Offshore Is Now Broken, An Ongoing Debacle

[s14roller]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

That's what happened with the 991.1 gen GT3, and that's what people got - new engine and extended warranty. It took Porsche a number of iterations to make that engine bulletproof.

Correct. I understand OP’s desire to start totally new but if the movement is shot and they are offering to put in a new movement, it’s a fair fix. There’s no loss in value as it’s not like the movement has a serial that is tied to your watch serial.

For what it’s worth I’ve had multiple variations of ROOs and never an issue. I have a friend that has had issues but he’s the only one I know. Like anything else, sometimes this happens but certainly not the norm. Vast majority of my AP friends enjoy their pieces without incident

[usmc_k9_vet]

Originally Posted by codecow

Basically this.

If I was dealing with a high maintenance customer no matter what kind of crap I was giving them I’d cut them off after they go away.

Lol.. are you serious? Wow what a business strategy. So are you saying OP is being high maintenance?

It’s not going to set any precedent that’s even known by anyone else. Are a bunch of people, besides us on this thread, all the sudden going to know that OP got allocated something else because his brand new ROO shit the bed (multiple times)? I don’t think so. It wouldn’t change a thing for AP to do the right thing except put the problem and solution squarely on them instead of putting it back on the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dmash]

Originally Posted by codecow

Basically this.

If I was dealing with a high maintenance customer no matter what kind of crap I was giving them I’d cut them off after they go away.

Just no response to that one, except wow.

[dmash]

Originally Posted by s14roller

Correct. I understand OP’s desire to start totally new but if the movement is shot and they are offering to put in a new movement, it’s a fair fix. There’s no loss in value as it’s not like the movement has a serial that is tied to your watch serial.

For what it’s worth I’ve had multiple variations of ROOs and never an issue. I have a friend that has had issues but he’s the only one I know. Like anything else, sometimes this happens but certainly not the norm. Vast majority of my AP friends enjoy their pieces without incident

Have you ever checked your AP receipt from the boutique? It clearly lists the case and movement serial on your original receipt. Not sure what you’re claiming here but it’s incorrect, it obviously is tied together on your original receipt. A movement change would need paperwork to show a trail back to the original proof of purchase (for insurance purposes and for if the watch was ever going to get potentially sold years down the line and you wanted to be proper and upstanding about the watch’s true condition/state).

Originally Posted by In-N-Out

Honestly I think AP’s response is ok. Perhaps giving a full refund would have been better, but this poor experience should not be a ticket to get an allocation for anything else. That sets a dangerous precedent for the industry. There are way too many bad actors out there who would gladly open up the movement and intentionally damage a movement if they thought AP would offer a full refund + allocation for a hard to get watch. Creates moral hazard

This is really stretching it. I highly, HIGHLY doubt anybody is going to *intentionally* pull apart their caseback and void their warranty when it would be zero guarantee that AP would do anything anyhow. I fail to see how this is any precedent being set, it’s the RIGHT thing to do after going back to service three times over now.

I feel some of you would be reacting to this situation much differently if it was your own timepiece. Again this isn’t ‘I’ve owned it for 4 months and now the movement failed, so they’re replacing it’, this situation is ‘in 4 months I’ve barely had my watch for 3 weeks and has been back and forth to servicing multiple times’.

Originally Posted by HMHM

I think OP’s request is reasonable. Clearly the watch was defective from the very beginning if OP’s experience were as described. Furthermore, it seems from the post written that all he wants is just a like-for-like replacement, not even leveraging the poor experience so far to secure a RO allocation. Another alternative for OP would be to secure a refund and consider alternatives. A change of movement for another is a risk, particularly as the movement is known to have issues (fairly widespread) whether people want to acknowledge it or not. For OP to accept the movement replacement would mean that he is taking a risk and accepting the possibility of another defective watch. I’m not sure if that is what a luxury watch experience translates to. I believe even in the States, there is Lemon law to protect buyers from defective new cars.

This is to a tee why them to simply offer a replacement concerns me greatly. It’s entirely probable I’m just restarting the clock on needing another repair for a faulty movement.

Originally Posted by sski

This is quite the horrendous experience....been following the thread; purely imo- the way forward from a customer centric strategy would be-- "we're so sorry for the troubles you've experienced- here's a full and unconditional refund; moving on- is there anything else in the AP Catalog that intrigues you? Let us know what it is and we shall do our utmost to make it possible for you the earliest we can."

They don't need to confirm a hard timeline for the new timepiece, but offer a commitment to make it right for a valued client. Cutting corners not the way to go.

I’m failing to see why anybody would disagree with this . The people who do, are those who salesmen salivate over, as they can seemingly offer horrendous post purchase service, and if the product doesn’t meet ‘luxury’ expectations, they’ll be okay with it.

I have no idea where some became disconnected with consumer protection *laws*, which have our back in these scenarios (country dependent obviously). Enabling companies to get away with faulty products and offering zero in way of compensation results in said company never improving aspects of their customer service and the product line itself. And again, my ‘compensation’ I was alluding to, isn’t in any way something preposterous like demanding one of their VIP pieces. It’s literally only asking for what was supposed to be watch #2 anyways.

I have a small business aside from my actual career and there isn’t a chance in the world I would let one of my customers endure THREE separate occasions of a problem, over a four MONTH span and not offer some type of compensation (without him or her even asking). That’s just the right thing to do. I would offer some type of compensation the very first occurrence to be quite blunt.

[rcwatchcollector]

I agree. A move into the 2nd allocation is not that much of a stretch for the solution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[APGuru]

I'm truly sorry to hear about your situation, dmash. I concur; they ought to either replace it with a new one or offer you an alternative.

[SRG89]

Personally I have had experiences with watches where movements have been terrible, they go back in for repair and it happened again.
I've struggled to connect with said watches after this happens. We make most of our purchases on an emotional level (my purchases are never rational lol).

I can see how OP associates negative connotations for this watch to the point he doesn't want the model anymore. I think a fair solution would be to offer a refund and try to find a new model for him in a reasonable time frame.
I would say the allocation should be on a similar level so Offshore or Code rather than RO, as others have said it could open a can of worms if they do this.

[Auric Goldfinger]

I wouldn’t accept a movement replacement for fear that the problem could happen again. I also don’t like the idea of the movement number mismatching from my original documentation on a watch that is only months old.

This is like Rolex replacing your mid-case and the value of the watch takes a hit and warranty card doesn’t match. Why should the owner of the watch take that on for something that wasn’t their fault? It would be different story if it was related to something the owner did or the watch was already a few years old.

Bare minimum imo would be a full refund with the goal of moving into another reference. I don’t agree that this would set a dangerous precedent. Worse case, the OP could say things were fully resolved and not share the final result to avoid such.

I was in a similar situation like the OP with Rolex corporate and they were able to resolve things to my satisfaction with replacement.

Do keep us updated OP.

[cascavel]

Originally Posted by dmash

This watch has incredible negative connotation to me at this point and I think would also be to anybody else. I don’t think a proper resolution is to *try* to fix an (obviously) broken timepiece. The fact still remains that I’ve now had a watch in hand for around 2-3 weeks whilst purchasing it FOUR months ago and being back at Clearwater a 3rd time. The watch needs to be taken back.

I don’t want an exit from the brand, I want the opposite. I want them to take this watch back and offer me a fresh allocation with a fresh start and a joyous future ahead for both parties. I don’t find this to be the least bit unreasonable considering the circumstances. I’m also not requesting some ridiculous thing such as ‘and the only allocation I’ll consider is an open work’, I’m simply asking for what was told would be my next allocation from the brand anyways. A natural stepping stone in my AP journey anyhow.

A ‘fix’ which may or may not last, with a promise of an allocation doesn’t do it for me. As that resolution could result in 1- the movement having the same issues as others and 2- them simply telling me to kick rocks and not honoring any allocation I’m promised.

I’m trying to be graceful/respectful and that’s exactly why I haven’t name dropped a single individual or even the boutique I’m working with. I’m allowing them plenty of opportunity to make this right. As again, I *want* to have a relationship with AP, not the opposite.

I'm curious to know if you have, yet, told them what you want out of this?
It's difficult to do but, at some point in situations like this, the customer has to make his/her wishes known. I've been in similar situations, once with an Omega and once with a Blancpain, and told their boutique managers "It's your watch now, I ain't takin' it back. I want a new one." Omega gave me a store credit, Blancpain said "forget it".
The Omega was a movement issue, like yours, the Blancpain was an issue with the rotating bezel on a Fifty Fathoms clogging with sand and destroying the locking ratchet. I guess you weren't supposed to wear it at the beach.
It's difficult not to lose your cool when dealing with corporate intransigence but you have to stare them down.

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by Commandopat

The issue from AP’s perspective, is a new ROO replacement means they have a watch they can no longer sell even once they refurbish it

What is even the actual cost of this watch if/when AP HQ says to take it back an d simply throw it away. Less than 3k? It doesn't cause a dent.

I can see the 1st service happening, after the 2nd they should have replaced it and made him whole. It's easy.

[dmash]

Originally Posted by cascavel

I'm curious to know if you have, yet, told them what you want out of this?
It's difficult to do but, at some point in situations like this, the customer has to make his/her wishes known. I've been in similar situations, once with an Omega and once with a Blancpain, and told their boutique managers "It's your watch now, I ain't takin' it back. I want a new one." Omega gave me a store credit, Blancpain said "forget it".
The Omega was a movement issue, like yours, the Blancpain was an issue with the rotating bezel on a Fifty Fathoms clogging with sand and destroying the locking ratchet. I guess you weren't supposed to wear it at the beach.
It's difficult not to lose your cool when dealing with corporate intransigence but you have to stare them down.

Originally Posted by Auric Goldfinger

I wouldn’t accept a movement replacement for fear that the problem could happen again. I also don’t like the idea of the movement number mismatching from my original documentation on a watch that is only months old.

This is like Rolex replacing your mid-case and the value of the watch takes a hit and warranty card doesn’t match. Why should the owner of the watch take that on for something that wasn’t their fault? It would be different story if it was related to something the owner did or the watch was already a few years old.

Bare minimum imo would be a full refund with the goal of moving into another reference. I don’t agree that this would set a dangerous precedent. Worse case, the OP could say things were fully resolved and not share the final result to avoid such.

I was in a similar situation like the OP with Rolex corporate and they were able to resolve things to my satisfaction with replacement.

Do keep us updated OP.

I was incredibly blunt (but maintained respect and civility) on the phone with them yesterday. There is absolutely no way I will accept any type of repair or movement replacement, and I want the watch sent back to my boutique for a refund and we move forward as a fresh start. I was told that this needs to be run by executives and a meeting called and they’ll let me know, but it will likely take some days.

Everything is officially out there at this point and the only direction at this point is AP either obliges or refuses and I have to force my hand via Amex and consumer protection laws considering the repeated issues on a faulty product.







I do appreciate all the support gentleman (and perhaps ladies). I’m in no way trying to one up the system or get ahead here, I just want a proper/fair resolution. This has taken up so much of my time, and has almost been a roller coaster of sorts emotionally (you can see from my previous posts how I’ve bragged on the ROO being an amazing watch aesthetically).

[codecow]

Originally Posted by usmc_k9_vet

Lol.. are you serious? Wow what a business strategy. So are you saying OP is being high maintenance?

It’s not going to set any precedent that’s even known by anyone else. Are a bunch of people, besides us on this thread, all the sudden going to know that OP got allocated something else because his brand new ROO shit the bed (multiple times)? I don’t think so. It wouldn’t change a thing for AP to do the right thing except put the problem and solution squarely on them instead of putting it back on the OP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a victim of the 324 sticking date problem with another brand, the date wheel sticks; send it in. It sticks again, send it in.

Finicky luxury products are finicky.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to request a refund, but since they still have a line out the door of people who would probably just send it in until it works, why keep dealing with a customer who won’t?

There used to be a sticky at the top of the forum explaining the janky ness of APs in particular used ones.

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by codecow

As a victim of the 324 sticking date problem with another brand, the date wheel sticks; send it in. It sticks again, send it in.

Finicky luxury products are finicky.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to request a refund, but since they still have a line out the door of people who would probably just send it in until it works, why keep dealing with a customer who won’t?

There used to be a sticky at the top of the forum explaining the janky ness of APs in particular used ones.

If the customer is rude and obnoxious, then it is a different story altogether.
If the customer is courteous, professional in his behaviour but expects good conduct, professionalism and high standards to be met by a highly established brand, and all the brand can do is to threaten blacklisting, that's quite a shame, especially when it is a conglomerate against one individual..

[1William]

OP, thanks for the update. You are being more than rational and fair to the folks at AP and the brand itself. I struggle to see what AP hopes to accomplish with this course of action. Three time problems and the customer would like a refund or a replacement, sure. We are sorry that this did not work out and how can we continue to be a brand you own, should be the response. I have never been a big AP fan as I do not live in an area that has an AD or many collectors that own the brand. My impression is formed through the media and my fellow members here on TRF. Before the OP had these issues I doubt I would have purchased an AP, now, probably never. Even if they give the OP a refund and the watch he wants, the road he has traveled to get there does not work for me and any luxury brand experience. OP, hang in there. I am pulling for you.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Wahlberg

What is even the actual cost of this watch if/when AP HQ says to take it back an d simply throw it away. Less than 3k? It doesn't cause a dent.

I can see the 1st service happening, after the 2nd they should have replaced it and made him whole. It's easy.

Not sure if the marginal cost of producing another watch is the right figure to use when demand exceeds production capacity. They would be losing a watch that they could sell at MSRP to the next customer, and there is no middle-man with the boutique model.

[dchang81]

I'm confused why you are lamenting your experience with the brand and still want a different allocation. I'd be done after this, chalk it up in the L column and move on with my life.

[Gent675]

Originally Posted by dchang81

I'm confused why you are lamenting your experience with the brand and still want a different allocation. I'd be done after this, chalk it up in the L column and move on with my life.

Because he is having a problem with a caliber that is known to be problematic. Not all AP watches are notoriously buggy as such.

[chaucer]

I think OP’s desire for a refund is warranted, and will hopefully be the outcome. I think most of us have some emotional attachment to these luxury products, and for him, that attachment has soured. Can’t say I wouldn’t feel similarly.

[dchang81]

I do think a refund is reasonable. I'm more saying that the company is not treating you the way you want/should be treated. Why go back

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by 1William

OP, thanks for the update. You are being more than rational and fair to the folks at AP and the brand itself. I struggle to see what AP hopes to accomplish with this course of action. Three time problems and the customer would like a refund or a replacement, sure. We are sorry that this did not work out and how can we continue to be a brand you own, should be the response. I have never been a big AP fan as I do not live in an area that has an AD or many collectors that own the brand. My impression is formed through the media and my fellow members here on TRF. Before the OP had these issues I doubt I would have purchased an AP, now, probably never. Even if they give the OP a refund and the watch he wants, the road he has traveled to get there does not work for me and any luxury brand experience. OP, hang in there. I am pulling for you.

Nicely stated William

[dmash]

Again appreciate the kinds words and support gentleman. I truly don’t believe I’m being irrational or out of line with my request, and always expect a reasonable outcome when problems arise. I do hope AP comes back with good news by the end of the week.

Also re: why not giving up on the brand. I’ve loved AP for quite some time, just took forever to dip my toes in. That’s also why this hurts a bit as I had ambitions for quite a few pieces and to really go in here. So for this to be my official start is such a soured experience but I would like to give them another opportunity to start this off on a better note! Again, going back to my mentality of being reasonable/sensible, I think this is another showcase of me doing such. I’m not trying to rag on the brand or write them off, just want a fresh, better start!

[rcwatchcollector]

Also AP watches are amazing. So would still want one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sski]

Originally Posted by VogelPhoenix

That's what happened with the 991.1 gen GT3, and that's what people got - new engine and extended warranty. It took Porsche a number of iterations to make that engine bulletproof.

Originally Posted by Commandopat

Bad example because that’s exactly what would happen. Yes, that would meet the mark.

Watches may be different, because I’m more inclined to agree with the OP in this case than I would be in your car example.

3 different times? (3 engine replacements in less than 3-6 months?) if so-- unacceptable. Note- first time it happened, OP graciously accepted the 'fix.' By now it's become ridiculous.

[s14roller]

Originally Posted by dmash

Have you ever checked your AP receipt from the boutique? It clearly lists the case and movement serial on your original receipt. Not sure what you’re claiming here but it’s incorrect, it obviously is tied together on your original receipt. A movement change would need paperwork to show a trail back to the original proof of purchase (for insurance purposes and for if the watch was ever going to get potentially sold years down the line and you wanted to be proper and upstanding about the watch’s true condition/state).

My apologies for not getting that right but perhaps that’s the point. I’ll admit I overthink much more than others but even I have never once checked to see if the movement matches the watch, only that the watch serial ties to the warranty card (or book previously). Mind you this is with probably a dozen or more APs both pre-owned and new over the years. Whole point here is it’s very unlikely you see any value issues from a new movement, just like the other post about GT3 engines needing to be replaced.

Now, value aside, I think it’s reasonable if the original watch gives you a bad feeling and you want a new watch to start fresh. I also think it’s reasonable from a logical perspective that AP wants to swap out the entire faulty movement for a new one since that should indeed fix it. Hope you both come to some middle ground.

[dmash]

Update:

I believe this is gaining some traction. I received an email from a regional director and they seemed fairly certain of trying to find a resolution for me. Also mentioned they were working directly with others in the USA about this, so fingers crossed we finally have something in progress here. I again, firmly asserted to them (whilst being respectful/professional) that I would like to get this back to original boutique and a fresh start. So they’re are 100% in the loop of what I’m deeming as acceptable.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by sski

3 different times? (3 engine replacements in less than 3-6 months?) if so-- unacceptable. Note- first time it happened, OP graciously accepted the 'fix.' By now it's become ridiculous.

Your post said "blew out the engine" - not good style to move the goal posts later.

I actually agree that OP should receive some consideration, it's just a question of what exactly is reasonable and achievable, and what is the most effective way to go about that. Sometimes it's a matter of giving up short-term satisfaction for long-term benefit.

[ikincooper]

Originally Posted by dmash

Update:

I believe this is gaining some traction. I received an email from a regional director and they seemed fairly certain of trying to find a resolution for me. Also mentioned they were working directly with others in the USA about this, so fingers crossed we finally have something in progress here. I again, firmly asserted to them (whilst being respectful/professional) that I would like to get this back to original boutique and a fresh start. So they’re are 100% in the loop of what I’m deeming as acceptable.

Pleased to hear that you’re being listened too OP.

As always, it’s the way that complaints/issues are dealt with that matters and it’s seems that things are moving in the right direction.

I hope you get to start a fresh with AP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[codecow]

Originally Posted by HMHM

If the customer is rude and obnoxious, then it is a different story altogether.
If the customer is courteous, professional in his behaviour but expects good conduct, professionalism and high standards to be met by a highly established brand, and all the brand can do is to threaten blacklisting, that's quite a shame, especially when it is a conglomerate against one individual..

I don’t know. Once you get to demanding things and requesting meetings and such you’re going above and beyond. Besides you don’t threaten a deny list you just do it.

[Eastie]

AP’s in-house chrono movement is a vertical clutch design which, in theory, is supposed to be more robust than the lateral clutches used by Patek and VC. Yet we don’t hear widespread reports of defects from those brands

What does that say about AP? It’s not a good look


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Commandopat]

Originally Posted by KingofAirKings

OP, I think the problem here is AP has countless customers who wouldn't even notice if a watch were running 30 seconds fast, and in many cases don't even use the watch to tell time.

How much money are you planning on spending on AP products in the next two years? If the answer is less than $1 million, then the "relationship" and "journey" you are trying to "start fresh" does not matter to them.

The $$ value he is willing to spend does not matter. The amount of watches being sold, and therefore the money made, will be the same whether it’s sold to him or others, so the sole purpose in rectifying this is in righting a wrong/error..