Have you had problems with Steve Mullholland?

[phillycheez]

OP should not be allowed a full refund. If it was the first 3 days to a week, hell yes! But he waited too long. Plain and simple. This is a vintage. Vintage buyers do their homework if you really care. Watch your own ass when buying a vintage. Know everything there is to know about that one watch...

Especially if you are anal to it being all "original"!

You want all "original" you should know what all original looks like yourself.

C'mon man, seriously? A month? You are as much to blame as he is and this is coming from someone who doesn't even like him.

But now that a month has gone by, I think Steve has given the OP a great return policy. Exchange it!

Whether Steve knew or not is NOW irrelevant. OP waited too damn long.

I will say I would never buy from him. This isn't the first time I heard of this happening.

[aboen]

Originally Posted by tseliot

Even though I didn't understand Mr. Mulholland's post.

X 4

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by phillycheez

Especially if you are anal to it being all "original"!

You want all "original" you should know what all original looks like yourself.

.

X 2.....

[closetothebrink]

Originally Posted by tseliot

Even though I didn't understand Mr. Mulholland's post.

X 5.... I'm glad it's not just me!!

[inspires]

Originally Posted by closetothebrink

X 5.... I'm glad it's not just me!!

X6 no idea whatsoever!

[michel33]

Originally Posted by inspires

X6 no idea whatsoever!

Maybe his peculiar turn of phrase won't help to sort this out......

[oceandweller]

Originally Posted by michel33

Maybe his peculiar turn of phrase won't help to sort this out......

All issues could be resolved if both, seller and buyer put their pride, aside. This is a common occurrence, one claiming the other party to be ignorant. After all, we are not God and as humans, we are far from being perfect.

This is some lesson to be learned from this thread and it is hoped, common sense prevails, in the spirit of vintage-watch collecting - creating friends and not foes.

After all, it is not going to be the end of the world for both, the buyer and the seller.

[Rikki]

I think spell check is in order. LOL

[springer]

Posted by Welshwatchman (Paul) :

I would be very interested to see a post from those so qualified stating that the dial is likely (or even reasonably possibly) original to the watch, just for the record.

I've noticed a considerable absence here from most of the other vintage guys too, which I'm sure most would agree with me that the questioned matte dial would not be considered factory correct for an 86XXXXX serial numbered Submariner. While it is plausible, it is not very probable or reasonably possible at all.

[larryccf]

you have a PM

[Andad]

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

I had a very long diatribe mostly written out and read and re-read it again and again..adding all the while.
but the more I lament on the audacity of the querant ,or rather the crass and superciliousness intwined by his debauchery of the brotherhood spirit that has permeated our small super-continental club ala Rolex.
Our trading practice is almost exclusively built upon a fine layer of blind trust.,.
in my truest sense I am more amazed that a seemingly decent gent weould first ask me to break the laws of his beloved country by deceiving her of the amount of currency spent on the watch(therefor allowing him to scurt by tax free virtually)then to not ask,but TELL ME what my course of actiopn will be..
he would probably want hios shipping fee back.
after he has worn the watch for a year plus..no telling what type of devious changes where yundertaken..a man whop will cohearse a seller to lie to their tax collector (or else they will unfprtunately have to go with another seller)seemingly wouldnt be too far from other animus nocendi..these things are surely uncomfortable to discuss yes..but is he not the originator of a tactic commonly used to antagonize and basically to bribe into giving in to any demand whether good or bad..
a customer of this type is no longer appealing to me,especially given the fact that I am no longer in a state of financial in limine..
so,this undoubtedly will not sit well with the antagonist and his gang of electron soldiers..
but [I] am quite comfortable in my stance against bullies and preponderate business tactics..

I apologise to the OP.
I posted earlier that Steve would be along soon to sort this out.

Steve, if this is the best you can do then you have lost my support.

Lift your game and stop talking rubbish.

[MP5]

Originally Posted by directioneng

I apologise to the OP.
I posted earlier that Steve would be along soon to sort this out.

Steve, if this is the best you can do then you have lost my support.

Lift your game and stop talking rubbish.

wish that was handled different

[newsboy]

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

I had a very long diatribe mostly written out and read and re-read it again and again..adding all the while.
but the more I lament on the audacity of the querant ,or rather the crass and superciliousness intwined by his debauchery of the brotherhood spirit that has permeated our small super-continental club ala Rolex.
Our trading practice is almost exclusively built upon a fine layer of blind trust.,.
in my truest sense I am more amazed that a seemingly decent gent weould first ask me to break the laws of his beloved country by deceiving her of the amount of currency spent on the watch(therefor allowing him to scurt by tax free virtually)
then to not ask,but TELL ME what my course of actiopn will be..
he would probably want hios shipping fee back.
after he has worn the watch for a year plus..no telling what type of devious changes where yundertaken..a man whop will cohearse a seller to lie to their tax collector (or else they will unfprtunately have to go with another seller)seemingly wouldnt be too far from other animus nocendi..these things are surely uncomfortable to discuss yes..but is he not the originator of a tactic commonly used to antagonize and basically to bribe into giving in to any demand whether good or bad..
a customer of this type is no longer appealing to me,especially given the fact that I am no longer in a state of financial in limine..
so,this undoubtedly will not sit well with the antagonist and his gang of electron soldiers..
but [I] am quite comfortable in my stance against bullies and preponderate business tactics..

?????????????????????????????????????????????? WTF

[rajurama]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

I will say this again......



It was your fault for not checking the serial number range till a month has passed.


Sorry your bad..

Just face it...

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

Ok fine wrong dial...


Should have researched it before the purchase or at the very least DURING THE3 DAY NO HASSLE RETURN PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Passed Three Days. It's your watch wrong dial or not!!!

People like you are the reason why I would never enter a Pawn shop you totally killed it. Hopefully your shop has a big sign 'Buyer BEWARE'. PS grow up!

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

I had a very long diatribe mostly written out and read and re-read it again and again..adding all the while.
but the more I lament on the audacity of the querant ,or rather the crass and superciliousness intwined by his debauchery of the brotherhood spirit that has permeated our small super-continental club ala Rolex.
Our trading practice is almost exclusively built upon a fine layer of blind trust.,.
in my truest sense I am more amazed that a seemingly decent gent weould first ask me to break the laws of his beloved country by deceiving her of the amount of currency spent on the watch(therefor allowing him to scurt by tax free virtually)
then to not ask,but TELL ME what my course of actiopn will be..
he would probably want hios shipping fee back.
after he has worn the watch for a year plus..no telling what type of devious changes where yundertaken..a man whop will cohearse a seller to lie to their tax collector (or else they will unfprtunately have to go with another seller)seemingly wouldnt be too far from other animus nocendi..these things are surely uncomfortable to discuss yes..but is he not the originator of a tactic commonly used to antagonize and basically to bribe into giving in to any demand whether good or bad..
a customer of this type is no longer appealing to me,especially given the fact that I am no longer in a state of financial in limine..
so,this undoubtedly will not sit well with the antagonist and his gang of electron soldiers..
but [I] am quite comfortable in my stance against bullies and preponderate business tactics..

dare anyone calls you a 'Trusted' seller or even a gentleman from this reply. no appologies or a refund could win your business back on this forum atleast. Everytime I re read your reply it sends a chill to my spine, you have issues and it needs sorted asap.

[dalip]

Originally Posted by stevemulholland3

I had a very long diatribe mostly written out and read and re-read it again and again..adding all the while.
but the more I lament on the audacity of the querant ,or rather the crass and superciliousness intwined by his debauchery of the brotherhood spirit that has permeated our small super-continental club ala Rolex.
Our trading practice is almost exclusively built upon a fine layer of blind trust.,.
in my truest sense I am more amazed that a seemingly decent gent weould first ask me to break the laws of his beloved country by deceiving her of the amount of currency spent on the watch(therefor allowing him to scurt by tax free virtually)
then to not ask,but TELL ME what my course of actiopn will be..
he would probably want hios shipping fee back.
after he has worn the watch for a year plus..no telling what type of devious changes where yundertaken..a man whop will cohearse a seller to lie to their tax collector (or else they will unfprtunately have to go with another seller)seemingly wouldnt be too far from other animus nocendi..these things are surely uncomfortable to discuss yes..but is he not the originator of a tactic commonly used to antagonize and basically to bribe into giving in to any demand whether good or bad..
a customer of this type is no longer appealing to me,especially given the fact that I am no longer in a state of financial in limine..
so,this undoubtedly will not sit well with the antagonist and his gang of electron soldiers..
but [I] am quite comfortable in my stance against bullies and preponderate business tactics..

Ok. Let's get this straight should we..

You think:

The OP has acted badly and you want nothing to do with him.
That he pushed you into selling to him and deceive customs?
That you are shocked he'd want to do that to his beloved country.
He wore the watch for a year???
You're financially at a low.
You think he's bullying you.

Is that correct ?

[michel33]

Originally Posted by dalip

Ok. Let's get this straight should we..

You think:

The OP has acted badly and you want nothing to do with him.
That he pushed you into selling to him and deceive customs?
That you are shocked he'd want to do that to his beloved country.
He wore the watch for a year???
You're financially at a low.
You think he's bullying you.

Is that correct ?

I'm afraid it is.... (just kidding, laughter is the best medicine)

[SkyKing31]

Perhaps this should be a private matter between the OP and the seller?

[newsboy]

Originally Posted by SkyKing31

Perhaps this should be a private matter between the OP and the seller?

I think the OP has tried that

[TimeToGo]

The OP states he purchased the watch one month ago, as of May 2012, i.e. April'ish 2012.

...of the little that I understand Steve's post, he states the OP has had the watch for over a year. This makes no sense.

Further...Steve is "..no longer in a state of financial in limine.." I guess he can not back up his current transactions.

This is very sad...

[oceandweller]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

The OP states he purchased the watch one month ago, as of May 2012, i.e. April'ish 2012.

...of the little that I understand Steve's post, he states the OP has had the watch for over a year. This makes no sense.

Further...Steve is "..no longer in a state of financial in limine.." I guess he can not back up his current transactions.

This is very sad...

Is there a chance someone can simplify the dealer's explanation, since English is not my first language, unfortunately?

The respondent has to take into considerations he is a reputable dealer and at the same time a very informed lover of vintage-watches. The issue should be settled amicably, asap. Otherwise, it is going to be a stigma against him and this does, nobody any good.

[Tudor66]

Ok, I was going to say something, but I think everything has already been said, sorry for the wasted post...

[gimpex]

Originally Posted by oceandweller

Is there a chance someone can simplify the dealer's explanation, since English is not my first language, unfortunately?
.

I wish we could. As you can see there are a number of us who are still trying to decipher what he actually said.

I have dealt with Steve before so can tell you that's not his normal way of communication.

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by gimpex

I wish we could. As you can see there are a number of us who are still trying to decipher what he actually said.

I have dealt with Steve before so can tell you that's not his normal way of communication.

[Gaijin]

Originally Posted by MP5

wish that was handled different

Which part if you don't mind me asking because I think Eddie's response was spot on correct and appropriate.

[Gaijin]

Originally Posted by gimpex

I wish we could. As you can see there are a number of us who are still trying to decipher what he actually said.

I have dealt with Steve before so can tell you that's not his normal way of communication.

If that is true than that concerns me. Steve you have been around here forever and have always been one of the good guys. I sincerly hope that you are ok. God speed Bro.

[Michael M.]

Originally Posted by springer

Posted by Welshwatchman (Paul) :

I would be very interested to see a post from those so qualified stating that the dial is likely (or even reasonably possibly) original to the watch, just for the record.

I've noticed a considerable absence here from most of the other vintage guys too, which I'm sure most would agree with me that the questioned matte dial would not be considered factory correct for an 86XXXXX serial numbered Submariner. While it is plausible, it is not very probable or reasonably possible at all.

X2!! A authentic dial, but not original to the piece.

[964RS]

In business you live by your reputation and die by your reputation.

It can take years to build a good one.

Hours to destroy one.

It's how you handle your f*** ups that determine whether you keep or lose that reputation.

Not many of the vintage guys here have commented? Probably because they were waiting at least to here Steve's side. Probably still won't now...

Just be thankful that not all of us have the morals, ego or a small box of Rolexes in our community pawnshop and actually come on here for the passion of Rolex collecting.

There will always be disagreements on how a dispute should be handled by people not party to the transaction but sometimes it's so obvious what is acceptable and what is not that you start to doubt yourself.

Lesson here - Buyer & Seller beware, no matter who you are dealing with, when it comes to large amounts of your hard earned.

But especially if you are dealing with a community poorshop, sorry pawnshop. :)

[djkennedy67]

Thank you as ever for all your considered opinions.

I'm not sure what to make of the situation. I have sent Steve several emails and have had no reply. I don't quite understand his posting.

I don't know where the wearing the watch for a year came from as I had it for about 3 weeks in my safe before my friend pointed out the dial anomaly. I wear my other watches daily and only wore it once for about 2 hours before emailing Steve.

The advert states Maxi dial 5513. All Maxi dialled 5513 are matt 5513s. I am not bothered if it was the original matt dial, but if it was originally a gloss dialled 5513 it is worth considerably less than advertised. Matt 5513 $6-7k, gloss dial 5513 $4-5k. Steve has asserted that this is the original dial, but every email I have received confirms my suspicion that it is a gloss dialled watch with a replacement matt dial. The advert also states 'Full Set'. I received a box, typed open papers and a couple of water damaged oyster booklets. No submariner booklet or any accessories.

The watch looks great. I only wish to return it as it is not a Maxi matt 5513, it is a gloss 5513 with a Maxi dial from 10 years before fitted.

I have offered to take an exchange or refund, but my confidence in the seller is being slowly eroded.

I do however value all the input from various view points of view.

As some have said I bought from a trusted seller to avoid this sort of hassle. If this is considered normal from dealers then we may all as well buy cheaper watches from private sellers, as the risk seems equal.

All I ever wanted was an amicable solution to what I think may be a mistake of description.

Regards

David

[HL65]

Very disappointing repsonse. At the end of the day it is very important to know what you are buying before you do. Clearly this dial does not belong to this watch with this serial number--sorry no chance IMHO. If you would have done homework in advance you would have kown that. This kind of stuff happens all the time and unfortunately people put watches together and don't disclose it. Feel badly for you OP and understand where you are coming from and would have hoped for a different repsonse from seller versus a cryptic repsonse that doesn't address issue. Clearly in a business that depends upon reputation this won't help. Let the lesson be learned to all--Buyer beware and know what you are buying. Enjoy your watch now for what it is and just know you paid too much for it but still can enjoy it.

[chiko323]

Wow. I just read through the whole thread and I am shocked. There have been two occasions as a seller where I have been asked to take a return and both times the answer has been yes. I thought that's just the right way to do things. There were also two occasions where I sent a watch back to the seller for a full refund and both times the sellers were very cooperative. To see this and especially the response in this thread is shocking to me and unless Steve fixes this I'm afraid he has certainly lost me and many other potential customers here.