Tony (Spartan) Manikis Should be banned from TRF forum

[Welshwatchman]

Imagine this scenario.

1. "Problem" with watch. Counterfeit glass or anything else, doesn't matter.

2. Buyer and seller discuss in a manner becoming of a "TRF member".

3. Problem gets resolved in a mutually agreeable manner. Perhaps one side is a little more agreeable than the other. Again, doesn't really matter.

In the above scenario, reputations are maintained and not tarnished.

This was not the case here, alas.

As far as telling the mods who to ban.

Good luck with that one.

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by springer

It makes me wonder what is and what isn't genuine or real anymore. Besides my Rolex being possibly counterfeit, according to Rolex standards, I'm afraid to have my truck serviced with non-Ford parts for fear of it being called counterfeit if I replace the struts with Monroematics or a Sears "Diehard" battery.

All I know is, from now on, I'm going to use Ford's oil, air filters, wiper blades, batteries, shocks, service tire recommendations etc on my F-150 if it needs anything replaced or serviced. Nothing counterfeit will do for me.

That's a greater chance that you get better parts if you do not buy original Ford.

[Jocke]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Imagine this scenario.

1. "Problem" with watch. Counterfeit glass or anything else, doesn't matter.

2. Buyer and seller discuss in a manner becoming of a "TRF member".

3. Problem gets resolved in a mutually agreeable manner. Perhaps one side is a little more agreeable than the other. Again, doesn't really matter.

In the above scenario, reputations are maintained and not tarnished.

This was not the case here, alas.

As far as telling the mods who to ban.

Good luck with that one.

IMHO no one should get banned and I believe this is a good discussion run smoothly and calmly.

[Presa canary]

Originally Posted by greekbum

The op in his original post said this :I was shocked, to say the least, when I received the estimate of $1600 from Rolex! Not so much the fact that there were worn out gaskets and that the watch had zero waterproof protection, or that any of the near 30 year old parts that need replacing. No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT crystal on the watch first.



To put this to rest will the OP post a document from Rolex on Rolex letterhead that says exactly what he wrote :
(No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT
crystal on the watch first.)

Tony Does the estimate say counterfeit crystal as you said it did?
An unsolicited PM from a friend of yours to me said he has seen it and according to what he wrote me I don't see the word counterfeit ?

My interest is in the crystal topic not the dealings of these 2 members. The Oysterquartz and the 1530 before it were the 1st Rolex watches that used sapphire crystals. They had many suppliers of
crystals over the years. So what's real ,aftermarket , counterfeit and fake is what I want to know?

Obviously rolex could tell it wasn't their crystal. Hence making it counterfeit. The definition of counterfeit, something made cheap in this case prob $5, to resemble something else expensive, in this case $200. Plane and simple here, pay for a real fing crystal, or else don't claim it to be 100% authentic.

[MonBK]

I noticed Tony was here overseeing this thread so hopefully we get to see the paper soon.

[greekbum]

Originally Posted by Presa canary

Obviously rolex could tell it wasn't their crystal. Hence making it counterfeit. The definition of counterfeit, something made cheap in this case prob $5, to resemble something else expensive, in this case $200. Plane and simple here, pay for a real fing crystal, or else don't claim it to be 100% authentic.

It is my understanding that Rolex did not produce the crystals in the years this watch was made.


The buyer has said Rolex gave him an estimate for repair and in this estimate said as he wrote :
:I was shocked, to say the least, when I received the estimate of $1600 from Rolex! Not so much the fact that there were worn out gaskets and that the watch had zero waterproof protection, or that any of the near 30 year old parts that need replacing. No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT crystal on the watch first.

This is a business deal between 2 forum members and my opinion doesn't really matter. Where is this estimate that says counterfeit as claimed at? Are we to all bash a good forum member without proof? Let's wait until it is posted IMHO

[Presa canary]

Originally Posted by greekbum

The buyer has said Rolex gave him an estimate for repair and in this estimate said as he wrote :
:I was shocked, to say the least, when I received the estimate of $1600 from Rolex! Not so much the fact that there were worn out gaskets and that the watch had zero waterproof protection, or that any of the near 30 year old parts that need replacing. No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT crystal on the watch first.

This is a business deal between 2 forum members and my opinion doesn't really matter. Where is this estimate that says counterfeit as claimed at? Are we to all bash a good forum member without proof? Let's wait until it is posted IMHO

I never knew the counterfeit crystal was in question. The seller never said anything about it. But if the buyer wants to prove it, I don't think that would hurt his case.

[canwatchco]

I should point out that Tony gave a copy of the letter to tempoking, and you don't hear him refuting the issue.

I personally have seen the letter, and I have already posted what it said in the first thread.

It refers to the NON-ROLEX crystal and the absolute condition that it be replaced before the watch can be serviced.

Despite the fact that many would like to see it in writing for curiosity, it may not actually be appropriate to post it online in a public forum.

[greekbum]

Thank you Bobby for telling us that it doesn't say what Tony said it did. Non Rolex it may be as they didn't make it to begin with IMHO . Counterfeit as claimed was not on the document. This explains to me why the buyer never posted a picture of the estimate that was claimed to have said counterfeit but according to you does not. My interest in this topic is over.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by greekbum

It is my understanding that Rolex did not produce the crystals in the years this watch was made.


The buyer has said Rolex gave him an estimate for repair and in this estimate said as he wrote :
:I was shocked, to say the least, when I received the estimate of $1600 from Rolex! Not so much the fact that there were worn out gaskets and that the watch had zero waterproof protection, or that any of the near 30 year old parts that need replacing. No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT crystal on the watch first.

This is a business deal between 2 forum members and my opinion doesn't really matter. Where is this estimate that says counterfeit as claimed at? Are we to all bash a good forum member without proof? Let's wait until it is posted IMHO

I don't really think it matters if it says counterfeit, aftermaket or non original as long as it states that it's not an authentic Rolex crystal.

[mannyv11]

Originally Posted by monbk

i don't really think it matters if it says counterfeit, aftermaket or non original as long as it states that it's not an authentic rolex crystal.

x2

[Tridor]

If Rolex would not service it because the crystal was not one that came with the watch from the Rolex factory, then the entire watch was not authentic. This is not rocket science. Also, I find it somewhat disturbing that the issue of the seller trying to make a profit of $700 on the buyback offer is not being discussed more. I think that is worse than not replacing the crystal. Attempting to profit that way in a situation where the watch you sold was misrepresented, whether intentionally or not, is not a good faith effort to remedy the problem.

[nickb732]

Originally Posted by monbk

i don't really think it matters if it says counterfeit, aftermaket or non original as long as it states that it's not an authentic rolex crystal.

x3.. It's all just semantics. Same thing. Tomato, tomato.

[Takemusu]

Originally Posted by Tridor

If Rolex would not service it because the crystal was not one that came with the watch from the Rolex factory, then the entire watch was not authentic. This is not rocket science. Also, I find it somewhat disturbing that the issue of the seller trying to make a profit of $700 on the buyback offer is not being discussed more. I think that is worse than not replacing the crystal. Attempting to profit that way in a situation where the watch you sold was misrepresented, whether intentionally or not, is not a good faith effort to remedy the problem.

+1

For those that question of a seller "How do you know if my watch for sale is 100% authentic", the answer is to confirm it with Rolex. This is the game you are in after all. The car analogy only works if you are dealing with STOCK restorations of, say, classic cars. Here EVERY part must be authentic or the value plummets. There are very stringent rules that apply. Same with other collectables. That is the name of the game. Take a rare toy out of the box, and the value tanks. Genuine Rolex watches sold as such are just like that. I want to know if I buy used that I can take it to Rolex for a service and not find non-OEM parts there. For all that crow about the quality in the nuances of the Rolex movement, case, etc. when defending the pricing of Rolex, this is where the rubber hits the road. Genuine should matter, and be expected. Period. Sellers should appreciate this and represent their products truthfully. If they want to risk non-authentication, then roll the dice and be prepared for a hassle of anything is discovered down the road.

[TempoKing]

Originally Posted by greekbum

It is my understanding that Rolex did not produce the crystals in the years this watch was made.


The buyer has said Rolex gave him an estimate for repair and in this estimate said as he wrote :
:I was shocked, to say the least, when I received the estimate of $1600 from Rolex! Not so much the fact that there were worn out gaskets and that the watch had zero waterproof protection, or that any of the near 30 year old parts that need replacing. No, I was shocked because Rolex refused to repair it unless I would replace the COUNTERFEIT crystal on the watch first.

This is a business deal between 2 forum members and my opinion doesn't really matter. Where is this estimate that says counterfeit as claimed at? Are we to all bash a good forum member without proof? Let's wait until it is posted IMHO

QUOTE=greekbum;4878048]Thank you Bobby for telling us that it doesn't say what Tony said it did. Non Rolex it may be as they didn't make it to begin with IMHO . Counterfeit as claimed was not on the document. This explains to me why the buyer never posted a picture of the estimate that was claimed to have said counterfeit but according to you does not. My interest in this topic is over.[/QUOTE]


Nick
I offered Tony a fantastic deal and he turned it down for silly reasons
After I made him the deal of replacing all that needs replaced (the outside
parts never under warranty by anyone)... for only 450 instead of 1600 (?)
...and also that my guy with 30 years Rolex factory service experience
will give him full service FREE of charge.

And all that ....for a dead battery (?)

So after I made him such an offer... he writes a very nice email to me in which he invites me for coffee if I am ever in Montreal..?

Good morning again I thought about it I slept on it I called Rolex and the girl convinced me go ahead with the service it's very expensive at least I will have a 2 year guarantee and it's local.... again like I had told you it doesn't have to do with money.... take care you have a nice day and if you are ever in Montreal give me a call maybe we can meet face to face go for coffee.

Now I am contemplating to jump through hoops for him and offer
assistance.. although he says it is not about money.

Then the next day he gets together with his Rolex buddies and local experts
in how to authenticate a Rolex - and he writes

Hi Anastasio....I spoke to a couple of my buddies here in Montreal...crazy watch guys like myself....guys who love the hobby....one of them even has a popular website like the forums based in MTL....
I told them the whole case concerning the OQ I got from you and quite frankly they are saying that the watch you sold to me was misrepresented.....the watch was not 100% authentic.....this is the ultimate worst "news" a Rolex lover can ever hear.....

So his buddies were the appraisers who with ease said I misrepresented
the watch I sold a year ago...Also he wrote:....Read this... very important

gave Rolex Service Center the green light to service the watch
but I think it is only fair for you to PAY for the "counterfeit" crystal...195$plus taxes.

Anyways. The watch had a knockoff crystal (which is against forum policy)

Let me know...let's wrap this up as buddies and not have to resort to the FORUMS.....

So From lets go for coffee when you are in Montreal
After he talks to his friends who I am sure they told him
..threaten Anastasio with "Forum" exposure ...FORUM..written with
capital letters.
From that moment onwards Nick
I saw red -.....after I offered my blood to him... he swings back
wanting to put fear in me ?

I repeat
his claim is malicious and the product of his buddies's bad advice
filled his head with innuendo and baseless accusations.
I know it is not him talking, ...only a crazy person one day invites you
for coffee in Montreal and the next day, after talking to his "experts"
comes back with the above "threat".
Especially when he has already given Rolex Canada the go ahead to service the watch !

[Takemusu]

Originally Posted by TempoKing

his claim is malicious and the product of his buddies's bad advice
filled his head with innuendo and baseless accusations.

I did not see anything malicious or, frankly, baseless in the justifiably perturbed response of the buyer. For one, this is an issue of trust. If I felt that I was burned, I would NEVER send the watch back to the seller for more "repairs" from "his guys" when his guys were probably responsible for the errant parts in question in the first place in my mind. Sorry, but that is human nature. "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me."

Also I would openly question anyone whose response to this was anything but embarrassment, and total acceptance of responsibility, and desire to do as quickly as possible, WHATEVER it would take to make it right TO THE BUYER! That is good business. Mistakes happen, and you are ultimately judged by how you respond and fix that mistake, and perhaps "seeing red" has clouded your better judgement.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Takemusu

I did not see anything malicious or, frankly, baseless in the justifiably perturbed response of the buyer

+1. Seller is just digging a massive hole for himself here.

[Presa canary]

Way to self destruct here seller. I almost feel bad for you...

[Wllnv19]

All this grief over 195 plus tax. Hope it was all worth it.

[Tridor]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

+1. Seller is just digging a massive hole for himself here.

Given what I have read in this thread and in the other thread, I can't see how he could dig himself out of it. It appears that the seller has done irreparable and permanent harm to his business reputation.

[MrFerrier]

I've read though this thread with interest. It would appear to me that the seller is using any and all excuses to justify his position. He does not appear to have excepted any responsibility for the situation that he finds himself in. And if the tables where turned would no doubt feel that he had been mislead himself regardless of time frame. I think I would!
The fact remains that the implied condition of the watch was 100% original. It was not! And not withstanding that 'implied' is a contract in itself.
Reputations counting for so much I think $190 plus tax is a small amount to pay to preserve ones reputation let alone to do the right thing.
I would not deal with the seller based on this thread alone so it hasn't done anybody any favours. And to call for the banning of a fellow TRF member because you don't like their comments is just plain petty and further damages their reputation.

Regards,

[sleddog]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Imagine this scenario.

1. "Problem" with watch. Counterfeit glass or anything else, doesn't matter.

2. Buyer and seller discuss in a manner becoming of a "TRF member".

3. Problem gets resolved in a mutually agreeable manner. Perhaps one side is a little more agreeable than the other. Again, doesn't really matter.

In the above scenario, reputations are maintained and not tarnished.

This was not the case here, alas.

As far as telling the mods who to ban.

Good luck with that one.

An appropriate summary Paul.

This is a thread being followed by more than you'd think, and with a surprised look on my face, the saying "Shot myself in the foot" comes to mind.

A shame IMO.

With that, this thread may run it's course... Question is, will the hole get deeper?!?!

[jay1988]

I am definitely leaning towards the buyer.

I'm going to quote the rules of the for sale section here.

"Anything that is not original to the watch must be disclosed. For example...a dial and or hand set change. Diamond bezels and dials"

Not knowing it wasn't original isn't an excuse.

Whilst I agree proof should be given. Something tells me from the way the seller has reacted and the offer he has made to get it sorted that he knows. Could the buyer have started all this to create a fuss and be deceiving us all with a made up Rolex quote? Possibly but I doubt it. If I'm wrong I'll apologise immediately.

What is the relevance of Rolex not making their own crystals at the time? You don't have to make it yourself to know it's real. I'm sure they have their ways. Either way if a Rolex AD says it's fake then it's fake for me.

The seller made a massive mistake here. Offering a warranty similar to Rolex? There's a reason Rolex offer those warranties on brand new watches and watches fresh off a servicing. Would Rolex ever release a watch with a fake crystal? Nope. Would Rolex charge for a needed service within their 2 year warranty if the damage wasn't caused by the owner? Nope.

Seller saying his warranty is like Rolex and that's why he wouldn't cover it really put the nail in it for me. He sells a watch with aftermarket parts which Rolex would never do. Then won't uphold his warranty because Rolex wouldn't warranty an aftermarket part?

It is beyond me why he didn't pay the $195 + tax. The cost to his reputation will be ten times that at least. As for calling for another member to be banned? See my quote from the rules of the for sale section above. The only one who broke them was the seller. If someone's getting banned it's him isn't it?

[JohnBaker3]

I think it is time for the moderators to step in and settle this whole thing once and for all. Sort of like "judge Judy"; review the rules of the forum for sale section and make it happen.

I think we have heard plenty (almost too much) from both sides. Please make it happen before the forum's reputation takes a hit too.

Be safe.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by TempoKing

I saw red....

Herein lies the problem.

[TempoKing]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Herein lies the problem.

Not seeing red anymore..I am fine now.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by JohnBaker3

I think it is time for the moderators to step in and settle this whole thing once and for all. Sort of like "judge Judy"; review the rules of the forum for sale section and make it happen.

I think we have heard plenty (almost too much) from both sides. Please make it happen before the forum's reputation takes a hit too.

Be safe.

We can't force them to settle the matter like gents.

We can ban them both but perhaps that's a little harsh, certainly at this stage.

One thing is for sure and that's the mods are once again scratching their heads and wondering why this needed to go "on trial" to start with.

[HL65]

Originally Posted by JohnBaker3

I think it is time for the moderators to step in and settle this whole thing once and for all. Sort of like "judge Judy"; review the rules of the forum for sale section and make it happen.

I think we have heard plenty (almost too much) from both sides. Please make it happen before the forum's reputation takes a hit too.

Be safe.

Not going to happen and sorry you are off about forum's reputation taking a hit. We allow members to sell and buy here as a convenience. We have nothing to do with it or the accuracy of any listing. This responsibility lies solely between the buyer and seller.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by JohnBaker3

I think it is time for the moderators to step in and settle this whole thing once and for all. Sort of like "judge Judy"; review the rules of the forum for sale section and make it happen.

I think we have heard plenty (almost too much) from both sides. Please make it happen before the forum's reputation takes a hit too.

Be safe.

After all of this, only one reputation is going to take a hit and I can tell you that it won't be the forums.

[Wllnv19]

Question what constitutes a non-genuine...as it is written in the for sale rules does a non Rolex part make a watch non-genuine....