I'm definitely getting a 5522A, Wait a minute I'm not getting a 5522A?!?!?!?!

[Lol-x]

Originally Posted by AK797

There is a lot of evidence through the course of this thread of this seller's practices, not least their own hasty withdrawals of sales threads, and we as customers are judge and jury here, and when you see the profiteering stunt they pulled on a loyal customer like Mike, well then the evidence of their dealings and attitudes grows to overwhelming.

This forum has now universally decided on its opinion of Govberg. That's the beauty of a public forum and all those review sites, including the feedback system on ebay - it is to address an imbalance of power and take it away from unscrupulous sellers and give it back to the consumer where it should lie.

What is wrong with the withdrawal of a sales thread, that is a seller's prerogative, and there is no entitlement or right of a potential purchase to insist that any watch remain available for sale. Your statment is based on a misconceived premise.

A loyal customer like mike was buying and selling Pateks from other sources, but you don't hearing Govberg crying infidelity.

Buyers and sellers both have to agree and the terms of that agreement must be mutual to both parties. In this case there was no contract, there was no breach of contract. Sure there was a promise with conditions that were withdrawn, but no money were paid, no one got scammed.

There is no imbalance of power and your reference to unscrupolous is a minconceived and grossly exaggerated baseless assertion. Goveberg has tens or thousands of happy (but silent) satisfied customers, and just because an employee of a retailer, like all of us, makes a mistake, that does not put the company into the category of 'unscrupulous'.

According to your last sentence, the customer can do and insist on anything with total righteousness and arrogance... That isn't the way business or the world works. Each party has rights. If a customers legal rights are infringed he has remedies. To make a complaint on a forum is far from issuing a legal process.

[vipereaper30]

No one here has claimed this as a legal issue. Speaking for myself I'm fed up with dealers who take advantage of the market and their customers which is why I will never spend a dime at Govberg.

I'm just a collector, but I'm curious to know what Lol-x's connection is to the company.

[vipereaper30]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

However, if Govberg buy the second-hand Patek as a trade-in they will list it as used at the grey market price of $80,000 because they have had to pay grey or used market prices to purchase that piece and to sell it at retail is unrealistic and just not possible.

Works especially well if it's purchased at dealer cost, make it dealer cost plus $1 to make it legitimate. That's an equally plausible scenario based on what has been described in this thread.

[Chiboy]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

If the retail price of a Patek is say $50,000 but the after-market grey market price is $80,000, Govberg will sell the watch as an AD when it is new for $50,000.

However, if Govberg buy the second-hand Patek as a trade-in they will list it as used at the grey market price of $80,000 because they have had to pay grey or used market prices to purchase that piece and to sell it at retail is unrealistic and just not possible.

So you are envisioning the AD somewhat simultaneously selling their new piece for MSRP $50k to a client, and buying the same piece back USED from someone else for, say $60,000 and listing it for $80,000.

Perhaps this is what the "LOL" in your moniker refers to.

[GB-man]

[dmash]

Originally Posted by Chiboy

So you are envisioning the AD somewhat simultaneously selling their new piece for MSRP $50k to a client, and buying the same piece back USED from someone else for, say $60,000 and listing it for $80,000.

X1000000000000

There's no way they're playing out the above scenario, and it blows my mind people are defending that they are.

Originally Posted by Lol-x

If the retail price of a Patek is say $50,000 but the after-market grey market price is $80,000, Govberg will sell the watch as an AD when it is new for $50,000.

However, if Govberg buy the second-hand Patek as a trade-in they will list it as used at the grey market price of $80,000 because they have had to pay grey or used market prices to purchase that piece and to sell it at retail is unrealistic and just not possible.

I think you're leaving out that Govberg will probably require an additional $30,000, high profit margin jewelry purchase to 'make up' for that sale as an AD. And according to OP's experience.....not mention it until it's time to actually take possession of the watch.

Originally Posted by Lol-x

If a member wages a campaign of disparagement, ridicule and defamatory material against another member or a business then action will be taken. In this case there was not only a number of posts to incite ridicule and disparagement but also a defamatory post (now removed) which when an infraction was issued So Cal responded in an unacceptable way with one word which clearly evinced an intention to be non-responsive to adhering to the forum rules of decorum. Accordingly there was no alternative but to ban that member.

Thanks for clarifying this for everyone....figured there was a little something extra that transpired.

[blakeegan]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

What is wrong with the withdrawal of a sales thread, that is a seller's prerogative, and there is no entitlement or right of a potential purchase to insist that any watch remain available for sale. Your statment is based on a misconceived premise.

Lol. Yeah. Totally legit they removed every BNiB Desirable PP same day this forum claimed things looked sketchy. The defensiveness of them by you is bizarre.

Watch I get banned for calling out mods defending ADs with mental gymnastics about pulling all their BNIB watches simultaneously and that totally being normal.

[Lol-x]

Originally Posted by vipereaper30

I'm just a collector, but I'm curious to know what Lol-x's connection is to the company.

I have no connection with Govberg. I've never bought anything from them and have not been promised anything or received any inducement to post what I have in this thread. GovbergJewellers is a 2017 Pledge Member and they paid $25 on 30 June. I hope you can say the same about your motivations. This is a non-commercial website, but that don't give you and others the right to say whatever negative, disparaging and insulting material you choose or to relentlessly gang up on another member.

Originally Posted by vipereaper30

Works especially well if it's purchased at dealer cost, make it dealer cost plus $1 to make it legitimate. That's an equally plausible scenario based on what has been described in this thread.

You making this up as you go or is this a fact? The scenario I was talking about was people who trade in a watch, they don't trade for RRP they trade for market value which is significantly higher.

Originally Posted by Chiboy

So you are envisioning the AD somewhat simultaneously selling their new piece for MSRP $50k to a client, and buying the same piece back USED from someone else for, say $60,000 and listing it for $80,000.

Perhaps this is what the "LOL" in your moniker refers to.

You seriously want to insult me now.

Originally Posted by blakeegan

Lol. Yeah. Totally legit they removed every BNiB Desirable PP same day this forum claimed things looked sketchy. The defensiveness of them by you is bizarre.

Watch I get banned for calling out mods defending ADs with mental gymnastics about pulling all their BNIB watches simultaneously and that totally being normal.

You will get banned if you make false allegations or imputations and insult other members, so I'll come back to you on this one.

A number of posts in this thread reminds me of a lynch mob mentality...Ever see the movie "Hang em High" where a lynch mob decided to take the law into their own hands and lynched Clint Eastwood, but he survived and he came back and got justice against the mob.



Seems things haven't changed much.
No wonder AD's are reluctant to join discussion forums.
One long standing rule is that members shall not disparage other members, but reading this thread one would have thought the opposite.

And finally for the record I probably would never have read this thread and replied if I it had not been raised as a topic for discussion by some moderators. Govberg never appoached me about this thread or asked for me to get involved.

[martinr]

Originally Posted by jnelson3097

I am very friendly with them, despite not being as fortunate as you to be taken away on free factory trips with them, and Govberg has told me they don’t want to disclose too much information about authorized dealers in the network and individuals like yourself who interact on watches at a discount. Didn’t you try to consign a watch described by you as LNIB through them at no cost to you? Ironic how you tried to use the very same channel you’re now criticizing. That new Basel release could have easily been misinterpreted as a brand new watch, but rather it was one you purchased from another retailer and given to them by you.

One more thing jnelson3097. You say they don't want to disclose too much information about individuals like myself etc. so where exactly did you get the details of my consigning a watch (new Basel release) and what you say was my description of it? Maybe your "being very friendly with them" has something to do with it.
Also, I was invited to tour AP, nice of them to invite me but do you know who pays for that trip, I'm under the impression the cost of that trip was underwritten by AP so your insinuation that I took advantage of the AD and then stabbed them in the back is ridiculous. I've got the email stating that the trip was a reward for prior purchases (discounts are irrelevant) and I don't owe them anything.

[KarlS]

Steve, I respectively believe you are missing the point! Unfortunately just like this is a very one sided view of Govberg, you have obviously been briefed by Govberg (putting their view across in order to "level the playing field") but unfortunately in also a very one sided manner, thus detracting from the actual issues:

a) Mike never said he was a super collector or buyer of Govberg. In fact if he had only bought 1 watch in 5 years a very simple "shut down" by the AD would be "Sorry Mike - you dont have the purchase history" - its happened to me and I don't have an insignificant collection!! We are big boys and cowboys dont cry!!
b) I also believe that he was invited to a Minute Repeater event in NY. Very strange to offer a customer that is not valued such an opportunity!!
c) We understand that this watch is only allocated to the top clients. This is not true!! Mike would suddenly have been elevated to top client status (with only 1 purchase as admitted and having bought elsewhere) if he had spent over $20 000 in jewellry - so this kind of goes against what they actually saying
d) You mention that "conditional selling" is common practice. I dont believe it is and if I was PP I would simply be horrified!!! It makes a mockery of a MRSP and shows that an AD is deliberately circumventing this pricing mechanism by finding a loop hole! Maybe they will stop giving discounts and throw in jewellry next!!
e) Just like Govberg and PP do not enter a fray in the public domain I believe the fact that Mike is not releasing the various SMS messages reflects the confidential nature of that corospondance. If Govberg is comfortable with the contents maybe they can ask that they be released on this public forum, for us all to see and draw our own conclusions
f) Before anyone accuses me of being a Mike Fan Boy I would like to point out I have never met him, I arranged his salmon dial for him and we corrospondend as I do with many other TRF members.
g) As for Govberg I have enquired on trade-in on my 5146G before but we were too far apart on price to conclude atransaction. I did help them out by agreeing to delete a thread where one of their staff made disparaging remarks about the Nautilus 40th Anniversary - so I hope this shows a lack of bias

I am however deeply protective of the PP brand and do and will always take action that I believe detracts from a Brand and in which I have invested a significant amount of money.

I havent commented on the grey issues etc as I simply dont know. The bottom line is that Mike was led along with the promise of a watch (sure some lawyer could expound Law of Contract), created an unneccessary expectation and was then offered the watch if he basically paid more than MRSP in order that the AD could derive an abnormal profit on the transaction.

Whether each of us believes this is acceptable or not is up to our own judgement. Personally I dont!! Yes Govberg screwed up!! They surely realise it....if it was me and Brian phoned and apologised and pointed out that it was a huge mistake an dthat we are taking xxx action to make sure it doesnt happen again...I guess this would all have blown over by now.

I also believe its healthy to have opposing views but feel that comments like Dr Gold (taking drugs) just detracts from what should be a civil discourse and making the matter personal is unacceptable.

Regards

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by KarlS

Steve, I respectively believe you are missing the point! Unfortunately just like this is a very one sided view of Govberg you have obviously been briefed by Govberg and putting their view across unfortunately in also a very one sided manner which detracts from the actual issues:

a) Mike never said he was a super collector or buyet of Govberg. In fact if he had only bought 1 watchg in 5 years a very simple "shut down" by the AD would be "Sorry Mike - you dont have the purchase history" - its happened tpo me and I dont have an insignificant collection!! We big boys and cowboys dont cry!!
b) I also believe that he was invited to a Minute Repeater event in NY. Very strange to offer a customer that is not valued such an opportunity!!
c) We understand that this watch is only allocated to the top clients. This is not true!! Mike would suddenly have been elevated to top client status (with only 1 purchase as admitted and having bought elsewhere) if he had spent over $20 000 in jewellry - so this kind of goes against whayt tyhey actually saying
d) You mention that "conditional selling" is common practice. I dont believe it is and if I was PP I would simply be horrified!!! It makes a mockery of a MRSP and shows that an AD is deliberately circumventing that norm by finding a loop hole!
e) Just like Govberg and PP do not enter afray in the public domain I believe the fact that Mike not releasing the various SMS messages reflects the confidential nature of that corospondance. If Govberg is comfortable with teh contents maybe they can ask that they be released on this public forum for us all to see and draw our own conclusions
f) Before anyone accuses me of being a Mike Fanboy I would like to point out I have never met him, I arranged his salmon dial for him and we corrospondend as I do with many other TRF members.
g) As for Govberg I have enquired on trade in on my watch before but we were too far apart to discuss a price. I did help them out by agreeing to delete a thread where on eof their staff made disparaging remarks about the Nautilus 40th Anniversary so I hope this shows a lack of bias

I am however deeply protective of the PP brand and do and will always take action that I believe detracts from a Brand and in which I have invested a significant amount of money.

I havent commented on the grey issues etc as I simply dont know. The bottom line is that Mike was led along with the promise of a watch (sure some lawyer could expound Law of Contract), created an unneccessary expectation and was then offered the watch ih he basically paid more than MRSP in order that the AD could derive an abnormal profit oin the transaction.

Whether each of us believes this is acceptable or not is up to our own judgement. Personally I dont!!

Nailed it. +1

[Lol-x]

I never said what was done was acceptable.
Govberg (and I'll say it yet again) acknowledges that they made (by an employee mistake). Why do people like you keep going on and on like a broken record.
If what happened was Govberg's standard modus operandi where are all the other same fact cases.
This is such a negative, jump on the band wagon and it the boots in thread.
The fact is Patek make a very limited number of watches and those who miss out vent their frustration by nailing the dealer to the cross when the slightest opportunity arises.

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

I never said what was done was acceptable.
Govberg (and I'll say it yet again) acknowledges that they made (by an employee mistake).

Can I ask if you know what action Govberg have taken with their employee over the very serious mistake?

The action they have taken will clearly show how they really view this type of behaviour. Like many on this forum I run my own business and I know the action I would of taken if a member of my staff had asked a client to buy goods they didn’t want in order to receive goods they had ordered - I can see no mitigating circumstance that defends the behaviour.

[lapince]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

If the retail price of a Patek is say $50,000 but the after-market grey market price is $80,000, Govberg will sell the watch as an AD when it is new for $50,000.

However, if Govberg buy the second-hand Patek as a trade-in they will list it as used at the grey market price of $80,000 because they have had to pay grey or used market prices to purchase that piece and to sell it at retail is unrealistic and just not possible.



If a member wages a campaign of disparagement, ridicule and defamatory material against another member or a business then action will be taken. In this case there was not only a number of posts to incite ridicule and disparagement but also a defamatory post (now removed) which when an infraction was issued So Cal responded in an unacceptable way with one word which clearly evinced an intention to be non-responsive to adhering to the forum rules of decorum. Accordingly there was no alternative but to ban that member.



You may wish to check your facts as my understanding the OP purchased 1 Patek from Govberg in the past 5 years whilst buying and selling Pateks from other sourcses over the same period. In any event to me, that is all irrelevant. Govberg acknowledges a mistake was made by their employee in this instance, no loss arises, no scam occurred and life goes on.


I think it became very clear to whom the reference was being made, whether that was the fault of the OP or not is irrelevant, it happened.

Sure but the hard to get pieces all dohble sealed and with the shipping boxes is rather strange to say the least, and I really think there is a HUGE conflict of interest when an AD is also a grey dealer...

Ok now I know why Socal was banned.

I did put a new edit, OP bought one Patek and other pieces and referred clients, but that isn’t important, what is is that he was promised the watch, and if that was some sort of mistake they should have told him they are very sorry, but no they ask him to buy 20-30k of jewelry to finally have it, that is called blackmail for me, I heard about this before, but it was for first time clients and usually they needed to get a watch, not jewelry. And won’t do a remake of the rest of the story, we all read the posts, but IMHO this is really wrong...

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

I never said what was done was acceptable.
Govberg (and I'll say it yet again) acknowledges that they made (by an employee mistake). Why do people like you keep going on and on like a broken record.
If what happened was Govberg's standard modus operandi where are all the other same fact cases.
This is such a negative, jump on the band wagon and it the boots in thread.
The fact is Patek make a very limited number of watches and those who miss out vent their frustration by nailing the dealer to the cross when the slightest opportunity arises.

I seem to have overlooked where they admitted the mistake...can you just point out the thread number or how we know this to be fact?

I am sorry I sound like a broken record but this really has nothing to do with a LE and could be a mass produced G Shock for all I care - the principle of over promising and conditional selling and my abhorrance of both stands...

I dont remember this sort of backlash from the people who were declined 5650's and 40th Anniversary editions - so its not about LE's - its about how this was handled.

Anyway lets just brush thsi under the carpet and move on!!

PS: I cant remember whether Mikes 3940 is 1/5 or 1/20 - not 1/500 so guess we know what an LE is!!

[vipereaper30]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

The fact is Patek make a very limited number of watches and those who miss out vent their frustration by nailing the dealer to the cross when the slightest opportunity arises.

Not sure why you are appealing to emotion as it doesn't work nor make any sense. Again I can only speak for myself, someone who purchased a 5522, when I say it's Govberg's actions that are the only issue here.

But you make the rules and without a $25 donation you suggest my opinion doesn't count. Fair enough.

[SlipR35]

Originally Posted by KarlS

Steve, I respectively believe you are missing the point! Unfortunately just like this is a very one sided view of Govberg, you have obviously been briefed by Govberg (putting their view across in order to "level the playing field") but unfortunately in also a very one sided manner, thus detracting from the actual issues:

a) Mike never said he was a super collector or buyer of Govberg. In fact if he had only bought 1 watch in 5 years a very simple "shut down" by the AD would be "Sorry Mike - you dont have the purchase history" - its happened to me and I don't have an insignificant collection!! We are big boys and cowboys dont cry!!
b) I also believe that he was invited to a Minute Repeater event in NY. Very strange to offer a customer that is not valued such an opportunity!!
c) We understand that this watch is only allocated to the top clients. This is not true!! Mike would suddenly have been elevated to top client status (with only 1 purchase as admitted and having bought elsewhere) if he had spent over $20 000 in jewellry - so this kind of goes against what they actually saying
d) You mention that "conditional selling" is common practice. I dont believe it is and if I was PP I would simply be horrified!!! It makes a mockery of a MRSP and shows that an AD is deliberately circumventing this pricing mechanism by finding a loop hole! Maybe they will stop giving discounts and throw in jewellry next!!
e) Just like Govberg and PP do not enter a fray in the public domain I believe the fact that Mike is not releasing the various SMS messages reflects the confidential nature of that corospondance. If Govberg is comfortable with the contents maybe they can ask that they be released on this public forum, for us all to see and draw our own conclusions
f) Before anyone accuses me of being a Mike Fan Boy I would like to point out I have never met him, I arranged his salmon dial for him and we corrospondend as I do with many other TRF members.
g) As for Govberg I have enquired on trade-in on my 5146G before but we were too far apart on price to conclude atransaction. I did help them out by agreeing to delete a thread where one of their staff made disparaging remarks about the Nautilus 40th Anniversary - so I hope this shows a lack of bias

I am however deeply protective of the PP brand and do and will always take action that I believe detracts from a Brand and in which I have invested a significant amount of money.

I havent commented on the grey issues etc as I simply dont know. The bottom line is that Mike was led along with the promise of a watch (sure some lawyer could expound Law of Contract), created an unneccessary expectation and was then offered the watch if he basically paid more than MRSP in order that the AD could derive an abnormal profit on the transaction.

Whether each of us believes this is acceptable or not is up to our own judgement. Personally I dont!! Yes Govberg screwed up!! They surely realise it....if it was me and Brian phoned and apologised and pointed out that it was a huge mistake an dthat we are taking xxx action to make sure it doesnt happen again...I guess this would all have blown over by now.

I also believe its healthy to have opposing views but feel that comments like Dr Gold (taking drugs) just detracts from what should be a civil discourse and making the matter personal is unacceptable.

Regards

Well said KarlS, this clearly expresses the reason why there is so much interest in this thread.

It would be (and should be) very easy for Govberg to contact Mike and sort this out with an amicable resolution. I sure as hell know that if it were my business I’d be all over this to fix it.

One happy customer tells 10, One unhappy customer tells 100.... or in this case 25,090 views.....

(Edited for punctuation).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

I never said what was done was acceptable.
Govberg (and I'll say it yet again) acknowledges that they made (by an employee mistake). Why do people like you keep going on and on like a broken record.
If what happened was Govberg's standard modus operandi where are all the other same fact cases.
This is such a negative, jump on the band wagon and it the boots in thread.
The fact is Patek make a very limited number of watches and those who miss out vent their frustration by nailing the dealer to the cross when the slightest opportunity arises.

Are they (through your post) asserting that one rogue employee unilaterally deviated from company policy, without managements approval, on a highly allocated piece and asked for an incremental $20k of jewelry purchases?

Does that really pass the sniff test that at a minimum this wasn't a management decision? I will say it again they are well within their "rights" to act this way but there are consequences. At least they shoul own the behavior.

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by Bryant Park

Are they (through your post) asserting that one rogue employee unilaterally deviated from company policy, without managements approval, on a highly allocated piece and asked for an incremental $20k of jewelry purchases?

Does that really pass the sniff test that at a minimum this wasn't a management decision? I will say it again they are well within their "rights" to act this way but there are consequences. At least they shoul own the behavior.

I think there are very many of us who do not think they are within their “rights” as an AD to act this way when they are representing the Patek Philippe brand and history.

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Russell996

I think there are very many of us who do not think they are within their “rights” as an AD to act this way when they are representing the Patek Philippe brand and history.

When I say rights, I mean legal rights. I am trying to avoid subjectivity. We can argue over the ethical obligations (personally I do think your word is your bond), so it was unethical and wrong in my opinion.

That said it is a business decision. The result of that decision has been a disaster. Consequently, their actions no matter what emotion we want to attach to it has been wrong. Please see what I wrote earlier for greater clarity. Personally I would not continue to do business with an AD displaying such behavior.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

What is wrong with the withdrawal of a sales thread, that is a seller's prerogative, and there is no entitlement or right of a potential purchase to insist that any watch remain available for sale. Your statment is based on a misconceived premise.

In this context we are consumers, and we always say here - Buy the Seller, and when other sellers here have come under scrutiny they usually defend themselves rigorously, Govberg have done the opposite and so I know I would never buy from this outfit.

Originally Posted by Russell996

I think there are very many of us who do not think they are within their “rights” as an AD to act this way when they are representing the Patek Philippe brand and history.

This is more my point, Govberg are a business and have loyalty only to profit which is fine, but Patek and TS have a loyalty to the brand and its image, and clearly this thread shows these practices diminish it in most people's eyes and so I would hope they take some restorative action.

[Chiboy]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

I never said what was done was acceptable.
Govberg (and I'll say it yet again) acknowledges that they made (by an employee mistake). Why do people like you keep going on and on like a broken record.
If what happened was Govberg's standard modus operandi where are all the other same fact cases.
This is such a negative, jump on the band wagon and it the boots in thread.
The fact is Patek make a very limited number of watches and those who miss out vent their frustration by nailing the dealer to the cross when the slightest opportunity arises.

I think for me as a non-PP owner, this thread resonates because most of us with less than seven digit collections () have been on the receiving end at some point of feeling like you are being passed by for a watch you want in favor of a "bigger fish."

In this instance, it is not only blatant, but also with a price tag attached (the purchase of X amount of high margin jewelry).

I just reread the original post, since this thread has been going on for soooo long, and I must say that the idea of "one rogue employee" seems a little far fetched, and the admission that an AD muckety muck personally got involved but only to relay the message that Mike was NOT getting a 5522 after all, and that any other hard to get PP would be at least a year out, makes it seem like the AD from top to bottom was communicating the message that (my words) "we're screwing you, but we don't care."

I don't know how to read it any other way. And this is forgetting about all the other miscellaneous stuff about being a grey dealer, etc.

I do agree that there is a certain lynch mob, hop on the bandwagon zeal taking over, but perhaps it is because this is a more blatant example of some of the issues many face to a greater or lesser extent when dealing with hard to get watches.

[codecow]

There have been many stories here over the years of different markets where conditional sales of pieces are a regularity. Brian (prior to his ban) mentioned transactions he made or was offered and the general feeling by members here was that we didn't like this type of thing from ADs.

I refrain from critiquing businesses online however I do appreciate the info as I'm sure many others do. If you're thinking of starting out as a collector you want to make sure you have an AD that will help you achieve your endgame pieces.

For me I have been happy with my AD and when needed DavidSW thanks to this forum.

I think it is important not to reward ADs with business if they're trying shady conditional purchases, it's the only way we have to fight back to keep this from becoming common like it is in other markets.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by codecow

There have been many stories here over the years of different markets where conditional sales of pieces are a regularity. Brian (prior to his ban) mentioned transactions he made or was offered and the general feeling by members here was that we didn't like this type of thing from ADs.

I refrain from critiquing businesses online however I do appreciate the info as I'm sure many others do. If you're thinking of starting out as a collector you want to make sure you have an AD that will help you achieve your endgame pieces.

For me I have been happy with my AD and when needed DavidSW thanks to this forum.

I think it is important not to reward ADs with business if they're trying shady conditional purchases, it's the only way we have to fight back to keep this from becoming common like it is in other markets.

Well said Louis

[JorgeCCW]

Like I said the more you stir it .........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tools]

Originally Posted by codecow

. . .
I think it is important not to reward ADs with business if they're trying shady conditional purchases, it's the only way we have to fight back to keep this from becoming common like it is in other markets.

Unfortunately, in Forums many good AD's get maligned from mob mentality and what we "want" rather than reality.

In any business when a product is limited, say 5 pieces in this case, and you have several employees who "promise" their own clients that product, you can easily end up with 10 promises for those 5. This works fine in most cases because perhaps 5 will not really have funds or pass their place on the list. Sometimes though, all 10 will want their "promised" item. This means that management will need to allocate those pieces according to the advantage of the business. This is not uncommon or underhanded or unscrupulous, as many here seem to imply.

The clients most beneficial to the business will get first call. Like it or not, the customer who spends and buys X amount above you will be in line in front of you.

We all know that Dealers keep pieces in the back for their bests customers. Getting upset when you are not one of the top-dogs, and venting on a public forum, is not going to get you one of those coveted items over their more valued customers who will continue to return and spend their money.

[olc]

Originally Posted by Tools

Unfortunately, in Forums many good AD's get maligned from mob mentality and what we "want" rather than reality.



In any business when a product is limited, say 5 pieces in this case, and you have several employees who "promise" their own clients that product, you can easily end up with 10 promises for those 5. This works fine in most cases because perhaps 5 will not really have funds or pass their place on the list. Sometimes though, all 10 will want their "promised" item. This means that management will need to allocate those pieces according to the advantage of the business. This is not uncommon or underhanded or unscrupulous, as many here seem to imply.



The clients most beneficial to the business will get first call. Like it or not, the customer who spends and buys X amount above you will be in line in front of you.



We all know that Dealers keep pieces in the back for their bests customers. Getting upset when you are not one of the top-dogs, and venting on a public forum, is not going to get you one of those coveted items over their more valued customers who will continue to return and spend their money.

All true. The part that is much harder to explain is the express quid pro quo request for the jewelry purchase. Miscommunication from one salesperson is understandable. But management had to be involved in the offer to make the sale if the jewelry was also purchased. Doesn’t seem like there is any plausible defense to that aspect of this mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Bryant Park]

Originally Posted by Tools

Unfortunately, in Forums many good AD's get maligned from mob mentality and what we "want" rather than reality.

In any business when a product is limited, say 5 pieces in this case, and you have several employees who "promise" their own clients that product, you can easily end up with 10 promises for those 5. This works fine in most cases because perhaps 5 will not really have funds or pass their place on the list. Sometimes though, all 10 will want their "promised" item. This means that management will need to allocate those pieces according to the advantage of the business. This is not uncommon or underhanded or unscrupulous, as many here seem to imply.

The clients most beneficial to the business will get first call. Like it or not, the customer who spends and buys X amount above you will be in line in front of you.

We all know that Dealers keep pieces in the back for their bests customers. Getting upset when you are not one of the top-dogs, and venting on a public forum, is not going to get you one of those coveted items over their more valued customers who will continue to return and spend their money.

You bring up an interesting point. Be inference the OP was not a "top dog" but was being given an opportunity to jump ahead of the ADs best customers by purchasing $20k worth of jewelry. Shouldn't the best customers be outraged that they could so readily be displaced from a priority position simply by what amounts to a one off payment?

Reference keeps being made to mob mentality. I will agree that the anonymity associated with supporting a popular point of view does create a certain "enthusiasm". None the less let's not minimize or loose sight of the fact that the ADs actions are what has caused this visceral response among it targeted customer base.

I respect your comment and opinion but it is entirely based on an approach to business that seeks to maximize profitability. In hindsight the AD via their actions has hardly achieved that goal.

[incontrol]

These watches were application watches and Patek received specific requests for each customer. Mine came in with my name on the papers. Something the AD did smells of bending the rules so they could manipulate their market for this watch. They would not be on my list of places to buy from. The facts are the facts and it has nothing to do with mob mentality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MoosicPa]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

In this case there was no contract, there was no breach of contract. Sure there was a promise with conditions that were withdrawn, but no money were paid, no one got scammed.

Sad commentary....