RSC damaged my watch rehaut

[ErichKeane]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Nope.
As a Claims Manager who litigated many Diminished Value cases, I can definitely disprove you, at least as it relates to the State of Florida.

The reason for diminished value is not solely for having been in a loss. What generates a diminished value claim is the fact in spite of excellent repairs, repairs can be detected, such as original factory welds, seam seal, cuts in areas not normal for partial replacement, Ill repaired frame rails, poor paint quality, poor filler/primer prep, etc. For years I successfully defended claims where no evidence of having been repaired existed after a quality repair. Also, I successfully argued on a car, diminished value today, is not the same as diminished value a fee years from now, as car depreciates. $5,000 of diminished value may be significantly less than $1,000 in four years, even less if car poorly maintained. Diminished value is no different than increase in home value or portfolio. It doesn’t exist until it’s materialized. That only happens when it’s sold.

In 10 years, when the car is worth $1,000, diminished value will be zero.

We are debating a change in serial number. In fact, in many cases, such as if you tended to have beaten the crap out of your case from use prior to service, a new service case is actually an improvement. After all, not polished which so many on TRF fear.

As I stated earlier, only those on TRF are so hung up on. The average buyer won’t care.

Thats not true in all states, see the summary of various state case laws here: https://1800lionlaw.com/diminished-v...aims-by-state/

The summary itself is completely relevant though:

"Inherent diminished value: This is the most common type and refers to the loss in value simply due to the vehicle’s accident history, even if the repairs restored it to perfect condition. Most buyers prefer cars with no accident history, which reduces resale or trade-in value."

>As I stated earlier, only those on TRF are so hung up on. The average buyer won’t care.

I'd strongly disagree with this. The market very much cares about the condition of box & papers. The "average" buyer is going to see "these papers look weird, are they fake? I don't know enough about this person's story, so I'm going to move onto the next one with normal box/papers". Again, Box and Papers are significant components on the used market, and anything that looks 'abnormal' about the box and papers is going to frighten some buyers off, reducing the value.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by ErichKeane

Thats not true in all states, see the summary of various state case laws here: https://1800lionlaw.com/diminished-v...aims-by-state/

The summary itself is completely relevant though:

"Inherent diminished value: This is the most common type and refers to the loss in value simply due to the vehicle’s accident history, even if the repairs restored it to perfect condition. Most buyers prefer cars with no accident history, which reduces resale or trade-in value."

>As I stated earlier, only those on TRF are so hung up on. The average buyer won’t care.

I'd strongly disagree with this. The market very much cares about the condition of box & papers. The "average" buyer is going to see "these papers look weird, are they fake? I don't know enough about this person's story, so I'm going to move onto the next one with normal box/papers". Again, Box and Papers are significant components on the used market, and anything that looks 'abnormal' about the box and papers is going to frighten some buyers off, reducing the value.

We can disagree until blue in the face, but I guess I didn’t amend my post in time to ask exactly what part of this, that I will not debate further, helps OP out at this time, where his only recourse is to wait for what it is Rolex will do for him?
Does it really matter? How about if Rolex agrees to replace case and put original serial number because of their screw up, which they have done in some cases?
Lets let this go and wish the best for OP and agree to disagree.

[Andad]

The watch was damaged by Rolex during service.

If the only fix is a replacement case the OP should be given the option of a replacement watch.

Under the circumstances the OP should have an original watch and not a mismatch with the potential for issues if they should ever decide to sell it.

If a buyer on TRF asked for opinions on purchasing this watch the answers would include ‘walk away, there are other others available without this issue’.

[ErichKeane]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

We can disagree until blue in the face, but I guess I didn’t amend my post in time to ask exactly what part of this, that I will not debate further, helps OP out at this time, where his only recourse is to wait for what it is Rolex will do for him?
Does it really matter? How about if Rolex agrees to replace case and put original serial number because of their screw up, which they have done in some cases?
Lets let this go and wish the best for OP and agree to disagree.

The part that helps (as I've mentioned a few times now?);

OP: IF you care about the resale value of your watch, it is worth pushing Rolex to do more than simply replace the midcase. An original warranty card matching the watch has value, and if they change the midcase without matching the serial number, you lose that value.

We are all in agreement that Rolex will make the watch 'look' and work correctly, but there is reason for that to be insufficient.

I really can't believe how many people have a problem with suggesting that allowing the RSC to do the bare minimum here still puts OP in a worse position than he was before.

[hl0m4n]

any update op?

[worldofoyster]

i am curious to see what the final result is

[madsitalia]

Originally Posted by Andad

If a buyer on TRF asked for opinions on purchasing this watch the answers would include ‘walk away, there are other others available without this issue’.

Good one. That'll be the truth

[nikhsub1]

In for updates :p

[Justso]

What blows my mind about this is that it not only made it out of the RSC looking like a dog's chew toy but it made it past the AD as well, who should be thoroughly inspecting every piece that comes back from the RSC as a final QA/QC before releasing it back to the owner. The fact they delivered that back to the OP is shameful.

I want to see the resolution to this situation but I agree with others - Rolex should have stepped up and just provided a new watch, box, papers, and an apology letter if it gave a damn about customer service and its reputation.

I hope this situation turns out well for you in the end, OP. Keep us posted.

[Car32]

Originally Posted by Justso

What blows my mind about this is that it not only made it out of the RSC looking like a dog's chew toy but it made it past the AD as well, who should be thoroughly inspecting every piece that comes back from the RSC as a final QA/QC before releasing it back to the owner. The fact they delivered that back to the OP is shameful.

I want to see the resolution to this situation but I agree with others - Rolex should have stepped up and just provided a new watch, box, papers, and an apology letter if it gave a damn about customer service and its reputation.

I hope this situation turns out well for you in the end, OP. Keep us posted.

Not sure you should be so surprised, especially the AD layer. Think most employees just dont care that much. The pride in quality products, craftsmanship and plain good customer service just isn't there anymore like it used to be.

[Justso]

Originally Posted by Car32

Not sure you should be so surprised, especially the AD layer. Think most employees just dont care that much. The pride in quality products, craftsmanship and plain good customer service just isn't there anymore like it used to be.

You're right. I guess I labor under the burden of a long memory. I remember a time, not too long ago, when it would have been unthinkable for a Rolex jeweler to miss such an egregious mistake in quality control on a watch coming back from an overhaul at Rolex.

We live in a different world now.

Thanks for reminding me.

[0nly5iv3Digits]

Originally Posted by Justso

You're right. I guess I labor under the burden of a long memory. I remember a time, not too long ago, when it would have been unthinkable for a Rolex jeweler to miss such an egregious mistake in quality control on a watch coming back from an overhaul at Rolex.

We live in a different world now.

Thanks for reminding me.

Originally Posted by Car32

Not sure you should be so surprised, especially the AD layer. Think most employees just dont care that much. The pride in quality products, craftsmanship and plain good customer service just isn't there anymore like it used to be.

The good old days, boys... the good old days