Have you had problems with Steve Mullholland?

[pawnshopkiller]

Yes 64 like 8x8 or 59 plus5 or 100 minus 36

[inspires]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

Yes 64 like 8x8 or 59 plus5 or 100 minus 36

Glad to know that you passed Grade 2 Math.

[pawnshopkiller]

Dare I hijack the thread with a ton of pics??????


It isn't going anywhere anyway

[pawnshopkiller]

Patina from the 1800's

[Duc5150]

....should have been returned within stated return policy....should have done your research before purchase and before it was put away in a safe...

Wrong dial or not.....

My $.02

[pawnshopkiller]

[pawnshopkiller]

Ok bye.

[aboen]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

Yup...looks like pawn shop stuff.

[pawnshopkiller]

Yes I have pawnshop stuff. These are so heavy.

[inspires]

And I thought I would see pictures of your 64 Rolex watches.

[jmp909]

Originally Posted by Puffy

It should be a gloss dial with white gold surrounds so you're not wrong there my friend

Not wanting to refund you says it all - the worst a seller can do is to refuse a refund, which only suggests the goods are in a dubious state and can't be resold.

If the goods are what they are being sold as they can always be sold again so a refund must never be an issue.

Steve should refund you as you're clearly not happy.

While making sure both buyer and seller walk away having had a positive experience are important to me, this is the bottom line for all sellers regardless of whether they are in this for the hobby or for their own bottom line. If someone sells you anything at a fair price he should be more than happy to take it back because assuming it is a fair price he should be able to sell it to someone else without an issue. Wherever there is any doubt, the seller should pay return shipping and originating wire fees and make you whole as you were prior to the transaction.

[jmp909]

Originally Posted by conrail

Let's stop throwing around the word "misrepresented." The ad doesn't say original or that the dial came w/ the watch. I don't recall, but I don't think the conversation as to oriignality came up (correct me if I'm wrong) until AFTER the sale had happened. And even then, what Steve told the OP personally is his opinion only that it is original to the watch. Reasonable minds can differ as to whether that dial should have come with the watch, unless this is one of those rare vintage Rolex bright lines?

Looking at the ad I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the watch is in its original state. I would hope that a seller would make any modifications or non-original parts very clear in his ad. This is a case where more information should have been provided up front but the burden is on the seller to represent the piece correctly, not for the buyer to ask questions about everything on the watch that would otherwise be assumed.

[aboen]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

Yes I have pawnshop stuff. These are so heavy.

Cool stuff, even though it's not exactly unusual to have inventory of Rolexes at a pawnshop.

[fusionstorm]

Bear with me, as I'm going to jump back and forth in terms of which side of this issue I'm lining up on.........

I've never done business with Steve M, but I know a number of people who have and were happy with their transactions. He's obviously well-known and well-regarded in the vintage Rolex community.

I have seen him state that a 9M serial Sea Dweller could have come with a matte dial. I'm not in agreement with that and I've yet to meet anyone else who is.

But there are no hard and fast rules Rolex followed when transitioning from radium to matte dials, and from matte dials to luminova. Is there a possibility a batch of matte dials could have been found in someone's desk drawer or in a box at the factory during the transition period? Certainly. Would Rolex have destroyed them, if such an event occurred? Unlikely.

I've seen testimony from original purchasers of Rolexes that had originality issues (e.g. non-"straight across" casebacks on Double Red SDs) stating that's how it came when they bought it at the AD. There have been plenty of instances of Rolex repurposing parts, such as using 5513 casebacks in 5512s. So there's precedent here that Rolex could've had a batch of matte dialed 5513s leave the factory after they'd already begun production of the glossy dialed versions.

Just because a seller is respected in the community doesn't mean a buyer should throw caution out the window, place complete trust in them and perform no due diligence before entering into a transaction. If something were to go awry b/c of lack of knowledge/awareness about "originality", that's on the buyer IMO. A quick investigation or simply posting a question would've revealed the skepticism about an 8.6M serial 5513 having a matte dial.

But at the end of the day, no one can say with 100% certainty that this 5513 originally left the AD with a gloss dial. Why? Because unless someone here worked for Rolex in their manufacturing group throughout the decade of the 80s, it's mere speculation and anecdotal evidence. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there is always the chance for an outlier or three.

IMO there are two solutions here for the OP. One, take up Steve on his offer to apply what was paid towards the acquisition of another watch in his inventory. Or two, acquire a 5513 set that falls within the "safe" serial range but is currently outfitted with a gloss dial (they certainly come up for sale with some regularity), and swap out the dials. Typically, such "should be matte dial" sets are priced pretty aggressively b/c of the presence of a gloss dial, so the OP should end up with fairly priced matte and gloss 5513 sets if he is patient.

*** EDIT - forgot to add that the few hundred thousand difference in serial number between what is generally accepted as the "late matte dial 5513" period versus the start of the glossy dial period represents less than a year in Rolex's manufacturing world. So the possibility is higher that they may have come upon a few "straggler" matte dials and pushed them out after the gloss dials had already started being manufactured. ***

[pawnshopkiller]

Originally Posted by inspires

And I thought I would see pictures of your 64 Rolex watches.

You will never see them better than the pic in the tupperware.

Unless you come visit me.

[johnbeth]

We need to wait for Steve's post in this thread before any opinions are formed as there is always two sides to a story.

[pawnshopkiller]

Originally Posted by aboen

Cool stuff, even though it's not exactly unusual to have inventory of Rolexes at a pawnshop.

I swear haters and wanna b's.

It is not unusual to find you here.

[aboen]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

I swear haters and wanna b's.

It is not unusual to find you here.

Your true colors exposed. Don't blame you for being mad.

[pawnshopkiller]

Not mad. Much love.

[jdc]

Originally Posted by fusionstorm

Bear with me, as I'm going to jump back and forth in terms of which side of this issue I'm lining up on.........

I've never done business with Steve M, but I know a number of people who have and were happy with their transactions. He's obviously well-known and well-regarded in the vintage Rolex community.

I have seen him state that a 9M serial Sea Dweller could have come with a matte dial. I'm not in agreement with that and I've yet to meet anyone else who is.

But there are no hard and fast rules Rolex followed when transitioning from radium to matte dials, and from matte dials to luminova. Is there a possibility a batch of matte dials could have been found in someone's desk drawer or in a box at the factory during the transition period? Certainly. Would Rolex have destroyed them, if such an event occurred? Unlikely.

I've seen testimony from original purchasers of Rolexes that had originality issues (e.g. non-"straight across" casebacks on Double Red SDs) stating that's how it came when they bought it at the AD. There have been plenty of instances of Rolex repurposing parts, such as using 5513 casebacks in 5512s. So there's precedent here that Rolex could've had a batch of matte dialed 5513s leave the factory after they'd already begun production of the glossy dialed versions.

Just because a seller is respected in the community doesn't mean a buyer should throw caution out the window, place complete trust in them and perform no due diligence before entering into a transaction. If something were to go awry b/c of lack of knowledge/awareness about "originality", that's on the buyer IMO. A quick investigation or simply posting a question would've revealed the skepticism about an 8.6M serial 5513 having a matte dial.

But at the end of the day, no one can say with 100% certainty that this 5513 originally left the AD with a gloss dial. Why? Because unless someone here worked for Rolex in their manufacturing group throughout the decade of the 80s, it's mere speculation and anecdotal evidence. The problem with anecdotal evidence is that there is always the chance for an outlier or three.

IMO there are two solutions here for the OP. One, take up Steve on his offer to apply what was paid towards the acquisition of another watch in his inventory. Or two, acquire a 5513 set that falls within the "safe" serial range but is currently outfitted with a gloss dial (they certainly come up for sale with some regularity), and swap out the dials. Typically, such "should be matte dial" sets are priced pretty aggressively b/c of the presence of a gloss dial, so the OP should end up with fairly priced matte and gloss 5513 sets if he is patient.

*** EDIT - forgot to add that the few hundred thousand difference in serial number between what is generally accepted as the "late matte dial 5513" period versus the start of the glossy dial period represents less than a year in Rolex's manufacturing world. So the possibility is higher that they may have come upon a few "straggler" matte dials and pushed them out after the gloss dials had already started being manufactured. ***

The OP on top of the gloss/matte dial debate has concerns that he has a Mark III dial on the watch. While a Mark V dial could be argued at a push a Mark III dial could not and would not be compatible with the serial number.

[Andad]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

You have no idea who you are talking to. I have more watches then most sellers here. I have a Shop in my community where my reputation is strong and flawless so I could care less if you wouldn't buy a watch from me as I don't need the forum to sell anything.


Steve is my friend and I myself have just went through a ordeal shipping a watch into the USA and had it stopped by customs and had to pay Duties and taxes which is exactly what will happen to Steve if this fella who didn't do his homework before he bought a watch and then didn't bother to inspect it for a month returns the watch...


So say what you will at the end of the day most of the people reading this will still be a wanna be or a hater and I will still have 64 Rolex watches.

I am sure we have ALL worked out who we are talking to Roscoe.

You need to lighten up, back off and let Steve sort this out when he comes back. You are not helping your friend and your 70%/80% refund policy didn't impress me but hey your not just in it for the money - right.

[nch209]

Interesting points. I hope both sides can come to terms.

[djkennedy67]

I would love to come to a fair and speedy resolution.

While I feel a full refund is right I have offered to take an exchange for a full set Maxi 5513 as previously described in the advert.

I also offered, as a gesture, to cover all costs of postage and bank transfers to facilitate a deal.

However, I cannot seem to get any contact with Steve, despite sending several emails over nearly the last week.

I'm sure we both have better things to do with our time and feel a quick resolution would suit both of us.

[Andad]

Steve will be in touch with you soon.

[pawnshopkiller]

I'm a troll. My pics are fake. DIdn't you know?

[psv]

pawnshopkiller, while initially standing up for your friend Steve is amicable, you are really not doing yourself or your reputation any favors.

[pawnshopkiller]

If I really cared about what you all think I would have chose a name without pawnshop in it.

Opinions are formed based on my screen name alone. I am fine with this and secure with everything I have said here.

Thanks for your concern but honestly I have earned everything I have without a silly forum.


As far as my opinion on the return a month later. I would feel the same way even if I didn't know the seller.

[HL65]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

If I really cared about what you all think I would have chose a name without pawnshop in it.

Opinions are formed based on my screen name alone. I am fine with this and secure with everything I have said here.

Thanks for your concern but honestly I have earned everything I have without a silly forum.


As far as my opinion on the return a month later. I would feel the same way even if I didn't know the seller.

If it is a silly Forum - Why are you here?

Enough of the nonsense and get back on topic all or this thread is going bye bye. To the OP--perhaps you should have handled this privately to get the best result?

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

If I really cared about what you all think I would have chose a name without pawnshop in it.

Opinions are formed based on my screen name alone. I am fine with this and secure with everything I have said here.

Thanks for your concern but honestly I have earned everything I have without a silly forum.


As far as my opinion on the return a month later. I would feel the same way even if I didn't know the seller.

Excuse me but it seems that there's only one person acting the fool on this thread and his name rhymes with cornhopfiller.

There are plenty of other non-silly forums to grace your presence with.

I have no doubt that Stevie M will sort this one out. The seller also seems a reasonable sort.

Give it a little time, then either party can update this thread.

[TempoKing]

Rolex has produced matte dials for 5513's Subs in the 8M + plus range
right before the dial change to Gloss/White Gold hour marker bezels.
So I believe you are covered there.

There is the small matter of your matte dial having the word SUBMARINER shorter
than the depth rating where as in the 8M+ matte dials (?) the word SUBMARINER
is covering (is longer) the depth rating in length.
This type of new measurement stuck with the glossy dials later.


: