AD sold me a Daytona ceramic BUT made me buy 10k in diamond too, help?

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by Socal81

Schoolboy, your psychotic. Get over it!

Haha I WAS over it until I saw you making fun of other members for not being able to buy at retail.

Anyway, enjoy the watch!

[Cesium137]

Originally Posted by Socal81

Accepting the offer, then Changing your mind and calling out corporate greed and unethical behavior from an AD is called HUMAN RIGHT AND WELL WITH A POSTED RETURN POLICY.

You made a big boy decision. I think it’s time you stop playing the victim and man up. Maybe you made a mistake, if so, learn from it and move on. If they took advantage of you, it’s because you allowed it.

[pepsiretail]

Can I offer 1k for the diamonds?




Edit, oh, the diamonds were returned and he kept the watch?

[iheartrolexx]

name and expose your AD.

[Socal81]

This ones done TRF. Until next time happy rolexing

[WatchUdoing]

Originally Posted by Socal81

I am married but my wife is not imeo diamonds. We would have been better off allowing us to buy another watch, but they said it MUST be a diamond purchase. I’m thankful I got my Daytona but I feel used and cheated in the process.

If anyone has a practical solution without messing up the next purchase please share

There are a couple trusted sellers on this forum that accept diamonds in trade for watches. Turn your lemons into lemonade...

[schoolboy]

Originally Posted by WatchUdoing

There are a couple trusted sellers on this forum that accept diamonds in trade for watches. Turn your lemons into lemonade...

He already got a refund for the diamonds from the AD

[SpeakWithMichael]

Originally Posted by Wcdhtwn

I'm glad this worked out for you, really I am. But don't show up here with a sad story and expect all the members to line up behind you. This is a Rolex Forum, which isn't to be confused with an Anti-AD forum. People not agreeing with your perspective are not haters, simply wrong, or any other derogatory term you might come up with. There is vast experience and knowledge in here, which you came in search of, then resorted to name calling when your cause didn't turn to an AD flame session.

Good luck and if you stay active here I hope you can shift into a positive presence.

+1

The painful part is the end, Socal. You got what you wanted in resolving your deal situation with the AD, but then you got rather smeary about it with those who you felt didn't just outright support you in every way, and you perhaps took their words or multiple posts as an attack on you. Nobody was "enraged" at you here. Did you honestly think someone was enraged at you? You seemed a bit enraged with your caps lock key when others questioned or doubted. To be forward with you, your behavior in this thread has actually been rather scary. I don't know if you like people to be afraid of you or you enjoy that sort of thing, but you managed to do that with me. You seem like the the type of person whom I've unfortunately ran into a few times in my past that connives ways to ruin people's lives when you want them out of your way or you feel slighted somehow by them, and you've picked on one or two people here in particular and started calling them snarky and psycho - the very thing in my opinion you've displayed most here, not them. Being on the receiving end of someone doing that to you, playing the victim and making you out to be a bad guy, is really not enjoyable at all. Especially when one knows damn well they're not a bad guy. It's incredibly damaging, actually, and maddeningly unfair, too. People are generally not out to hurt you in the way that you turn around and do to them intentionally. The way I've been destroyed in the past, is not a nice memory to relive with your behavior.

So is that how you're going to play this now? Revert from victim to bully to victim and go to the mods saying you feel threatened, blah blah blah, and somehow we'll pay the price of this ridiculous thread which you sum up to be psychologically educational for yourself. And you'll feel good about that, because again you'll have "won". As if there's no person behind the text of the people here who mean nothing to you and you don't care if they suffer at your expense. It seems you get off on simply being provokational, slinging words at people, laughing at them, calling them psychotic. It's really disappointing to see you enjoy being like that and having fun doing that. And I'm really saddened you're allowed to go on and on doing it. The whole purpose of this entire thread may have sadly been to rile people up and cause them pain. That's what hurts my heart, man, that anyone would find that a good use of their time to do to others. Is it us that hurt you in some other way for us to be your target tonight? Are you having a bad day? Is this par for the course with you?

Because no one here was "hating" on you, or weren't against you personally until you got combative/defensive/snarky or incessantly poking at them for having said something you didn't like. And I'm certainly not "jealous" of you in any way, as you've repeated so many times, though you believe we're "angry because we can't get a Daytona at retail". I don't want a Daytona. Others here perhaps also don't want a Daytona. Please realize that truly just for yourself, we're not jealous. Really, truly, honestly. Not jealous of anything you acquire through the means with which you acquire it. Zero jealousy. Doesn't impact my life any if you get a W in your score sheet.

But you seem to be very hung up on being right, and shouting that from the rooftops. Some sort of great victory about being right against those who probably just expressed their logic or opinion as to what the AD might or might not do for you considering they already seemingly got the best of you the first time you walked out the door. It's like you welcomed debate until you threw their debate back in their face. What is the value in you being right, is what I'd love for you to ask yourself. Is it worth having others think of you the way they likely do now for you to be right? I don't think anyone wanted you to be wrong about being able to return the diamond(s) and keep the Daytona for what you paid. But with this ego, you needed to be right and we needed to know you were right. And you needed to make sure we were clear on that in the end. What is that worth to you to seemingly "win", if you see it as a win? And why when the AD at the beginning got the best of you by the end you've become a trusting advocate of them? Nobody here took you for 10k, but we're dogcrap compared to your beloved AD. Maybe the AD just wants to cover their own assets now in the case you cause a giant crapstorm with them as you've done here with us? Maybe they know very few would come back and speak up about the tactic, and the few who did they could easily make it right? Maybe you simply got sold twice today. I wish you would think on these things if you could stop thinking for a moment we're all "crazy". We're not crazy. We have an array of opinions and means of expressing them without you having the means to gauge our intentions. Not video, not audio, just text.

You've made a lot of us shake our head in disbelief in this thread, and not in a positive way. You can think the majority is with you if that does anything for you. I think the silent majority knows it's a waste of their time to even bother taking the time to try and get through to you to even get you to reflect, risk you lashing out at them as well, and a mod making us pay for trying to get you to understand. You seem unreachable in that regard, but some of us are willing to try in more than two sentences. Think on that, please.

To echo my friend: "Good luck and if you stay active here I hope you can shift into a positive presence."

[schoolboy]

Well said ^^^^

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Socal81

I was offered a black face ceramic Daytona by my AD which is a well known Jewler BUT before selling to me they said I must “qualify” for the purchase and must also buy 10k of diamond jewelry

The AD offered a deal explicitly. You explicitly accepted the deal and consummated it. You after the fact broke the deal (likely with every intent of doing so all along).

Legally absolutely within your rights, ethically very shady! Two wrongs don't make right and you absolutely knew going in that the diamonds were a precondition of the Daytona sale. Your lack of integrity may be justified in your mind but for many (including me) you acted dishonorably.

Enjoy your watch... it cost more than sticker price and or some diamonds, you sold your good name or claim to moral authority.

[asiparks]

Cobblers.
1 crappy third rate picture of a random Daytona as "proof". Would have thought someone your age, ( haters/lol etc), would have no problem posting a slew of incoming pics...maybe with filters... you managed to do a lot of typing in the 7 or so hours between starting your story and nipping back out to return the diamonds. What were the "diamonds" by the way? Tennis bracelet ? Hearts of fire ?
At the worst, your story is absolute bollocks, at best, in the unlikely event it's somehow true, you're kind of a repellant chap...


and I'm quite happy being a "hater"

[cloudplay]

Originally Posted by ArtNouveau

All of the righteous indignation to the dealer here is misplaced. OP agreed to terms to buy the watch, he could have said no. There is nothing in the US either illegal or even unethical about this, the business made an offer and you accepted it. The notion of “writing letters” to RolexUSA or Ben Bridge Corporate is laughable and indicates a huge lack of knowledge of US Antitrust Law.
I would seriously doubt that they didn’t cover themselves to prevent a simple return of part of the deal. If you don’t like how a store runs their business, go elsewhere, all the hand-wringing is ridiculous.

Agree that writing to ROLEX etc after accepting the deal is pathetic. However, if the written and signed deal, as the OP seems to believe, includes an option to return part of the purchase, exercising this option doesn't seem any more or less immoral than the dealer structuring the deal this way in the first place. Of course, there may be some really fine fine-print that prevents this course of action.

One assumes that the OP isn't expecting any future calls from this dealer after returning the jewelry...

[Socal81]

See the problem most of you have is that you are interpreting a retail AD the same as a trusted reseller, this concluding I broke some kind of “deal”. For the fifth time, there was NO DEAL MADE. There was a decision to sell to me IF I wanted to purchase diamonds at the POS. That “verbal” agreement (which completely contradicts or is not consistent with either Rolex or the AD stipulated transaction requirements) was NOT inclusive of me forfeiting my right as a consumer to follow their return policy. I’m actually KEEPING THE AGREEMENT the offered me, which was a purchase of various items ALONG WITH A FLEXIBLE NO HASSLE return policy. They know it, I know it, and MANY on here know it and that is exactly why this transaction went exactly how I hoped.

For those saying I’m being snarky, nothing’s further from the truth. I’ve been accused on here as a liar, misrepresented, and constantly being smeared as breaking some fictional deal people are coming up with. There was no deal, there was a purchase requirement. ALL purchases come with a return policy which is PART OF THE TRANSACTIONAL AGREEMENT.

People are stubborn sometimes and even though the AD agrees with me and the transaction proves it, they are still hell bent on misrepresenting me. I came here to share a situation any one of us could find ourselves in one day and with the intent to be informed and inform others. I got a lot of positive feedback and perspective from most. But I also see a lot of haters and several TRF members agree some of that is going on too. That’s very sad to see, but hey can’t chsnge people.

The fact this thread is still going on speaks volumes though. I will leave it at that and we’ll wishes to ALL.

[Bearxj86]

I will weigh in here.

1) The OP thought that the AD was being unethical by having to bundle a watch with diamonds.
2) OP entered into the agreement begrudgingly- quite frankly $10k diamonds with a Daytona is basically the diamonds are free if you flip the Daytona. The deal was quite "fair" to both sides and allowed both sides to partake in the deal - this is strictly from a valuation perspective.
3) OP, feeling used and mistreated (power dynamic), used AD's return policy against them to renegotiate the terms of the deal after.
4) AD allowed it.

I think the fundamental issue most people have here is the breach of the "gentleman's agreement" and the use of morally reprehensible behavior (yet legal) as "retaliation" for a perceived breached of ethics. You had an agreement and you went back on your word for a favorable outcome - a pretty big no no in the business world. The terms of the deal were simple. Daytona (at MSRP) + $10k diamonds, bundle purchase. Trying to embellish the verbal agreement with the return policy and what the parties agreed to is pretty insulting to anyone's intellect. It's like drafting a 100 page contract for a simple deal and illustrates what I hate most about our legal system.

I think the AD probably is cutting their losses here since it is a flaw in their policy after all.

In many of my watch deals, I have often had better offers or more lucrative deals happen after I "Mazaled" or did a handshake agreement. "Mazal" is the code of watch ethics which binds most of us in the collector community and probably business community together. While I applaud your intellect to get ahead in this deal, I believe you have suffered some reputation damage with the AD and some of the folks here.

Anyway, pretty interesting story and ultimately you got a Daytona at MSRP - nice work. But why do I have this bitter aftertaste in my mouth?

[Socal81]

Clouldplay you nailed it, I completely agree with you.

[Socal81]

Bearjx, you are wrong and assuming a lot of inaccurate things. I actually even mentioned to the person who sold to me at the time of sale, I am buying these diamonds blindly as my wife is out of town, she may not like them. The associate said we have a return/exchange policy just come see us. BUT they would not let me buy the watch unless I “purchased” the diamonds too, NOT PURCHASE AND FINAL SALE EVERYTHING ON MY RECEIPT. If the agreement you AD lovers are fictitiously making up to misrepresent me was in place the receipt would say FINAL SALE and they would not of happily taken my items back.

People’s obsessive rage that I followed an agreement and the agreement actually benefited me when I exercised my right to return as stipulated in the agreement is shocking to me. People on here should really be ashamed of themselves misrepresenting others.

[Socal81]

The flippers and resellers crying on here that I got my way in this and the AD agreed with me are actually the ones who contribute to these AD problems. The irony of it all, and the hypocrisy.

[Socal81]

Words like “morally reprehensible behavior” is a shame when the ones who are morally reprehensible are the ones enrages and jealous that I actually got the benefit out of an agreement with the AD. An agreement that was INCLUSIVE of a flexible return exchange policy.

The attacks on people’s moral charachter and misrepresentations is actually what’s morally reprehensible.

But a lot of great TRF members on here, not an ounce of jealousy or misrepresentation and I am thankful for those members. The ones obsessively still posting are the ones I am talking about and there obesession only validates my claims about them. HATERS

[Socal81]

The people still posting about this hours after the AD agreed with me and took care of me, some writing NOVELS about my “moral compass”. Psychotic haters still on a list enraged they have not been picked.

Try following positive energy, stop misrepresenting people and obsessively writing novels on them, maybe positivity will lead to ur name being licked.

[Socal81]

The novel my SoeakwithMichael, that guy is psychooooo. Lol

[goog53]

Why are we still acknowledging this guy? The joke is on him because this is the last nice watch he will ever get from an AD. I don’t condone the ADs actions but the client is no better in this situation and clearly just as shady.

[Socal81]

People are acknowledging and writing novels about me because it proves my earliest point, HATERS. That’s why they post hours later after the AD agreed with me. And that’s why you are posting too, it pisses you off it went my way and I followed the agreement inclusive of a return policy. HI HATERS

[Baco Noir]

So you accepted the AD deal to buy a hard to acquire watch if you also made a 10k diamond purchase from them. Correct?

Then you took advantage of the ADs return policy to return the diamonds. Correct?

That doesn’t make you business savvy, it makes you as shady as the AD requiring the 10k purchase in the first place.

Sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by Socal81

See the problem most of you have is that you are interpreting a retail AD the same as a trusted reseller, this concluding I broke some kind of “deal”. For the fifth time, there was NO DEAL MADE. There was a decision to sell to me IF I wanted to purchase diamonds at the POS. That “verbal” agreement (which completely contradicts or is not consistent with either Rolex or the AD stipulated transaction requirements) was NOT inclusive of me forfeiting my right as a consumer to follow their return policy. I’m actually KEEPING THE AGREEMENT the offered me, which was a purchase of various items ALONG WITH A FLEXIBLE NO HASSLE return policy. They know it, I know it, and MANY on here know it and that is exactly why this transaction went exactly how I hoped.

For those saying I’m being snarky, nothing’s further from the truth. I’ve been accused on here as a liar, misrepresented, and constantly being smeared as breaking some fictional deal people are coming up with. There was no deal, there was a purchase requirement. ALL purchases come with a return policy which is PART OF THE TRANSACTIONAL AGREEMENT.

People are stubborn sometimes and even though the AD agrees with me and the transaction proves it, they are still hell bent on misrepresenting me. I came here to share a situation any one of us could find ourselves in one day and with the intent to be informed and inform others. I got a lot of positive feedback and perspective from most. But I also see a lot of haters and several TRF members agree some of that is going on too. That’s very sad to see, but hey can’t chsnge people.

The fact this thread is still going on speaks volumes though. I will leave it at that and we’ll wishes to ALL.

But then...

Originally Posted by Socal81

Clouldplay you nailed it, I completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by Socal81

Bearjx, you are wrong and assuming a lot of inaccurate things. I actually even mentioned to the person who sold to me at the time of sale, I am buying these diamonds blindly as my wife is out of town, she may not like them. The associate said we have a return/exchange policy just come see us. BUT they would not let me buy the watch unless I “purchased” the diamonds too, NOT PURCHASE AND FINAL SALE EVERYTHING ON MY RECEIPT. If the agreement you AD lovers are fictitiously making up to misrepresent me was in place the receipt would say FINAL SALE and they would not of happily taken my items back.

People’s obsessive rage that I followed an agreement and the agreement actually benefited me when I exercised my right to return as stipulated in the agreement is shocking to me. People on here should really be ashamed of themselves misrepresenting others.

Originally Posted by Socal81

The flippers and resellers crying on here that I got my way in this and the AD agreed with me are actually the ones who contribute to these AD problems. The irony of it all, and the hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by Socal81

Words like “morally reprehensible behavior” is a shame when the ones who are morally reprehensible are the ones enrages and jealous that I actually got the benefit out of an agreement with the AD. An agreement that was INCLUSIVE of a flexible return exchange policy.

The attacks on people’s moral charachter and misrepresentations is actually what’s morally reprehensible.

But a lot of great TRF members on here, not an ounce of jealousy or misrepresentation and I am thankful for those members. The ones obsessively still posting are the ones I am talking about and there obesession only validates my claims about them. HATERS

Originally Posted by Socal81

The people still posting about this hours after the AD agreed with me and took care of me, some writing NOVELS about my “moral compass”. Psychotic haters still on a list enraged they have not been picked.

Try following positive energy, stop misrepresenting people and obsessively writing novels on them, maybe positivity will lead to ur name being licked.

Originally Posted by Socal81

The novel my SoeakwithMichael, that guy is psychooooo. Lol

"The ones obsessively still posting"

[Frank McKay]

Originally Posted by Socal81

People are acknowledging and writing novels about me because it proves my earliest point, HATERS. That’s why they post hours later after the AD agreed with me. And that’s why you are posting too, it pisses you off it went my way and I followed the agreement inclusive of a return policy. HI HATERS

You’re a POSER dude. Stop writing if you’re not going to post a pic of your new black DaytonaC + Diamond jewelry in the same image.

[pepsiretail]

Originally Posted by Socal81

People are acknowledging and writing novels about me because it proves my earliest point, HATERS. That’s why they post hours later after the AD agreed with me. And that’s why you are posting too, it pisses you off it went my way and I followed the agreement inclusive of a return policy. HI HATERS

Yes, you are like Huckleberry Finn where "The natural goodness of Huck is continually contrasted with the effects of a corrupt society." Britannica