Quote:
Originally Posted by highbob
Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.
I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!
I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.
BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
There were a few idiots posting on Youtube last year saying Rolex had changed the policy. It was an internet rumour, and most if not all of them retracted. One or two people have maybe had an issue with RSC New York, which seems to have sometimes gone rogue in the warranty department, but there are many many people here, myself included on multiple occasions, who have had warranty work done as secondary owners, all over the world, both with Rolex and Tudor.