Purchase Experience with Stein Diamonds

[np2016]

Yep the seller should definitely take the watch back and give 100% of the purchase price back and pay for shipping. Like new= no visual scratches, minimal wear and tear, and definitely has never been polished.

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

Trying to work with Ken as much as we can

Originally Posted by AK797

This forum has spoken and it is a powerful one, the seller should wake the hell up and cut the damage before every search for their firm will lead to this thread.

SteinDiamonds, respectfully, do the right thing.

A description of mint condition does not include a poor or uneven polishing job. As others have said, maybe you moved too fast and did not consider the implications of your description. Like new is like new. This watch was not in like new condition. As a seller, I suspect you have enough experience to know that. If not, chalk this one up to learning. I feel confident that you (like many of us) work hard to maintain your reputation.

So what if he wore the watch, as long as he did not damage it? The only time wearing a watch may have mattered on AP is if the watch had been serviced by AP and was delivered to the buyer sealed inside the service box. I bought one from Govberg and it was sealed in the AP service box. I knew that if I opened the box I could not return it at the agreed/paid price. Service is a big deal on AP.

Hoping the parties can work together and move on.

[SteinDiamonds]

I apologize for the late response- first time on the forums so did not check the 2nd and 3rd page.

I understand everyone's points, including Ken.

If the watch was never worn we would have taken it back 100%. We are not trying to deceive anyone, moreover, damage our reputation. To the best of our abilities we tried to describe explain and show the watch. I understand "like new" is something that we will take much more meticulously and cautiously but to us, a watch that is in better than mint condition, which this watch is, it only made sense for us to describe it as like new. Obviously like new is not new, that is they there is "like" before the word new. Again, if our description does not suffice, there were many pictures to back it up. I would 100% agree with everyone if there we no pictures and Ken was solely reliant on our description but that is not the case. We spoke, emailed, had a description, and had pictures.


Be that as it may, I would like to hear opinions on what should be done when Ken WORE the watch. Again if he did not wear the watch, which in our defense was one of the questions we asked when he said he would like to return the watch, how should we proceed? If it was unworn and he opened the box realized he didn't like it or it was not as he expected/described and wanted to return it that is not a problem, we would have take it back despite our terms and conditions.

But when something is worn it turns into a whole new issue. I understand everyone's points but I think we can all agree on this: when a watch is worn it cannot be returned the same way a watch that is not worn is.

Again, we did not try and screw him over in any way. The price is at least 2,500-3,000 less than a new one. I am working with Ken on this as we speak and not once did we stop responding or disrespectful in any way. I think he can agree that we have been very responsive and trying our best to work with him.


once again apologize for the late response, just saw all these messages now, was not trying to ignore/not respond.

[yyzpam]

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

I apologize for the late response- first time on the forums so did not check the 2nd and 3rd page.


Again, we did not try and screw him over in any way. The price is at least 2,500-3,000 less than a new one. I am working with Ken on this as we speak and not once did we stop responding or disrespectful in any way. I think he can agree that we have been very responsive and trying our best to work with him.


once again apologize for the late response, just saw all these messages now, was not trying to ignore/not respond.

IF you had sold the OP a NEW watch and he wore it and then contacted you after to return....you may have a point. You sold him a previously worn USED watch.....so unless he materially changed its condition, him wearing it a few times should make NO difference to the value. You bringing up the value of a new watch is irrelevant (you did not sell him a new watch).

You described the watch very poorly and have yet to remedy the situation and have now let an easily resolved issue grow into something that will hurt your future business. I would call your handling of the issue shortsighted. Everyone is entitled to do business in any matter they see fit. Just as I am entitled to spend my money with people I feel comfortable with. There is nothing about how you have handled this issue that makes me feel comfortable.

[Vamp]

Originally Posted by yyzpam

IF you had sold the OP a NEW watch and he wore it and then contacted you after to return....you may have a point. You sold him a previously worn USED watch.....so unless he materially changed its condition, him wearing it a few times should make NO difference to the value. You bringing up the value of a new watch is irrelevant (you did not sell him a new watch).

You described the watch very poorly and have yet to remedy the situation and have now let an easily resolved issue grow into something that will hurt your future business. I would call your handling of the issue shortsighted. Everyone is entitled to to business in any matter they see fit. Just as I am entitled to spend my money with people I feel comfortable with. There is nothing about how you have handled this issue that makes me feel comfortable.

Exactly!

[RolexZen]

The way I interpret “like new” is that the watch could pass as new with stickers removed, if you didn’t tell me that it was actually pre-owned. This doesn’t appear to be the case.

I think a previous poster makes a good point that while briefly wearing a watch devalues a new watch, it doesn’t really devalue a used watch unless there is material wear and tear. But I do get the seller’s point that the buyer should have made the effort to inspect the watch thoroughly BEFORE wearing it.

Seller, assuming the watch js in the same condition now as it was when you sold it to the buyer, I think at the VERY LEAST you should meet him half-way on the restocking fee.

[aa909]

Originally Posted by yyzpam

IF you had sold the OP a NEW watch and he wore it and then contacted you after to return....you may have a point. You sold him a previously worn USED watch.....so unless he materially changed its condition, him wearing it a few times should make NO difference to the value. You bringing up the value of a new watch is irrelevant (you did not sell him a new watch).

You described the watch very poorly and have yet to remedy the situation and have now let an easily resolved issue grow into something that will hurt your future business. I would call your handling of the issue shortsighted. Everyone is entitled to do business in any matter they see fit. Just as I am entitled to spend my money with people I feel comfortable with. There is nothing about how you have handled this issue that makes me feel comfortable.

[Burlington]

If we have established the watch was not new, or like new. Then it was used.

At that stage it then becomes largely irrelevant how many people have worn it and only the condition should matter.

Yes ideally the OP would have inspected and rejected first, but much more obvious issues have been missed in the excitement of a new (used) watch arriving I’m sure. Especially as the OP was expecting a ‘like new’ watch to arrive not a used one.

It’s the details which matter and sometimes they may take a while to be noticed especially by someone new to AP.

Also for a description of a watch - at least for me, words hugely outweigh a photo. As photos can easily mislead about condition. So I don’t think as a trade professional that’s a good excuse at all.

From what I have distilled from this, if you are genuinely seeking to make things right. The buyer should pay to return the watch to you (with appropriate insurance on the parcel) this cost is in recognition that he did wear the watch.

You should accept the watch back, confirm it is in the same used condition as you sold it. Then fully refund the money. You can then relist the watch for the same used value price, with a more accurate description and everyone is whole again - monetarily and reputationaly.

[Vaxe]

Just digging yourself deeper.
1) look up the definition of mint. Better than mint is not “like new”, it’s new.
2) An used watch is an used watch, if OP didn’t ding or scratch it, it’s the same condition as before.

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

I apologize for the late response- first time on the forums so did not check the 2nd and 3rd page.

I understand everyone's points, including Ken.

If the watch was never worn we would have taken it back 100%. We are not trying to deceive anyone, moreover, damage our reputation. To the best of our abilities we tried to describe explain and show the watch. I understand "like new" is something that we will take much more meticulously and cautiously but to us, a watch that is in better than mint condition, which this watch is, it only made sense for us to describe it as like new. Obviously like new is not new, that is they there is "like" before the word new. Again, if our description does not suffice, there were many pictures to back it up. I would 100% agree with everyone if there we no pictures and Ken was solely reliant on our description but that is not the case. We spoke, emailed, had a description, and had pictures.


Be that as it may, I would like to hear opinions on what should be done when Ken WORE the watch. Again if he did not wear the watch, which in our defense was one of the questions we asked when he said he would like to return the watch, how should we proceed? If it was unworn and he opened the box realized he didn't like it or it was not as he expected/described and wanted to return it that is not a problem, we would have take it back despite our terms and conditions.

But when something is worn it turns into a whole new issue. I understand everyone's points but I think we can all agree on this: when a watch is worn it cannot be returned the same way a watch that is not worn is.

Again, we did not try and screw him over in any way. The price is at least 2,500-3,000 less than a new one. I am working with Ken on this as we speak and not once did we stop responding or disrespectful in any way. I think he can agree that we have been very responsive and trying our best to work with him.


once again apologize for the late response, just saw all these messages now, was not trying to ignore/not respond.

[Aplover5]

You’ve embarrassed yourself to probably the point of no return on the most respected/read watch forum on the net. I’m embarrassed I contacted you initially so you could right your wrong. Proof positive when you put expectations on people you’re often let down.

[DJH1977]

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

...but to us, a watch that is in better than mint condition, which this watch is, it only made sense for us to describe it as like new. Obviously like new is not new, that is they there is "like" before the word new.

This is not a thoughtfully crafted response, I'm sorry to say. Better than mint?

[gsg]

That in this day and age we are having this type of thread is mind blowing and proof that this hobby is a minefield... especially if you are buying used. It just reinforces the "buy the seller" mantra. I am just amazed at how some sellers handle their business...

[NYG1121]

Just caught up on this thread. Wow. I have seen Stein Diamonds all over chrono24 and other sites and I hate to say this will make me think twice.

[P2725TMB]

Originally Posted by DJH1977

This is not a thoughtfully crafted response, I'm sorry to say. Better than mint?

I haven't read all this thread, but to me a description of "As New" means simply that, it is exactly as it would be if new, without any marks, blemishes or modifications. If there were marks, or even servicing, it should've been clearly stated "as new, but with...".

As for "better than mint" I don't think you can have that. "Mint" applies to coins being absolutely as they were when stamped - ie as new. Hence to me if an item is defined as in "mint" condition I'd expect it to be in as new, as made, as originally sold condition. Better than mint isn't possible, but if such was stated it would surely help strongly imply that the item is absolutely perfect and flawless.

However, in principle unless stated as "unused" it could perhaps have been used, but without creating any signs of wear at all, so still in an as new state.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

I understand "like new" is something that we will take much more meticulously and cautiously but to us, a watch that is in better than mint condition, which this watch is, it only made sense for us to describe it as like new. Obviously like new is not new, that is they there is "like" before the word new .

Like:
Preposition
Having the same characteristics or qualities as; similar to.

Like new means its the same as new, but sold second hand. Its not a lesser qualification of new in regard to condition. In a sentence.... the watch is a like new watch, and i am selling it to you in the same condition in which i originally bought it new from an AD.

if you want to get into other areas of condition.... "excellent condition" is much more open to interpretation

"better than mint" is absurd.

Totally contradictory so say a watch in an impossible state of condition "better than mint" (better than it came from the factory) is best to be described as "like new" because its obviously not "new". that makes zero sense.

Plus in your own way of justifying this, if "like new" IS a lesser condition (according to you) then why does it matter if its returned after being worn? Its not new by your own admission and the return would be in the same not new condition. You can't have it both ways.

[AK797]

I think Stein has New then Mint as a ranking and is claiming this is in between... so obviously we are splitting hairs to the nth degree which means the seller should make the buyer right as this is not a clear cut case of buyer's remorse or the buyer changing a new watch to a worn/used watch, which are the only outs for a seller... so come on Stein, step up for the love of God!

[bund]

I can’t believe a dealer these days are willing to risk their reputation for a few thousand dollars.

[1William]

A difficult situation here from both the buyers/sellers point of view. I can not believe that the seller would allow this to go on without a resolution. Either take the watch back, don't take the watch back or work a deal out to pay for a bezel and service at AP or some percentage of it. I think that this is one of the nightmares that customers have about the internet and sellers. The damage that has been done to the business through this post is significant and will impact them. Make it right, move on and describe your merchandise for sale in a manner consistent with industry standards and expectations from customers. Don't argue or let your ego get in the way of maintaining a good reputation. Live and learn.

[masterserg]

Dude, that watch is nowhere close to mint or like new. To list it as such and then say “I posted pictures” is ludicrous and misleading at best. You should take it back and prevent further damage to your rep.

Had you listed it as “Excellent” you’d have a stronger case (still debatable given what appears to be a poor retouching job if not disclosed). These are not 50 bucks eBay purchases.

[sitkenneth]

Hi. Just want to give everyone an update.

Joe from Stein and I are working to get this resolved. We agreed that I send them the watch back and with an additional fund (which I think is reasonable), and they will send me a brand new one of same model.

Despite some hassles, if this works out OK I will be able to really enjoy the piece and move on.

Will keep everyone posted.

Btw: the watch I got had been put on my wrist for a wrist shot. I then realised the issue as detailed in this thread and brought it to AP boutique a few days later. Technically it should be of the same condition as when I received it. It even has the same plastic sheet wrapping as the watch was delivered to me.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by sitkenneth

Hi. Just want to give everyone an update.

Joe from Stein and I are working to get this resolved. We agreed that I send them the watch back and with an additional fund (which I think is reasonable), and they will send me a brand new one of same model.

Despite some hassles, if this works out OK I will be able to really enjoy the piece and move on.

Will keep everyone posted.

Btw: the watch I got had been put on my wrist for a wrist shot. I then realised the issue as detailed in this thread and brought it to AP boutique a few days later. Technically it should be of the same condition as when I received it. It even has the same plastic sheet wrapping as the watch was delivered to me.

ask for the "better than mint" option

Brand new is for suckers

On a side note im going to trademark that phrase so if any sellers want to use it, they can talk to me

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

when a watch is worn it cannot be returned the same way a watch that is not worn is.

Again, we did not try and screw him over in any way. The price is at least 2,500-3,000 less than a new one. I am working with Ken on this as we speak and not once did we stop responding or disrespectful in any way. I think he can agree that we have been very responsive and trying our best to work with him.

This is pathetic to be honest. Him wearing the watch doesn't change a thing. I have a watch that I've been wearing for the past 4 years that still looks like new (I'm not even kidding).

[aa909]

Originally Posted by SteinDiamonds

If the watch was never worn we would have taken it back 100%.

The guy wore it for 2 minutes before realizing all the issues. I was at the AP Boutique in Beverly Hills yesterday and tried on a few pieces, I wonder if the Boutique is now selling them at 20% discount because they're no longer "Mint"

[CoveWatch]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

ask for the "better than mint" option

Brand new is for suckers

On a side note im going to trademark that phrase so if any sellers want to use it, they can talk to me

So I’m going to take a stab and say the potential 10-20% restocking fee Stein was trying to get was not worth all this publicity.. the power of TRF! But I am very glad to hear a resolution is in place.. good on the both of you and congrats on your brand new ROO OP!

[AK797]

Hope the seller does the right thing or change his name to KamikazeDiamonds.

[Burlington]

Pleased to hear it’s on the way to a resolution

[Bladeshot]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

"better than mint" is absurd.

Actually laughed out loud. “Better than mint.” Man, that’s a good one! I don’t even like to use the term. . Glad it is being resolved.

[DK3]

I had a similar experience with them. I purchased a ROC steel 4 years ago and it was advertised as new. STAY AWAY from this dealer. In the local Los Angeles area many watch collectors will never do business with them. They are dishonest.

[Apheaven]

Originally Posted by sitkenneth

Hi. Just want to give everyone an update.

Joe from Stein and I are working to get this resolved. We agreed that I send them the watch back and with an additional fund (which I think is reasonable), and they will send me a brand new one of same model.

To be clear, they are suggesting you pay them more money so you can receive another watch in the actual condition they had initially represented to deliver the original watch in, after they just tried to screw you over? My apologies in advance for my candor, but you are f**king joking me?! Just get your money back. Candidly I will personally help you find another watch, if not out of my own collection, before you do business with them again. That watch is not hard to find. Just get your money back as you are legally owed. At this point, they can not be trusted and you should not do any more business with them, especially after hearing the asinine terms that are being proposed to resolve this.

Seller, to be clear, you have engaged in negligent misrepresentation at best, if not fraudulent misrepresentation at worst. Either way, the sale was through illegal means. I actually tried to help you earlier in this thread as I saw this as a potential honest misunderstanding, before it became clear you were/are trying to pull one over on the seller. Give him his money back! I think you can already tell this isn't going away or getting easier for you with time.

[Apheaven]

Originally Posted by Apheaven

before it became clear you were/are trying to pull one over on the seller.

To clarify, meant *the buyer* as opposed to seller.