Jump to content
  • Sign Up to reply and join the friendliest Watch Forum on the web. Stick around, get to 50 posts and gain access to your full profile and additional features such as a personal messaging system, chat room and the sales forum PLUS the chance to enter our regular giveaways.

The Worm-Tongue Watch Company S.A.


Recommended Posts

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I took my Rolex 27000 Oysterquartz in for a battery change recently.

I was interested by the disclaimer you are required to sign before Rolex will accept your watch  --  in particular by two clauses . . . . . . . . .

--  Apparently, if the watch is "worth less" after the service (for which you have paid) than it was before, it's not their fault. It's clearly your own fault for buying the damned thing in the first place :nono:

--  Despite the fact that they will not service counterfeit pieces, the fact of their having serviced your watch is no guarantee of it not being a fake :bash:

 

It's nice to see the world's "premier" watch company passing off any responsibility for mistakes they might make to the customer, and admitting that they may well not be competent enough to recognize a fake even when they have it apart.

 

I see even less reason now than I did before to add further products from this company to my collection.

 

sigrequired.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, yokel said:

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I took my Rolex 27000 Oysterquartz in for a battery change recently.

I was interested by the disclaimer you are required to sign before Rolex will accept your watch  --  in particular by two clauses . . . . . . . . .

--  Apparently, if the watch is "worth less" after the service (for which you have paid) than it was before, it's not their fault. It's clearly your own fault for buying the damned thing in the first place :nono:

--  Despite the fact that they will not service counterfeit pieces, the fact of their having serviced your watch is no guarantee of it not being a fake :bash:

 

It's nice to see the world's "premier" watch company passing off any responsibility for mistakes they might make to the customer, and admitting that they may well not be competent enough to recognize a fake even when they have it apart.

 

I see even less reason now than I did before to add further products from this company to my collection.

 

sigrequired.jpg

I agree with you, but they seem to be the benchmark, and other manufacturers are following. I had an issue with a one day old deployant clasp on one of the Swatch Groups finest, same sort of nonsense, Heads we win, tails you lose. Surprisingly one of the best examples of aftersales I've experienced (once I got past a totally useless AD) was with Tudor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WRENCH said:

I agree with you, but they seem to be the benchmark, and other manufacturers are following. I had an issue with a one day old deployant clasp on one of the Swatch Groups finest, same sort of nonsense, Heads we win, tails you lose. Surprisingly one of the best examples of aftersales I've experienced (once I got past a totally useless AD) was with Tudor.

Over the last four years I have had good customer service experiences (without the CYA carp) with Zenith and Nomos, and excellent with GO, and Moritz Grossmann (the latter named going way beyond the call of duty)  --  so it is possible  :thumbs_up:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, yokel said:

Over the last four years I have had good customer service experiences (without the CYA carp) with Zenith and Nomos, and excellent with GO, and Moritz Grossmann (the latter named going way beyond the call of duty)  --  so it is possible  :thumbs_up:

You don't surprise me in the least with the latter three. :thumbsup:

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the "worth less after service" clause, that's not really Rolex's fault, that's just the sheer stupidity of the collectors market where patina and originality can be more desirable than functionality. The "we might not notice if it's a fake" though, that's just ridiculous.

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't fault Rolex. I took my gmt2 in to their knightsbridge centre with a jammed crown. I was given coffee and asked to wait in reception. The watch was returned all sorted out about an hour later. When I asked whether I should leave it for a full service they said no as it was only 3 years old. Their servicing seems very reasonable to me. Franck Muller want nearly 3 times the price to service my conquistadors. Thumbs up for Rolex all round. Resale value also is better than any other watch I have ever had.

The only downside to Rolex is if you get one with a cyclops then you may as will wear a sign saying "mug me"

Just now, chas g said:

I can't fault Rolex. I took my gmt2 in to their knightsbridge centre with a jammed crown. I was given coffee and asked to wait in reception. The watch was returned all sorted out about an hour later. When I asked whether I should leave it for a full service they said no as it was only 3 years old. Their servicing seems very reasonable to me. Franck Muller want nearly 3 times the price to service my conquistadors. Thumbs up for Rolex all round. Resale value also is better than any other watch I have ever had.

The only downside to Rolex is if you get one with a cyclops then you may as will wear a sign saying "mug me"

Ps there was no charge to sort the crown out

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chas g said:

I can't fault Rolex.

I wasn't moaning about Rolex physical service  --  apart from "your crystal was cracked" (when neither the AD nor I had noticed), they seem to do what they say.

It's all the legalistic garbage (see above) which I find untoward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, yokel said:

I wasn't moaning about Rolex physical service  --  apart from "your crystal was cracked" (when neither the AD nor I had noticed), they seem to do what they say.

It's all the legalistic garbage (see above) which I find untoward.

You get all that old bollocks even if you are ordering a coffee and a sticky bun these days.

Look forward to the pleasure of getting a fully watch back that looks like new again.

Just now, chas g said:

You get all that old bollocks even if you are ordering a coffee and a sticky bun these days.

Look forward to the pleasure of getting a watch back that looks like new again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yokel said:

--  Despite the fact that they will not service counterfeit pieces, the fact of their having serviced your watch is no guarantee of it not being a fake :bash:

My reading of that clause is that they're saying that the fact that they previously serviced the watch can't be used as a guarantee that the watch is genuine at a later time if, for example, you should you choose to sell it.  That seems fair enough to me as, after it's left their hands, they have no knowledge of what may have happened to it.  It's like a garage not being able to guarantee that your car is roadworthy just because they MOT'd it six months ago. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rhaythorne said:

My reading of that clause is that they're saying that the fact that they previously serviced the watch can't be used as a guarantee that the watch is genuine at a later time if, for example, you should you choose to sell it.  That seems fair enough to me as, after it's left their hands, they have no knowledge of what may have happened to it.  It's like a garage not being able to guarantee that your car is roadworthy just because they MOT'd it six months ago. 

"Not an acceptance that the goods are or were genuine"  --  methinks you are being too generous. 

All in all, the company seems very small minded to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yokel said:

"Not an acceptance that the goods are or were genuine"  --  methinks you are being too generous. 

All in all, the company seems very small minded to me.

Like almost every other company these days just covering their @rse. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BondandBigM said:

Like almost every other company these days just covering their @rse. 

 

 

Yes, CYA it is. But not all companies operate in such a blatant, "in your face" way.

I've never had to sign something like this for any other watch service  --  including AP.

I don't sign anything like this before BMW will service my cars.

In fact, this document looks like something clumsy English middle management might have concocted. I feel that the Swiss would have been subtler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, yokel said:

--  Apparently, if the watch is "worth less" after the service (for which you have paid) than it was before, it's not their fault. It's clearly your own fault for buying the damned thing in the first place

A reference to devaluing a collectible watch by fitting non original replacement parts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, aesmith said:

A reference to devaluing a collectible watch by fitting non original replacement parts?

And Rolex UK are going to do that? (This is Rolex UK's own form).

Edited by yokel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, yokel said:

And Rolex UK are going to do that? (This is Rolex UK's own form).

Non original as in not what came out the factory in 1967 or whatever, not non original as in non Rolex parts. ... And as above, that's not Rolex's fault, that's just the idiots who would pay silly money for an "untouched" watch over one that's been looked after. Just covering their backs against the long term owner who gets their watch serviced, then discovers later that they would have got more for it knackered.

Edited by Perlative Cernometer
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yokel said:

I feel that the Swiss would have been subtler.

Like made you leave it in a numbered safety deposit box, and then had someone slip a key under your door in the dead of night to collect it from another, different numbered box so they had plausible deniability as to whether they had ever seen your watch or indeed whether your watch was the same one you got back?

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@yokel

i’m not a Rolex owner and never have been, but they are not alone in this kind of shenanigans. My Cartier (coming up for 5 years) is definitely in need of a new strap. No doubt they would gladly fit it were I to send my watch to Cartier for a service. As it is a fairly standard movement I intend, when I judge the time right, to send it to a local BHI watchmaker. I have indicated to them that I am perfectly capable of fitting a strap for myself, but they would still prefer that I send my watch away for between six and eight weeks to get a strap fitted. You would not believe the hoops they are trying to make me jump through just to get a bloody strap. Some of these companies are well and truly inserted into their own fundament. 

Edited by AVO
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have a problem with their conditions. A, B, C and F seem quite straight forward

D = Rolex watches can have a higher value when unmolested, so if a service changes the hands or dial for example it might be worth less after the service, I think that's where they are coming from on this one.

E = is just a catchall just in case someone evaluating the watch misses something, unlikely to happen I know but lawyers tend to consider every possibility no matter how unlikely. Another possibility is that a watch is altered with non-original parts after a Rolex service and sold as original with service records.

My personal experience of Rolex UK has been first rate to date - except having to take a gulp at service prices :laugh:

My Sea Dweller, RG's Lady Yachtmaster and a Tudor are due to go in so I hope the good service continues

  

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JoT said:

I don't really have a problem with their conditions. A, B, C and F seem quite straight forward

D = Rolex watches can have a higher value when unmolested, so if a service changes the hands or dial for example it might be worth less after the service, I think that's where they are coming from on this one.

E = is just a catchall just in case someone evaluating the watch misses something, unlikely to happen I know but lawyers tend to consider every possibility no matter how unlikely. Another possibility is that a watch is altered with non-original parts after a Rolex service and sold as original with service records.

My personal experience of Rolex UK has been first rate to date - except having to take a gulp at service prices :laugh:

My Sea Dweller, RG's Lady Yachtmaster and a Tudor are due to go in so I hope the good service continues

  

D seems to me to be completely superfluous. If an owner puts a watch in for service, he/she is taking the decision  --  caveat emptor. What disturbs me is the implication that shoddy workmanship could be excused with this clause.

And, as for E, your point could be good if it were explained that way. But it specifically includes the words "are or were genuine"  --  the clear implication is that Rolex UK might service a fake. Of course, if Rolex offered a paid authentication service, I would understand why they would not want a service receipt to erode their profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clause E talks about "estimates" of work and/or "Services" (I'm noting the plural here) which seem to be defined in another part of the agreement. If the customer can be specific about these "Services", rather than this covering full servicing of the watch, then I can see the reason for the clause. 

For example, one of the "Services" offered may be external, for example, replace a bezel or polish a watch clasp. I've no idea how specific a customer can be because I've not seen the rest of the agreement. But in those circumstances Rolex would have no reason to open the watch, and so may be unaware if parts of the movement had been replaced and that it is no longer genuine. Hence Clause E offering then indemnity.

That seems more likely than Rolex taking fakes in for servicing... ?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...