Originally Posted by genomicstime
Hello everyone,
There is a fair bit of assumption going on here and I wanted to wait until the case resolved to make any statements re: my side of this experience. The idea that I am scamming anybody is simply untrue, irrespective of whether you agree with my side below or not.
First I will say directly to Jared ( ponycar350 ): your Facebook suggestions of paying me a “visit” at my home, as well as the provision of my personal information to your associates down here, are noted, recorded and reported. It is incredibly challenging to feel any sympathy or empathy knowing that you reacted this way to a business dispute through a system that you consented to using. Threats to me and my family at any level are unacceptable and not taken lightly.
It’s great that so many people have had positive experiences buying from Jared, but this wasn’t my experience – at best, I would describe it as uneasy. While I cannot deny that Jared was responsive and courteous, I generally found him to be evasive on key items and several explanations simply didn’t add up re: the watch I purchased. These include the origin/known history of the watch, whether it had been authenticated objectively, and whether the warranty was knowingly voided by any of Jared’s actions.
The general background: I purchased a Rolex 116200 from Jared advertised as in “excellent” condition. Despite his claim that the watch is under warranty, when I requested that Jared place that statement on his invoice at the time of sale through Paypal (seconds after original invoice was issued) I was told that he was busy and did not wish to make that adjustment. There was also the issue of the circumstances under which the watch came into Jared’s possession but I was, after all, new to this arena and I understand that salespeople don’t always practice full transparency to protect their business interests. The warranty item was a clear red flag but, given his tremendous feedback, I went forward with the purchase and assumed the warranty was void. If the watch was relatively new (random serial, warranty card dated 2018) and in excellent condition, servicing during the remaining warranty period might not be needed anyway. Once received I had it professionally looked at under a loupe and timegrapher (+6s/day), but I did not know to request any further testing. In my care, this watch has mostly lived in a safe with the exception of a few trips to the office where it was taken off and placed aside during work – I am aware of the concept of desk diving marks and was determined to avoid this. As far as external appearance, the watch is nearly identical to the day I received it. Simply put, there were no strenuous/forcible/damaging experiences placed on the watch in the entirety of my care. Full stop.
Although initially satisfied, closer inspection revealed that the bracelet had been poorly refinished (polished faces drifting into satin ones) and the case had clearly undergone polishing (a confirmation that was avoided during our discussions). Given that I was several months into ownership and, again, did not initially recognize this as a novice, I knew there would be limited/no reasonable recourse and accepted it somewhat unhappily. As has been noted, I wrote about some of this displeasure on TRF and regret those comments because they are, in essence, meaningless. The fact that I didn’t initiate any direct contact or claim is the only evidence I can offer that, on these issues alone, I wasn’t planning to do anything except address this whenever the watch would be serviced next.
Soon after, I noticed an increasing degradation of timekeeping accuracy. This planted a new concern: what else might be wrong with this watch and, at worst, what if this Rolex was fake? What did I know beyond a reasonable doubt? After wrestling with this, I wanted to put my mind to rest with an additional professional evaluation while still within the Paypal G&S buyer protection window. I fully acknowledge that the optics of this situation transpiring near the end of the 180-day G&S period do not reflect positively. That being said, none of this or my subsequent actions indicate fraud or invalidate the review within the allotted G&S timeframe.
I took the watch to another shop, which charged a fee for any assessment, and was advised that it failed the waterproofing/pressure test (dry) and was running well out of COSC spec (+12s/day). Any further information would require a full servicing, which I would only consider at an RSC (remember the likely voided warranty). Given the age of the watch (2018) and the care I had shown, I concluded that the watch had originally been delivered to me significantly different from the advertised “excellent” condition.
Timkeeping issues may require a simple regulating and I recognize that. The waterproofing issue is another matter and how this happened was unclear. I questioned whether the watch was defective or had been previously been opened, worked on or franken’d, or damaged before my ownership. I also questioned what impacts any of the above might have on the warranty and concluded that I would not be able to rely on it for any repairs. I have never exposed the watch to water, in any circumstance, but wondered: how could I know this was true before my ownership? Most of you are probably more familiar than I with how high these servicing costs can get and, given the level of uncertainty plus known issues, I believed I would face a significant fee to get the watch into the advertised “excellent” condition.
After these latest issues, everything compounded to the level that I felt action was justified. Any resolution was likely to take days or weeks and push me past the G&S protection period. As I was close to the end of this window, and given my experience during the buying process, I felt it was best to first contact Paypal to determine how to proceed. After explaining my situation via call, Paypal escalated my dispute and moved forward with opening a claim. I wrote a full letter detailing my situation and provided this to the resolution center along with supporting evidence. I have also communicated directly with Paypal about potential remedies, which I was told would be discussed with Jared. I was advised to communicate through Paypal only to ensure validity of the process and I’ve adhered to that until now. Based on Jared’s Facebook comments, it seems like that was the right thing to do. I checked with Paypal nearly daily to ask whether there were any questions or clarifications that I could answer/provide and, each time, whether they have communicated my information to Jared. Each time I was assured no additional information was needed from me and Paypal was in the process of reviewing this claim and communicating with the seller to reach a resolution.
I view this as an unfortunate situation on all sides and, for any future purchases, would obviously conduct more thorough checks immediately and provide written confirmation of those findings as soon as available. I regret the circumstance and stresses we have both gone through and vigorously deny any allegation that I am scamming or defrauding anyone.
And, ultimately, my claim was denied. To say that this has been a dissatisfying experience would be an understatement. After the claim closed I reached out to Jared to clear up any confusion in case Paypal hadn’t shared my information as requested, and his responses in tandem with his posts here as well as Facebook are as disappointing as anything in this experience. If my honest actions have suddenly voided his need for decency, then it’s tough to see how this could have ever resolved positively.
I’ve written this to provide my side of the story. I cannot speak to the quality of any of Jared’s other sales but truly believe that this particular purchase was delivered to me significantly not as described and I am simply trying to protect my investment. I believe there are many here who would do the same. Thanks for your attention.
|