FYI... PP 2 yr. warranty is non transferable to the second owner.

[Racerdj]

This is so confusing. My experience was with a warranty claim in July 2016 and HWSA could have not been better to deal with. I asked whether a copy of my certificate would be accepted and the answer was yes.

Originally Posted by Racerdj

This is a surprise. I purchased a used 5980 1R and experienced the sticking date issue July 2015. I was the second owner and the watch was sold from an AD in Spain but filled our the certificate completely. I was not on the certificate as the first owner was listed. They fixed it under warranty without question.

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by Racerdj

This is so confusing. My experience was with a warranty claim in July 2016 and HWSA could have not been better to deal with. I asked whether a copy of my certificate would be accepted and the answer was yes.

I think we're going to find there is a simple answer/misunderstanding to be cleared up - the email from 'Pat' at HWSA mentions this policy is to deal with grey dealers. Well clearly a PP purchased from an AD and then sold to a second or third owner hasn't gone anywhere near a grey dealer!
A 'new' grey dealer purchase without a full set of AD completed papers clearly won't have warranty either as a new or a used purchase.

[KarlS]

Do we know whether the watch was from authorized AD? Enjoy the music phoned and they told him it didn't matter-not transferable. anyway I believe Pat should have been phoned by now.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Russell996

I think we're going to find there is a simple answer/misunderstanding to be cleared up - the email from 'Pat' at HWSA mentions this policy is to deal with grey dealers. Well clearly a PP purchased from an AD and then sold to a second or third owner hasn't gone anywhere near a grey dealer!
A 'new' grey dealer purchase without a full set of AD completed papers clearly won't have warranty either as a new or a used purchase.

^ This makes sense.

[Tay821]

Originally Posted by Tony64

^ This makes sense.

Forgive me for being uninformed here but 'grey' dealers' pieces don't have AD stamps? Guess I did not realize that pieces could be moved without a stamp and assumed the 'greys' still got a stamp from an AD.

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by Tay821

Forgive me for being uninformed here but 'grey' dealers' pieces don't have AD stamps? Guess I did not realize that pieces could be moved without a stamp and assumed the 'greys' still got a stamp from an AD.

A grey dealer purchase is unofficial and without warranty, not to be confused with a trusted seller/used dealer where a piece has been purchased by the first owner from an AD with full warranty and he has then flipped the watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/unexpect...and-boutiques/

[waspy1]

Originally Posted by Russell996

A grey dealer purchase is unofficial and without warranty, not to be confused with a trusted seller/used dealer where a piece has been purchased by the first owner from an AD with full warranty and he has then flipped the watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/unexpect...and-boutiques/

I bought my 5711 new from a top 'trusted seller' based in the states, the papers were filled out in my name as the first buyer and stamped by a AD based in the Caribbean (Bahamas?). Not sure if this would be classed a grey deal but this was from one of the top guys. No problem with the deal and full 2 year warrant coverage.

Watch went sick about 12 months out of warranty though... :(


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[texex91]

Originally Posted by KarlS

And here is the answer from Switzerland:

Dear karl

I am very pleased to confirm that I have been in contact with Geneva and they confirm that the warranty is with the watch and not the owner.

����Patek ��

���� Patek ��

���� Patek ��

Please post the name of the person and their role, so if people have issues they can reference them (just like Martin did with Pat's info).

Also seems as though this person 'contacted' Geneva, has anyone had correspondence (in writing) from Geneva directly--if so can you please post a name and contact info?

Otherwise it merely becomes a 'well I heard from someone who heard from someone on a forum' issue. That will not go too far for those that have to send in their watches for repair and run into issues.

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by texex91

Please post the name of the person and their role, so if people have issues they can reference them (just like Martin did with Pat's info).

Also seems as though this person 'contacted' Geneva, has anyone had correspondence (in writing) from Geneva directly--if so can you please post a name and contact info?

Otherwise it merely becomes a 'well I heard from someone who heard from someone on a forum' issue.

yes first I spoke to the receptionist at my AD who told me that her husbands ex wife used to work for Patek in the U.K. and that she had read on this forum that the warranty is applicable.

Paul to be honest I don't really care whether you believe me or not or feel the need to provide proof like a chastised child!! I don't care...it's an American problem which doesn't affect me and my watches are just fine!! Haters would not want a positive outcome to this! Cheers

[texex91]

Originally Posted by KarlS

yes first I spoke to the receptionist at my AD who told me that her husbands ex wife used to work for Patek in the U.K. and that she had read on this forum that the warranty is applicable.

Paul to be honest I don't really care whether you believe me or not or feel the need to provide proof like a chastised child!! I don't care...it's an American problem which doesn't affect me and my watches are just fine!! Haters would not want a positive outcome to this! Cheers

Wow, no one is questioning Karl. If you contacted someone and they gave a reply, I would think you want to share that in order to help others (as you took the time to inquire--even though 'it doesn't affect you'). Martin stated his source, which many know, which will be helpful to those in the US.

No one is hating anything--people are trying to get answers.

No need to get so defensive.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by Russell996

I think we're going to find there is a simple answer/misunderstanding to be cleared up - the email from 'Pat' at HWSA mentions this policy is to deal with grey dealers. Well clearly a PP purchased from an AD and then sold to a second or third owner hasn't gone anywhere near a grey dealer!
A 'new' grey dealer purchase without a full set of AD completed papers clearly won't have warranty either as a new or a used purchase.

You’re being rather naive if you think this is all a simple misunderstanding – one which happens to have been ongoing for the past 10+ years!
Pat was unequivocal in his statement – “...warranty is non-transferable…” – not to mention that both people I spoke with at HSWA, also affirmed that only the named individual on the CoO is covered by the warranty.

Given that Geneva has confirmed what we all understood was the situation prior to this matter being highlighted and discussed, and having only to conform to Swiss consumer laws (and not that of the EU), then there is no simple answer for HSWA’s ‘misunderstanding' about whom the warranty terms are applicable to.

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by PJ S

You’re being rather naive if you think this is all a simple misunderstanding – one which happens to have been ongoing for the past 10+ years!
Pat was unequivocal in his statement – “...warranty is non-transferable…” – not to mention that both people I spoke with at HSWA, also affirmed that only the named individual on the CoO is covered by the warranty.

Given that Geneva has confirmed what we all understood was the situation prior to this matter being highlighted and discussed, and having only to conform to Swiss consumer laws (and not that of the EU), then there is no simple answer for HSWA’s ‘misunderstanding' about whom the warranty terms are applicable to.

It would be interesting to see whether Pat has a different view next week. Perhaps you can give him a call and get feedback. Unsubstantiated rumour has it that Geneva was calling him today. Cheers

[martinr]

Here is the point about gray buyers that Russell is missing. The AD sells to the gray at cost or at a slight profit to free up cash or to move harder to sell watches. The name on the certificate is made up or a real person. Then the gray sells the watch as new to a buyer, actually the second buyer. So, the papers have been filled out correctly, it's not about open papers or avoiding the AD altogether.

[toucan]

Originally Posted by KarlS

It would be interesting to see whether Pat has a different view next week. Perhaps you can give him a call and get feedback. Unsubstantiated rumour has it that Geneva was calling him today. Cheers

Thanks Karl- would love to see PP out out a statement clarifying the entire worldwide warranty policy.

[Marciano490]

Originally Posted by PJ S

^
I apologise for expecting you to verify my previous comment even though Consumer law is not your field of expertise – but I thought the quoted text was self explanatory.

I don’t know why the discussion has shifted to involving service expenses, nor how cars and boats have come into it, but without wishing to teach a lawyer how to suck eggs, are you under an impression that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act only pertains to the automotive industry?
I can’t believe that you do, and am presuming you are therefore aware that it pertains to all consumer items with a retail value of $10 and over.
I further presume that you also understand that manufacturers are not obliged to provide a written warranty, but by choosing to do so, then it must comply with the requirements laid out in the Act.

The M-M W Act allows for warranties to be Limited, Full, or Mixed, and in the case of a Full warranty, the terms apply to whomever is the legal owner of the product at the time a claim is made.
If the warranty is Mixed or Limited, and one of the limitations is restricting who benefits from having recourse to the warranty, namely that of the first owner only, then this limitation must be stated clearly and unambiguously within the terms of the warranty.

Broken record time…thus far, I have found no evidence to support that such a limitation has ever been documented.

Just so as we’re on the same page, ALL of this MUST be in place, long before an owner steps foot inside HSWA with their faulty watch in hand, and handing over their photocopy of the CoO with the first owner’s name on it.

I know your gig is to be rude and flippant and take some satisfaction in that or find some wit in it. This is what I do for a living; and yes, my practice touches consumer law and contract interpretation. What is it you do again?

I've explained why the Act wouldn't matter here. If you disagree with my interpretation of the text based on your study and practice of US law, then have it at. Don't misrepresent what I'm saying because I'm undermining your point. You know very well I am not under the impression the Act applies only to the automotive industry. I was trying to clarify things for you, because you seem to be having difficulty grasping very clear principles of statutory interpretation. Apologies if I only further confused you in your attempt.

The Act doesn't apply to services charges for a warranty, only replacement parts. So, yes, if your Patek needs servicing and they find that a gear they'll value at $3 needs replacing, you can take them to state court and get your 3 bucks back. But the $5,000 for the time and labor isn't embraced by the Act.

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by PJ S

You’re being rather naive if you think this is all a simple misunderstanding – one which happens to have been ongoing for the past 10+ years!
Pat was unequivocal in his statement – “...warranty is non-transferable…” – not to mention that both people I spoke with at HSWA, also affirmed that only the named individual on the CoO is covered by the warranty.

Understood - but Pat was equally clear the policy was to protect clients from grey dealers which clearly for a second owner watch where it was originally purchased from an AD simply has no bearing - there is a mismatch here somewhere in what Pat has stated. Either the policy is no warranty for second owners and it affects everyone equally whether originally purchased on the grey market or from AD and which most certainly isn't Patek policy elsewhere in the world or alternatively the policy is indeed aimed only at grey market watches without full papers where the lack of warranty is the known downside of getting a better price.

[martinr]

How does a gray dealer get new Patek watches without an AD name on the certificate? Wouldn't Patek know where the watch came from, they must have a record of what watches and what serial numbers went to specific AD's. When they get one of those in for service they can trace it to the AD and then get rid of that offending AD. The problem for Patek is they have too many AD's, they want to sell as many watches as possible but the AD needs cash to operate so they sell to grays. Fewer AD's might give them more control but can an AD pay for all the inventory and then sit on it? My opinion, Patek should stop worrying about the gray market and concentrate on QC and putting out a superlative product. The watches will sell themselves and Pateks reputation for perfection or close to it will be upheld.

[AckAck]

Love how "trusted sellers" aren't grey dealers. They are just "trusted grey dealers". Lol.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by martinr

How does a gray dealer get new Patek watches without an AD name on the certificate? Wouldn't Patek know where the watch came from, they must have a record of what watches and what serial numbers went to specific AD's. When they get one of those in for service they can trace it to the AD and then get rid of that offending AD.

That assumes two, or even three, things:

1) Patek operates a database of what goes to each region/country.
2) Patek operates a database that records which pieces each AD was sent/received.
3) Patek has a mechanism in place to know which pieces ADs have sold out the back door.

The last one is easy enough for resellers who don’t provide a completed CoO from the supplying AD – no proper CoO = no warranty.
For those who do provide the CoO correctly completed, then HSWA wouldn’t have a clue how to differentiate between AD sales and Grey channel sales – hence why they’ve resorted to using the name to decide whether the warranty applies or not.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by Russell996

Understood - but Pat was equally clear the policy was to protect clients from grey dealers which clearly for a second owner watch where it was originally purchased from an AD simply has no bearing - there is a mismatch here somewhere in what Pat has stated. Either the policy is no warranty for second owners and it affects everyone equally whether originally purchased on the grey market or from AD and which most certainly isn't Patek policy elsewhere in the world or alternatively the policy is indeed aimed only at grey market watches without full papers where the lack of warranty is the known downside of getting a better price.

Here’s how I see Pat’s statement playing out…

1) Pre-owned piece bought from AD – no warranty
2) Piece bought for family/friend and gifted to them – no warranty (although a bit of common sense might be used where the surname matches, or a call to the buyer clarifies it was a gift)
3) Piece bought from a private seller – no warranty (even if the seller genuinely bought from an AD)
4) Piece bought from a generic reseller, who took it in as a trade/commission sale/for cash – no warranty (even if seller genuinely bought from an AD)
5) Piece bought from Gov auction relating to seizure under Proceeds of Crime – no warranty (even if…etc)

There’s even a potential scenario of where a piece purchased by a non-US citizen, working in the US for an extended period of time, uses HSWA to facilitate a warranty repair, otherwise it'd expire by the time they’re due to return home.

[martinr]

Considering the USA is Pateks largest market should the warranty really be inferior to that in Europe. Doesn't make sense and only alienates potential customers.

[PJ S]

Received from Patek Philippe SA, via e-mail…

Dear “PJ S”,

Thank you for your mail

Please be advised, the Product Warranty is covered , worldwide, for a period of 24 months from the dated of the purchase.
A Certificate of Origin was issued for any watch. Among other information, it indicates the movement and the case numbers.
It has to be signed and dated by an Authorized Patek Philippe Retailer, the name of the customer must be entered to confirm the authenticity of the watch and validate the guarantee privileges.

Kindly notice, the Certificate of the origin is only issued for this purchase.
The warranty is covering the Product, therefore If the watch is sold, the warranty is still valid for the period after the first purchase.

We trust that we have better clarified the situation and answered your questions.
We wish to thank you once again for contacting us and remain at your entire disposal for any further assistance you may need.

Yours sincerely,

Best regards

O.R.
International Customer Service
‘e-mail address omitted’

My message was as follows…

Hi,

I phoned a few moments ago, in the hope of speaking with a senior level person who could explain the 2-year manufacturer warranty coverage.
My query is in relation to whom the warranty covers during the 2 years after a Patek Philippe timepiece is first purchased.
Specifically, if the original owner sells the timepiece privately or to a watch trader / dealer after 6 months, does the subsequent owner still benefit from the remainder of the 2 year warranty?

On the presumption that Patek Philippe operates like the rest of the watch industry, and the warranty remains with the watch at all times (as long as the owner is a private individual / consumer), then is is correct to say the same policy is applied worldwide?
If not, then which countries or regions are exempt from having the warranty apply to second (or even third) owners?

Thank you very much, and I look forward to receiving your response.
“PJ S”

Irrespective of our differences (Marciano's and mine) on what/whom the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act pertains to – I maintain my previous impression/sentiment, as expressed in post #168.

[martinr]

Thank you PJ now we know! Warranty follows the watch. Worldwide.

[Marciano490]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Received from Patek Philippe SA, via e-mail…




My message was as follows…




Irrespective of our differences (Marciano's and mine) on what/whom the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act pertains to – I maintain my previous impression/sentiment, as expressed in post #168.

Thank you for posting this and for your graciousness. I suppose if statutes were always clear, we wouldn't make so much or be called so often. I hope this puts the issue to rest.

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by martinr

Considering the USA is Pateks largest market should the warranty really be inferior to that in Europe. Doesn't make sense and only alienates potential customers.

Is it? Last data I read showed Europe at 45%, Middle East 8%, Far East 32% and N and S America was 15% ....now I guess the USA may have taken up some Chinese slack but not that much!

http://www.watch-insider.com/news/pa...press-release/

[toucan]

Originally Posted by martinr

Thank you PJ now we know! Warranty follows the watch. Worldwide.

We know that but does HSWA know that or will they care!

[martinr]

Karl you might be right but it looks like the same warranty applies everywhere now. Your info was two years old also!

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by martinr

Karl you might be right but it looks like the same warranty applies everywhere now. Your info was two years old also!

Yes it is. Do you have anything more recent showing the USA has now overtaken Europe? I did show that N and South America was 15%...you may recall quite a string Brazilian and Mexico market for the brand.

Yes I did point out the warranty was global. It's now up to Pistman Pat to say why HSWA didn't enforce it or know if it

[Jetkopite]

Originally Posted by texex91

Please post the name of the person and their role, so if people have issues they can reference them (just like Martin did with Pat's info).

Also seems as though this person 'contacted' Geneva, has anyone had correspondence (in writing) from Geneva directly--if so can you please post a name and contact info?

Otherwise it merely becomes a 'well I heard from someone who heard from someone on a forum' issue. That will not go too far for those that have to send in their watches for repair and run into issues.

I dont understand why I have to give my friends name who works at Geneva salon, he told me what I wanted to know and thats good enough for me.. cant get better info than PP in Geneva..

[willski]

Originally Posted by toucan

We know that but does HSWA know that or will they care!

Valid point. I assume (hope) the chatter here and on PuristS along with multiple owners reaching out has brought the issue to their attention; hopefully there are some behind the scenes discussions happening between Geneva and HSWA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk