Rolex boutique refuses sale because of social media posts

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by JRell

The algorithms are so good, even if it is not the exact same name, Google associates the user name with real name, through posts, links, etc. Regardless, if this review was true, they found the person.

It took me 10 pages of google to find anything about me, the rest was about some film director with my name, an author or a guy who passed away in 1945.

I even tried ‘Oxfordian’ but that had even less success.

I guess that it depends on your name, John Smith is likely to be a bit of a search

[1William]

OK, True or not it brings to the front how easy it is to get information. If you are a buyer/seller/trader/flipper then adjust your game to match the current technology or stand tall and roll on. I am all of the above and am clear with my AD who I am and what I do. I also get no Rolex watches from them as I do not ask. But I am a great customer for other brands they carry except PP. I have found that if I want a watch enough then I will pay market prices for it and move on. I also continued in my belief that for many it is about the money and not the watches. That is where the conflict comes in. Buy at msrp from an AD and be in an equity situation should you want to move the watch. Good deal if you can do it but most, if not all, can not. I still like the watch game even though the game has changed in my 30 years playing. Adapt, improvise, overcome. Learn the new rules and play, or not. It is all up to each of us.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SkyDwelling

Attachment 1238936

Discrimination?

IMHO, more like self-incrimination…it doesn’t really matter whether it was social media, reputation checker, or other methods…the AD declined that person’s offer to buy.

One more for the Gipper…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[ZOOK]

Originally Posted by Jack T

This doesn’t sound true. The AD had 10 months to vet the buyer, why wait until he shows up to pick up the watch? I don’t believe it.

Originally Posted by bp1000

Doesn't seem right.

Why vet the buyer when they turn up. Vet them before you make the phone call..... IF, vetting is even a thing.

Having said that, social media is absolutely pointless and is just ammunition for some sort of future character assassination.

Originally Posted by vh2k

Agree 100%. Prospect should have been vetted long before he got the call. Lazy and unprofessional on the SA's part.

Has anyone been asked for ID to get on a list? Maybe the name the flipper gave when getting on the list wasn't the name on the credit card he presented to buy the watch.

[asiparks]

a) neither believe, nor honestly care about some one whining about "being discriminated against" buying a luxury watch, seriously NFTG
b) being "vetted" to buy a luxury bauble. Also eff that.

All this "AD says" and "AD keeps" and "AD blah blah", but the resellers don't seem short of watches to sell.

[Cigars&Watches]

I hope this story is true and has some sort of affect on flipping

[SkyDwelling]

Originally Posted by Oxfordian

the rest was about some film director with my name, an author or a guy who passed away in 1945.

Could be you. Dead people don't know they are ghosts until someone tells them. Haven't you seen the Sixth Sense?

[Watchcollector123]

I doubt the story as well as tall claims made by some.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Cigars&Watches

I hope this story is true and has some sort of affect on flipping

Agreed as ADs need to be very careful. I doubt flippers will slow down and thus continue clogging up the system for those who truly love and wear timepieces.

We've already seen the problems with hustlers here... like TPG. The last thing we need is more like that. In fact I wrote off RM timepieces because of TPG. Sad but true, yet am very happy about MB&F

BTW, since their name was mentioned..... Mayors is my go-to and have enjoyed many years of excellent service. So have many other TRF members.

[IR201]

Hmm. I remember a thread recently on this forum wondering whether vague or perceived-to-be arbitrary AD practices could lead to accusations from frustrated customers. The OP got laughed at.

[SkyDwelling]

Originally Posted by Cigars&Watches

I hope this story is true and has some sort of affect on flipping

Ditto! I can't believe there was actually a time where I walked in any major city and looked at SS models in displays, everything in stock except maybe the Daytona. Feels like a previous life in a different universe.

[xekret]

Someone ratted you out or just fell out of favor at the AD. It sucks that sometimes you feel like you are walking on egg shells with them but it is what it is. At the end of the day, its just a watch.

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by Cigars&Watches

I hope this story is true and has some sort of affect on flipping

Regrettably flipping is here to stay, no matter what any AD does they cannot stop you or I buying a watch then selling it immediately.

I don’t like it, I have no wish to do it but unfortunately others are happy to buy and sell a brand new watch for a sizeable profit.

In reality as long as we are prepared to pay the obscene prices for watches found in the grey market the flippers will continue to prosper.

The grey market would disappear overnight if Rolex trebled its production or we stopped buying from it, I doubt that either is going to happen anytime soon.

[SkyDwelling]

Originally Posted by xekret

Someone ratted you out or just fell out of favor at the AD. It sucks that sometimes you feel like you are walking on egg shells with them but it is what it is. At the end of the day, its just a watch.

Not me. As I said in the OP I found it on google reviews. Don't sell watches and got rid of social media back in 2012 because people kept getting upset when I didn't "like" their posts

[HiBoost]

This is completely ridiculous if true. With that said, anybody whose social media can be traced to their real world identity and is also accessible to the world has already lost. Of course we're dealing with a generation that thinks it's safe to post nude selfies on snapchat because the app (sometimes) tells the other party if a screenshot was taken. Quite the world we've built here...

[Brew]

That cry-baby needs to google “discrimination.”

[samuel019]

Originally Posted by 1William

OK, True or not it brings to the front how easy it is to get information. If you are a buyer/seller/trader/flipper then adjust your game to match the current technology or stand tall and roll on. I am all of the above and am clear with my AD who I am and what I do. I also get no Rolex watches from them as I do not ask. But I am a great customer for other brands they carry except PP. I have found that if I want a watch enough then I will pay market prices for it and move on. I also continued in my belief that for many it is about the money and not the watches. That is where the conflict comes in. Buy at msrp from an AD and be in an equity situation should you want to move the watch. Good deal if you can do it but most, if not all, can not. I still like the watch game even though the game has changed in my 30 years playing. Adapt, improvise, overcome. Learn the new rules and play, or not. It is all up to each of us.

Well said brother. Based upon your join time we’ve seen quite a few different times in our hobby. Just is what it is.

Do I like paying premiums? Hell no But when I buy something the “what am I gonna make or lose” isn’t number 1 on my list. I mean it’s on the list but not at the top when I decide to buy a new piece.

Number 1 is “Oh man I can’t wait to get this bad boy on my wrist”

I still love all that a Rolex is. Just wish it could go back to the way it used to be as far as walking into an A D.

[Xerxes77]

Originally Posted by SkyDwelling

Saw this google review this morning, and having never heard of anything like it I thought I'd share it and hear your opinions

Attachment 1238936

Jose must not keep his private life public…..
This is the moral of the story

[aczaja10]

Originally Posted by AK797

The tracking device that is Social Media is going to have everyone cancelled sooner or later, even Orwell never foresaw this.

Well said.

[Tools]

Sure...

Retail outlets don't really want to sell to anybody, all they want to do is spend their time googling them.

[LA_LEC]

Originally Posted by Jack T

This doesn’t sound true. The AD had 10 months to vet the buyer, why wait until he shows up to pick up the watch? I don’t believe it.

I am not buying it either.

[Cryten]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people put their entire lives on the internet, everything, even photos of their lunch, and then moan about a lack of privacy and strangers finding out things about them.

[Etschell]

i have heard of this happening. the store is within its right.

is a flipper deserving of being black balled? idk. do i care? not at all.

some people are less flippers and more into switching watches up. some do not have endless money to keep acquiring swiss watches that cost 10s of thousands. even if there is a monetary benefit that is not always the reason someone sells a watch. now a days nearly any rolex sold after an initial new rolex retail purchase from an AD equals a monetary gain or break even.

[dannyp]

Another thought: perhaps the buyer, being cocky, has already listed the new watch for sale using stock images. That would likely ruffle more feathers, no?

[ChipotleBanana]

Originally Posted by Oxfordian

Why were they looking through your social media, who gave the AD access to your social media?

How did the AD know that you were on social media?

How did the AD know who you were on social media?

My answer to all these questions is; you.

If my AD wants to take my phone and scroll through my social media accounts then they will be politely told to get lost. The AD has no right what so ever to verify, check, or browse your social media unless you give them permission.

In what world do you live where looking someone up on social media is not allowed? If you willingly give someone your information they can do as they please. Permission does not exist for publicly accessible accounts.

[TswaneNguni]

Botox filled pouting lips ...and you are out !!

[Oxfordian]

Originally Posted by ChipotleBanana

In what world do you live where looking someone up on social media is not allowed? If you willingly give someone your information they can do as they please. Permission does not exist for publicly accessible accounts.

What world do I live in????

The real one.

As not everyone is using their real name on social media, the same way that people don’t use their real names on this forum, the AD would have to be told your social media user name before they could access it.

So yes, if I use my real name on all my accounts then it’s easy to check, if not then I have to tell people what they are.

Therefore for my AD to scroll through my social media I would have to tell them who I was.

In the original post the article centred on the AD refusing the watch because of perceived evidence on social media, my point is that the AD must have either been given the user names or more likely the phone open to scan the accounts otherwise how would the AD know?

[MasonDixon]

Sounds like a flipper is mad for getting busted by an AD. Boo hoo.

[7enderbender]

As if we needed more evidence that nobody should be on “social” media. I’ve deleted every of those accounts, even stuff that was never public.
This dude was denied a totally unimportant watch. Now imagine what employers and government agencies can do to you.
Things have gotten outright dangerous. Anonymous forums for some benign hobbies is as far as anyone should take it.

[~Haze~]

Originally Posted by JRell

You can just Google the customers name. If their posts are not private, it is there for the world to see.

Most social media apps/services work with phone numbers. So if I search your cell phone number (if it is discoverable) in IG, SC, FB (I believe. I don’t use), LinkedIn and… we’ll all of them really, your account(s) show up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk