as you read this.

[Gaijin]

Sexner, great avatar Dude!!

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

I am told the gentleman was speaking under advice from a tread on this forum.


This gentleman insists that performance like this is "out of spec for Rolex" (not COSC), and that it can be rectified with a "Service under warranty". Not only this, but also, that I (me) am responsible for that repair under warranty as much as Rolex are if he choses not to send it to Rolex UK, which he does not want.

My Rolex warranty book has no specs for timekeeping, and is a warranty against manufacturing defects (and that is open for interpretation) nor have I come across any Rolex literature stating specs for timekeeping, as in -1 to +5, or whatever.

Has anyone found this info in any Official Rolex Literature?

COSC is just a certification for passing a rigorous test for timekeeping. What does that certification guarantee afterward?

When did we stop reading our warranty information, and forget to call our RSCs?