Negative Experience with Anothernewphone

[brandrea]

The OP paid fair value for a watch that wasnt described properly is what I'm getting out of this thread....

I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

OP, I hope you can still enjoy the watch. It's a classic and I see why you've been caught off guard in all of this. Still hope you find a way to see that in the end you still have a great watch to enjoy

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by brandrea

The OP paid fair value for a watch that wasnt described properly is what I'm getting out of this thread....

I'd love to hear the other side of the story.

OP, I hope you can still enjoy the watch. It's a classic and I see why you've been caught off guard in all of this. Still hope you find a way to see that in the end you still have a great watch to enjoy

He's been offered two free polishes. I think the issue is he would rather send it back.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Etschell

He's been offered two free polishes. I think the issue is he would rather send it back.

I suppose.

It's was suggested that he paid a decent price for the watch (even though the condition of the watch was not as described). At some point you have to accept what happened and move on.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by brandrea

I suppose.

It's was suggested that he paid a decent price for the watch (even though the condition of the watch was not as described). At some point you have to accept what happened and move on.

Agree but two weeks out is yet "at some point" for me.
The offers to polish are there.
The watch will be rectified but if OP does not want it and prefers to ultimately have it addressed by seller, I totally understand and would feel the same way.
I would wait another couple of weeks before acting on the watch.
Fortunately, unlike many other stories, he has a watch that can eventually be fixed and just be a bad dream from the past.

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

That's what the Hell I said. Do you people have a problem understanding English? I have absolutely nothing to do with this and haven't seen the watch for months. It's a bad situation, but I am not going to take bullshit for something I have zero part of. Is it clear now? Do I need to hold anyone else's hand and explain it?

[MonBK]

Can someone hold my hand until this is solved?

[TimeToGo]

Yes!
.

[Tony64]

As others have said, it's probably best to move on. I completely understand the OP's position and would feel exactly the same way. To anyone who thinks that a "fair price" makes this in any way acceptable, I respectfully disagree. Sure it can now be polished, and without cost thanks to the generosity of forum. I understand it can be made to look like new, but to many it's just not the same. I get it. Why do so many insist on unpolished examples?

What if you bought a watch advertised with box and papers at a great price. Then the watch arrives without the papers? You've still got a great watch at a great price but if you really wanted one with papers I doubt any of that would matter and I'm certain you'd feel cheated. Send it to Rolex for service and get service papers? I suppose, but if you're one of the many that likes things complete is that really the same?

TL/DR version: OP is justified in his disappointment. Now sell the watch, take a small loss and move on. You know that's the only way...

[Etschell]

Agree this thread is getting stale. The seller knows that he is being sought after. He has been emailed, called etc.

[Danny83]

Op if you polished the watch you could have sold it on TRF and got your money back by now. I suggest you do that it looks like for whatever reason you will not hear back from Bill. I dont think you will loose any $$

[GoingPlaces]

Originally Posted by Danny83

Op if you polished the watch you could have sold it on TRF and got your money back by now. I suggest you do that it looks like for whatever reason you will not hear back from Bill. I dont think you will loose any $$

Now that's a plan, good idea.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

That's what the Hell I said. Do you people have a problem understanding English? I have absolutely nothing to do with this and haven't seen the watch for months. It's a bad situation, but I am not going to take bullshit for something I have zero part of. Is it clear now? Do I need to hold anyone else's hand and explain it?

We let it go the first time in this thread Chad. This is out of line. If you have zero part of it then don't post in the thread again.

[Kingface66]

....

[IMG][/IMG]

[Basque1]

The amount of money you paid for this watch based on what you thought it was an accurate and honest description is in-congruent with what you received. This is an all out scam, I would pursue this to the fullest extent of the law as mail fraud. Just IMHO. Furthermore you are in your perfect right to be upset and pissed to no avail. Sorry that you have to go through this non-sense.
I wish you good luck with this individual!!

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Basque1

The amount of money you paid for this watch based on what you thought it was an accurate and honest description is in-congruent with what you received. This is an all out scam, I would pursue this to the fullest extent of the law as mail fraud. Just IMHO. Furthermore you are in your perfect right to be upset and pissed to no avail. Sorry that you have to go through this non-sense.
I wish you good luck with this individual!!

This is not mail fraud. My goodness. It's a good lesson to learn. Buy the seller. Get more pics. Try to do a f2f. I feel for the op but some of these comments are getting absurd.

The number 1 rule for buying online is to buy the seller. Not doing so bears risk. That doesn't mean it is right or the op deserves it. But this isn't the ops first buy.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by Danny83

Op if you polished the watch you could have sold it on TRF and got your money back by now. I suggest you do that it looks like for whatever reason you will not hear back from Bill. I dont think you will loose any $$

I agree with this. If you pay for a polish and then resell you will lose little if any money. Not an ideal resolution and a PITA but you are able to get out without loss. Some here make it sound like he sent you a box of rocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

I agree with this. If you pay for a polish and then resell you will lose little if any money. Not an ideal resolution and a PITA but you are able to get out without loss. Some here make it sound like he sent you a box of rocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps that explains all the scratches

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Etschell

This is not mail fraud. My goodness. It's a good lesson to learn. Buy the seller. Get more pics. Try to do a f2f. I feel for the op but some of these comments are getting absurd.

The number 1 rule for buying online is to buy the seller. Not doing so bears risk. That doesn't mean it is right or the op deserves it. But this isn't the ops first buy.

Exactly.

Wtf is a judge or cop going to say or do when this thread supports a $100 - $150 fix or better yet a free option from a good member. A parking ticket costs more than the op is out of pocket on.

If anything, the op would be scolded and told to pound sand by any cop who's expected to feel sorry for a Rolex buyer.

Op got away with potential disaster and is now wiser for it.

Polish it. Wear it. Tell people the story about it over tons of booze! It's still a good watch.

[haven_seeker]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Exactly.

Wtf is a judge or cop going to say or do when this thread supports a $100 - $150 fix or better yet a free option from a good member. A parking ticket costs more than the op is out of pocket on.

If anything, the op would be scolded and told to pound sand by any cop who's expected to feel sorry for a Rolex buyer.

Op got away with potential disaster and is now wiser for it.

Polish it. Wear it. Tell people the story about it over tons of booze! It's still a good watch.

100%

[schnipples24]

Yes, exactly. Don't worry guys I realize I was not scammed and it could have been a lot worse.

The point of this thread wasn't to devolve into personal attacks, merely that if my buddy anothernewphone doesn't step in and make this right, that if you see him post another watch for sale in the future to proceed with extreme caution.

Honestly I am concerned for the seller. I truly believe the situation is that he sold me his friends watch and did not realize the true condition it was in, and hopefully he's just been on a very long vacation and nothing serious has happened to him.

Bill, if you're out there reading this, come home baby....we just want to talk....

Also just wanted to let everyone know who didn't see them, I posted some new pics about a page back, you can all check them out. This will probably be my last post on the matter. I think this transaction has been heavily documented and is extremely transparent how everything went down. If I get into contact with the seller I will post an update, If I never hear from him again, I hope the seller is ok. Thank you to all those involved.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Exactly.

Wtf is a judge or cop going to say or do when this thread supports a $100 - $150 fix or better yet a free option from a good member. A parking ticket costs more than the op is out of pocket on.

If anything, the op would be scolded and told to pound sand by any cop who's expected to feel sorry for a Rolex buyer.

Op got away with potential disaster and is now wiser for it.

Polish it. Wear it. Tell people the story about it over tons of booze! It's still a good watch.

[goldfixer21]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Exactly.

Wtf is a judge or cop going to say or do when this thread supports a $100 - $150 fix or better yet a free option from a good member. A parking ticket costs more than the op is out of pocket on.

If anything, the op would be scolded and told to pound sand by any cop who's expected to feel sorry for a Rolex buyer.

Op got away with potential disaster and is now wiser for it.

Polish it. Wear it. Tell people the story about it over tons of booze! It's still a good watch.

I agree as well. Those proclaiming this to be "fraud" are greatly exaggerating this transaction. The seller obviously over stated the condition, but it was priced accordingly.

[roaddog359]

fraud
frôd/Submit
noun
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
"he was convicted of fraud"
synonyms: fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice; More
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
"mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"
synonyms: impostor, fake, sham, charlatan, quack, mountebank

[roaddog359]

Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.
Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.
Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.
Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.
Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.
Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.
A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.
The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.
A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.
Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.
Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.
Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).
Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Internal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.
There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).
All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).
States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce, Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).
In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by roaddog359

fraud
frôd/Submit
noun
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
"he was convicted of fraud"
synonyms:fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice; More
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
"mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds"
synonyms:impostor, fake, sham, charlatan, quack, mountebank

Was the watch misrepresented in the ad? Yes. The issue I have is what exactly has the seller gained? The seller could have polished the watch and charged $4200 and made more money. Now his reputation is at stake(which he may or may not care about) and what did he get out of it? If the watch had been fake I would agree. Something doesn't add up here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[123Blueface]

Anyone that thinks the word "fraud" does not apply to this transaction is grossly mistaken.
If one does not refute the watch was very seriously misrepresented, to include the photos provided in the listing, then fraud is an applicable description of what transpired here.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

Was the watch misrepresented in the ad? Yes. The issue I have is what exactly has the seller gained? The seller could have polished the watch and charged $4200 and made more money. Now his reputation is at stake(which he may or may not care about) and what did he get out of it? If the watch had been fake I would agree. Something doesn't add up here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear you but your logic does not refute that "fraud" applies.

I think overseeing a major fraud investigation operation for a great part of the country, having to understand fraud statutes in many states, sways my logic.

BTw, there are states where a misrepresentation does not have to be intentional to still constitute fraud.

[roaddog359]

The seller gained money, by misrepresenting the watch condition in photos and description. the seller would not have gotten the buyer to pay that amount for a watch in beater condition. Could the seller have polished the watch first? Yes, but then he would have been out more money for the polish job and still onyl got the same amount from the buyer.

[Dartmouthbrian]

Bummer on the condition of the watch. I guess the silver lining here is the fact that you actually got the watch. I really hate reading those stories of people wiring $5k and not getting anything.

I'd say get it polished from the folks who offered and enjoy the fact that the universe somehow conspired for you to have this exact watch. Is it a daily beater or was it truly an Explorer?

I hope whatever happens you're happy with the outcome.

[roaddog359]

Karma, its a 8itch.

[TurboWatch]

Originally Posted by schnipples24

Alright, so I got home and decided to bust out the DSLR and take some high quality photos. There is NO flash on these photos, only taken under crappy basement lighting. I am not intending to exaggerate or mislead.

I hope this new set of photos makes it extremely clear the issue I have with the seller and the way the watch was listed.

I see an excellent unpolished case . And you got it a great price. IMHO

There are no deep scratches on the case that I can see. The bezel is polished so those swirl marks are unavoidable. Just tape off the rest of the case and cape code will make it new again. Don't need to send it any where to polish your watch. You can do it yourself


If I was you, I'd keep it and enjoy the watch. If you don't like the bezel, you can find one on the bay for $100.00+. And if the bracelet needs to be re-done. Larry has a great tutorial on how to to properly do it yourself.