ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

WelshBoy · 26 January 2015, 06:40 PM

Thanks for the advice. There is however another thread running where someone has taken his watch, which is suffering from reduced magnification to RSC London and they've refused to acknowledge that there is indeed a problem. This is starting to fry my brain now and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't purchased the watch. If you can't buy a watch, with peace of mind from an AD then there's something severely wrong.

Ruud Van Driver · 26 January 2015, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBoy

Thanks for the advice. There is however another thread running where someone has taken his watch, which is suffering from reduced magnification to RSC London and they've refused to acknowledge that there is indeed a problem. This is starting to fry my brain now and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't purchased the watch. If you can't buy a watch, with peace of mind from an AD then there's something severely wrong.

Just out of interest, where did you buy it from?

WelshBoy · 26 January 2015, 06:52 PM

An AD in Cardiff, South Wales.

Ruud Van Driver · 26 January 2015, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBoy

An AD in Cardiff, South Wales.

Being a Cardiff boy myself, I'm guessing WoS or Crouch in St. David's?

silverbug · 26 January 2015, 07:06 PM

Welshboy, you are totally right that you shouldn't have to QC anything for Rolex but you seem to have a valid reason for taking yours back and demanding that they sort this issue out.
If they do insist that it needs to go back to an RSC to be fixed then perhaps ask for a loan watch? or perhaps another form of compensation?
They can only say no!
I wouldn't want to be without a watch for a few weeks but if that was the only way to get it resolved I think I'd do it....
Don't assume the AD will be unco-operative, see a thread I posted in October about a speck of dust I found on a month-old Air-King dial.
Took it into Watches of Switzerland in Cardiff and they were SUPERB, not sure if the fact the watch was purchased from the same parent company as WoS helped but they removed the movement in-house whilst I waited and made it perfect.
Good luck in getting it sorted.

WelshBoy · 26 January 2015, 07:15 PM

Thanks Silverbug. I'm really p***d off at the moment. Can't believe an AD wouldn't spot this. If they did, they still knowingly sold me the watch. Not knowing much about Rolex' I went down the AD route so as to make sure I didn't get caught in any way. Ruud, it was indeed Crouch in St Davids.

Rogdogg · 26 January 2015, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBoy

Thanks Silverbug. I'm really p***d off at the moment. Can't believe an AD wouldn't spot this. If they did, they still knowingly sold me the watch. Not knowing much about Rolex' I went down the AD route so as to make sure I didn't get caught in any way. Ruud, it was indeed Crouch in St Davids.

I'm not surprised at all that they didn't notice it. In my experience most AD staff know as much about Rolexes as the birds out on the street

RazorD · 26 January 2015, 08:18 PM

So I went to the nearby AD and the saleswoman said it should be 3x (from what she thought). And promptly agrees to send back. Sucks to be without the new watch after only having it for a few days, but I think it's for the best. I'll post updates once I hear back on it or have after pics. Thanks guys!

Anthon · 26 January 2015, 08:38 PM

Makes you wonder why the fakers can't produce a 2.5x cyclops. It's not the most difficult thing to fake on a Rolex watch!

I actually like the new look cyclops. The old cyclopses look to me more like a reading aid for the visually impaired. The new ones are neat, they don't blow up the date as much as far as I can tell from these pictures.

Now why you would want to take apart your brand new watch for something you liked before or had not noticed, and would not have noticed until you visited this thread..who cares if some guy in a bar thinks it is fake?

RazorD · 26 January 2015, 08:41 PM

Not sure if that's asked of me (op) or others. As for me, I noticed it promptly and started the thread. I would've lived with it if it was the new style of the way they were making them. However, if this is a "defect" over a change in design, I'd prefer to have it corrected.

Anthon · 26 January 2015, 08:44 PM

If you are concerned about resale value, why not get it changed after its normal servicing a couple of years down the line?

otisc · 27 January 2015, 02:27 AM

Welshboy, please keep us updated.

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 02:52 AM

Visited the AD and they looked at the watch and couldn't see the issue, which was alarming. They had another 116613LB there and when they put the 2 side by side their heads nearly burst. When I pointed out that they also had a GMT in the window with exactly the same issue, they were completely spun out. They were obviously totally unaware of the issue. When I explained that I should not be inconvenienced in any way, by having to be without the watch for 4 weeks and had spent £9k on a defective watch they completely understood. My point was how did a defective watch get to leave the Rolex factory and also why wasn't it picked up by the AD. They clearly had no answers for this but have spoken to Rolex. They are now awaiting a call from the general manager of Rolex to inform them as to what will be done to rectify the issue. I've suggested that the AD should not be inconvenienced and neither should I. Rolex should simply take this defective watch back, I should be supplied the new 116613LB that's in the store and Rolex should accept this defective watch back and supply the AD with a replacement. This to me is what should happen when you spend £9k on a defective timepiece, Rolex have after all let down the AD and the consumer. They need to be very careful they don't lose their credibility, issues like this will certainly do them no favours.

Brushpup · 27 January 2015, 03:12 AM

Anxious to see what RUSA does about this.

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 03:40 AM

Not half anxious as I am to see what Rolex are going to do for me.
I'm expecting a call in the morning.
If the outcome is they wish to repair it, then I will take it further as they let a defective timepiece, retailing at £9k leave their factory. Will contact the press with regards to making other consumers aware of the issue and the way Rolex dealt with it.

Guitarfan · 27 January 2015, 03:44 AM

Issues occur - that's just the way it is. Rolex should offer to replace the crystal under warranty, which is what I guess they will do.

I don't think they'll give you a brand new watch, that's what warranties are there for.

Brushpup · 27 January 2015, 04:04 AM

Contact the press?

Let us know if it makes a headline.

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 04:04 AM

The point your missing is that it's a £9k timepiece and was supplied with a defect! That is down to ROLEX. It's should never have made it to a consumers wrist.

Guitarfan · 27 January 2015, 04:07 AM

I think you're missing my point - nothing is perfect, hence the reason warranties exist!

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 04:08 AM

The point I'm making Brushpup is that if this is a serious issue, and there's lots of these defective watches out there, then it should be brought to people's attention. I'm not talking about the newspapers as such, but I'm sure Rolex wouldn't want an article going to print that shows they have supplied a batch of defective timepieces. If AD's aren't aware of it, what way is there of knowing exactly how many timepieces are in AD's with this defect. Rolex should contact all AD's and make them aware of the situation and act accordingly before these watches make it onto any more consumers wrists.

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 04:10 AM

Warranties exist for mechanical defect that occurs after a product is sold. A blatant cosmetic defect like this should be picked up before the watches are sold.

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 04:11 AM

An issue is a defect with one or two watches maybe, but this is obviously a defect that's effecting many watches throughout the world.

Brushpup · 27 January 2015, 04:13 AM

No, I don't miss the point, I just bought a BNIB YM not long ago. I just wonder what publication will take this to print.

Guitarfan · 27 January 2015, 04:14 AM

You're clearly unhappy with the situation, I get that, but this isn't a major issue. The watch movement still works exactly as it should, it's within COSC time keeping and it's water resistant to the stated level.

Good luck with getting the outcome you want, and if you have a good relationship with your AD you may get it, but I doubt Rolex themselves will do anything other than offer to replace the crystal under warranty.

silverbug · 27 January 2015, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBoy

Visited the AD and they looked at the watch and couldn't see the issue, which was alarming. They had another 116613LB there and when they put the 2 side by side their heads nearly burst. When I pointed out that they also had a GMT in the window with exactly the same issue, they were completely spun out. They were obviously totally unaware of the issue. When I explained that I should not be inconvenienced in any way, by having to be without the watch for 4 weeks and had spent £9k on a defective watch they completely understood. My point was how did a defective watch get to leave the Rolex factory and also why wasn't it picked up by the AD. They clearly had no answers for this but have spoken to Rolex. They are now awaiting a call from the general manager of Rolex to inform them as to what will be done to rectify the issue. I've suggested that the AD should not be inconvenienced and neither should I. Rolex should simply take this defective watch back, I should be supplied the new 116613LB that's in the store and Rolex should accept this defective watch back and supply the AD with a replacement. This to me is what should happen when you spend £9k on a defective timepiece, Rolex have after all let down the AD and the consumer. They need to be very careful they don't lose their credibility, issues like this will certainly do them no favours.

Glad to hear you're on the road to getting it sorted.
Let's hope they give you a straight swap for the one in the window.....

Anthon · 27 January 2015, 04:21 AM

You can hardly call it a defect when so many watches have this 'issue'.
With so many guys exchanging their watches under warranty over the last months, Rolex should be aware by now. I don't think your AD will get an answer Welshboy!

Did anyone actually measure if the original non-defect cyclopsi magnified by precisely 2.5?
Maybe they do now :)

john_nch · 27 January 2015, 06:51 AM

Maybe people will start hyping them as error crystals and start demanding a premium. Seriously, though this may be a good thing for those affected as one could send in their watch within the 2 years and get a new crystal and free service on the movement.

WelshBoy · 27 January 2015, 07:45 AM

Guitarfan, I hear what your saying, but it is a major issue. Under the sale of goods act 1979 all goods sold must be as described. Rolex clearly describe the date magnification on a sub as being x2.5 and mine clearly is not, therefore the goods have been mis described and under the above act a consumer is entitled to a full refund if goods are faulty or sold as mis described. These rights are seperate to any warranty offered by Rolex.

otisc · 27 January 2015, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brushpup

Contact the press?

Let us know if it makes a headline.

Luckily, there is a press now. Some of the online watch news sites have huge readership. If Hodinkee or ABlogtoWatch had a landing page top story about Rolex having to take returns because of faulty cyclops, you can bet you will start to get a more forceful response from the company.

Guitarfan · 27 January 2015, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WelshBoy

Guitarfan, I hear what your saying, but it is a major issue. Under the sale of goods act 1979 all goods sold must be as described. Rolex clearly describe the date magnification on a sub as being x2.5 and mine clearly is not, therefore the goods have been mis described and under the above act a consumer is entitled to a full refund if goods are faulty or sold as mis described.

Given that you've had the watch a month, I would argue that you have already "accepted" the goods therefore it's a warranty issue.

26 January 2015, 07:06 PM	#65
silverbug "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: UK Watch: 116610LN Posts: 52	Welshboy, you are totally right that you shouldn't have to QC anything for Rolex but you seem to have a valid reason for taking yours back and demanding that they sort this issue out. If they do insist that it needs to go back to an RSC to be fixed then perhaps ask for a loan watch? or perhaps another form of compensation? They can only say no! I wouldn't want to be without a watch for a few weeks but if that was the only way to get it resolved I think I'd do it.... Don't assume the AD will be unco-operative, see a thread I posted in October about a speck of dust I found on a month-old Air-King dial. Took it into Watches of Switzerland in Cardiff and they were SUPERB, not sure if the fact the watch was purchased from the same parent company as WoS helped but they removed the movement in-house whilst I waited and made it perfect. Good luck in getting it sorted. __________________ Submariner 116610LN Air-King 114200

27 January 2015, 03:12 AM	#74
Brushpup "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: Patrick Location: Texas Watch: what I'm wearing Posts: 5,943	Anxious to see what RUSA does about this. __________________ *TRFs "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron-Founding Member* PClub # 10 74,592 The safest place for your watch is on your wrist.

27 January 2015, 04:04 AM	#77
Brushpup "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: Patrick Location: Texas Watch: what I'm wearing Posts: 5,943	Contact the press? Let us know if it makes a headline. __________________ *TRFs "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron-Founding Member* PClub # 10 74,592 The safest place for your watch is on your wrist.

27 January 2015, 04:13 AM	#83
Brushpup "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Real Name: Patrick Location: Texas Watch: what I'm wearing Posts: 5,943	No, I don't miss the point, I just bought a BNIB YM not long ago. I just wonder what publication will take this to print. __________________ *TRFs "AFTER DARK" Bar & NightClub Patron-Founding Member* PClub # 10 74,592 The safest place for your watch is on your wrist.

26 January 2015, 06:40 PM	#61
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	Thanks for the advice. There is however another thread running where someone has taken his watch, which is suffering from reduced magnification to RSC London and they've refused to acknowledge that there is indeed a problem. This is starting to fry my brain now and I'm beginning to wish I hadn't purchased the watch. If you can't buy a watch, with peace of mind from an AD then there's something severely wrong.

26 January 2015, 06:52 PM	#63
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	An AD in Cardiff, South Wales.

26 January 2015, 07:15 PM	#66
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	Thanks Silverbug. I'm really p***d off at the moment. Can't believe an AD wouldn't spot this. If they did, they still knowingly sold me the watch. Not knowing much about Rolex' I went down the AD route so as to make sure I didn't get caught in any way. Ruud, it was indeed Crouch in St Davids.

26 January 2015, 08:18 PM	#68
RazorD "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: David Location: New England Posts: 1,888	So I went to the nearby AD and the saleswoman said it should be 3x (from what she thought). And promptly agrees to send back. Sucks to be without the new watch after only having it for a few days, but I think it's for the best. I'll post updates once I hear back on it or have after pics. Thanks guys!

26 January 2015, 08:38 PM	#69
Anthon "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: The Netherlands Watch: Explorer Posts: 545	Makes you wonder why the fakers can't produce a 2.5x cyclops. It's not the most difficult thing to fake on a Rolex watch! I actually like the new look cyclops. The old cyclopses look to me more like a reading aid for the visually impaired. The new ones are neat, they don't blow up the date as much as far as I can tell from these pictures. Now why you would want to take apart your brand new watch for something you liked before or had not noticed, and would not have noticed until you visited this thread..who cares if some guy in a bar thinks it is fake?

26 January 2015, 08:41 PM	#70
RazorD "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Real Name: David Location: New England Posts: 1,888	Not sure if that's asked of me (op) or others. As for me, I noticed it promptly and started the thread. I would've lived with it if it was the new style of the way they were making them. However, if this is a "defect" over a change in design, I'd prefer to have it corrected.

26 January 2015, 08:44 PM	#71
Anthon "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: The Netherlands Watch: Explorer Posts: 545	If you are concerned about resale value, why not get it changed after its normal servicing a couple of years down the line?

27 January 2015, 02:27 AM	#72
otisc "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Austin, TX Watch: 116610LV HULK Posts: 637	Welshboy, please keep us updated.

27 January 2015, 02:52 AM	#73
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	Visited the AD and they looked at the watch and couldn't see the issue, which was alarming. They had another 116613LB there and when they put the 2 side by side their heads nearly burst. When I pointed out that they also had a GMT in the window with exactly the same issue, they were completely spun out. They were obviously totally unaware of the issue. When I explained that I should not be inconvenienced in any way, by having to be without the watch for 4 weeks and had spent £9k on a defective watch they completely understood. My point was how did a defective watch get to leave the Rolex factory and also why wasn't it picked up by the AD. They clearly had no answers for this but have spoken to Rolex. They are now awaiting a call from the general manager of Rolex to inform them as to what will be done to rectify the issue. I've suggested that the AD should not be inconvenienced and neither should I. Rolex should simply take this defective watch back, I should be supplied the new 116613LB that's in the store and Rolex should accept this defective watch back and supply the AD with a replacement. This to me is what should happen when you spend £9k on a defective timepiece, Rolex have after all let down the AD and the consumer. They need to be very careful they don't lose their credibility, issues like this will certainly do them no favours.

27 January 2015, 03:40 AM	#75
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	Not half anxious as I am to see what Rolex are going to do for me. I'm expecting a call in the morning. If the outcome is they wish to repair it, then I will take it further as they let a defective timepiece, retailing at £9k leave their factory. Will contact the press with regards to making other consumers aware of the issue and the way Rolex dealt with it.

27 January 2015, 03:44 AM	#76
Guitarfan "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: UK Posts: 227	Issues occur - that's just the way it is. Rolex should offer to replace the crystal under warranty, which is what I guess they will do. I don't think they'll give you a brand new watch, that's what warranties are there for.

27 January 2015, 04:07 AM	#79
Guitarfan "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: UK Posts: 227	I think you're missing my point - nothing is perfect, hence the reason warranties exist!

27 January 2015, 04:08 AM	#80
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	The point I'm making Brushpup is that if this is a serious issue, and there's lots of these defective watches out there, then it should be brought to people's attention. I'm not talking about the newspapers as such, but I'm sure Rolex wouldn't want an article going to print that shows they have supplied a batch of defective timepieces. If AD's aren't aware of it, what way is there of knowing exactly how many timepieces are in AD's with this defect. Rolex should contact all AD's and make them aware of the situation and act accordingly before these watches make it onto any more consumers wrists.

27 January 2015, 04:10 AM	#81
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	Warranties exist for mechanical defect that occurs after a product is sold. A blatant cosmetic defect like this should be picked up before the watches are sold.

27 January 2015, 04:11 AM	#82
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	An issue is a defect with one or two watches maybe, but this is obviously a defect that's effecting many watches throughout the world.

27 January 2015, 04:14 AM	#84
Guitarfan "TRF" Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: UK Posts: 227	You're clearly unhappy with the situation, I get that, but this isn't a major issue. The watch movement still works exactly as it should, it's within COSC time keeping and it's water resistant to the stated level. Good luck with getting the outcome you want, and if you have a good relationship with your AD you may get it, but I doubt Rolex themselves will do anything other than offer to replace the crystal under warranty.

27 January 2015, 04:21 AM	#86
Anthon "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: The Netherlands Watch: Explorer Posts: 545	You can hardly call it a defect when so many watches have this 'issue'. With so many guys exchanging their watches under warranty over the last months, Rolex should be aware by now. I don't think your AD will get an answer Welshboy! Did anyone actually measure if the original non-defect cyclopsi magnified by precisely 2.5? Maybe they do now :)

27 January 2015, 06:51 AM	#87
john_nch "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: US Watch: 16710B Posts: 69	Maybe people will start hyping them as error crystals and start demanding a premium. Seriously, though this may be a good thing for those affected as one could send in their watch within the 2 years and get a new crystal and free service on the movement.

27 January 2015, 07:45 AM	#88
WelshBoy Banned Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Wales Watch: 116613 LB Posts: 108	Guitarfan, I hear what your saying, but it is a major issue. Under the sale of goods act 1979 all goods sold must be as described. Rolex clearly describe the date magnification on a sub as being x2.5 and mine clearly is not, therefore the goods have been mis described and under the above act a consumer is entitled to a full refund if goods are faulty or sold as mis described. These rights are seperate to any warranty offered by Rolex.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)