PASSING THE TEST - Are you OK with a “background check?”

[JChips]

Originally Posted by vh2k

It’s a discussion forum, so cordial debate is healthy.

Of course, if someone buys a watch, it’s their property and they are legally allowed to sell it.

That doesn’t mean Rolex/ADs need to make it easier for brokers and flippers to acquire desirable pieces so they can be resold the next day.

Absolutely nothing wrong with ADs putting in place measures that attempt to prevent in-demand pieces from falling into the hands of flippers.

No, you are right. It’s their (AD’s) business and they should be allowed to conduct it as they see fit. I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they want to sell to or not.

I’m just surprised that there are enough buyers out there that are willing to go along with the nonsense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Watchflair]

Originally Posted by vh2k

If the AD caught him selling (what look like) new watches on Ebay, they made a judgment call he was a flipper. If they were non-Rolex watches from 20 years ago, different story.

Anything listed on eBay was also listed on TRF - so you can see what I have sold. Predominantly vintage pieces. I have kept every new Rolex purchased from an AD since 2012 -

Most modern watch sold was an Omega Speedy Tuesday that I just didn’t fall in love with - if it doesn’t tickle you when you check your wrist it’s not the right piece.

Any who - all in good fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Me4u2night]

If an AD told me they had to vet me to see if I qualify to buy a watch from them I would laugh in their face.

[sgwatchguy]

This past weekend, AD asked me for my profile when I was there to seek out availability for a low production piece - not PP/AP/Rolex. I politely declined, told them they could go look me up on LinkedIn but I wasn’t about to give personal social media or other profile info. They were polite and said no problem. Now... time will tell if my refusal created an impediment or not.

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by Watchflair

Anything listed on eBay was also listed on TRF - so you can see what I have sold. Predominantly vintage pieces. I have kept every new Rolex purchased from an AD since 2012 -

Most modern watch sold was an Omega Speedy Tuesday that I just didn’t fall in love with - if it doesn’t tickle you when you check your wrist it’s not the right piece.

Any who - all in good fun.

In that case, maybe the AD went too far. Damned if they do; damned if they don’t. Ha!

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by Me4u2night

If an AD told me they had to vet me to see if I qualify to buy a watch from them I would laugh in their face.

[TK-710]

Originally Posted by vh2k

Trader, flipper, fickle owner, pick a name. AD made the right call.

I respectfully disagree. If you buy a watch with the sole intention of reselling it that’s a completely different circumstance than a person buying a watch to add to a collection only to realize later it’s not working from them. Just because someone can afford to buy a Rolex doesn’t mean they can afford to hold onto one they decide they won’t wear. Especially if letting it go means they can now move something else in. In that scenario the AD is selling two watches instead of one. Why should the AD care in that scenario that the buyer had to sell the first to get the second. Should the buyer in that case throw the unwanted watch in a junk drawer, never to see the light of day again, to please an AD who by the way is now losing a sale. There’s a big difference between a genuine collector in search of the ever elusive perfect collection and the grey market profiter. I think you judged him to harshly.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by vh2k

No and no. Nobody has proposed selling your watch should be illegal. Red herring.

This discussion topic is to share opinions about Rolex ADs vetting customers and attempts to keep watches out of the hands of brokers and flippers.

If an AD has the ability to choose between selling a desirable model to a Rolex lover who will wear the watch and never sell it vs. a broker who will immediately sell it to a dealer for resale in the secondary market... it is OK with you if the AD has a policy not to sell to the known flipper?

It seems to only be a "red herring" when it doesn't play to your narrative.

Just for info, every AD buys and sells watch for a profit, they flip, thats what they do, exactly the same as any retail business. What you seem to be saying is that once one buys a watch, it should be owned for life.

Are you saying that a Rolex AD can stifle any competition by default? That once you sell a Rolex, for any reason that you should not be allowed to buy another one? Is that what you are saying?

You have said above that it is not illegal, then why the interview?

I will answer your question, unlike you who has ignored questions to your "discussion topic" that may be difficult to answer. I don't think any AD should have a discriminatory policy for selling any watch.

Here's some of the questions that you ignore, there are others that don't sit well with your view;

Originally Posted by daveathall

So they can sell a normal watch to someone they regard as a broker but will not sell a highly regarded watch to? Surely you see the ethics problem there? They decide that because someone is a broker they are disqualified from buying a certain watch, but, when it suits the AD, they can sell them a watch that is less desirable.

What if that person is a broker and buys a lot of normal watches, does he then get the chance to buy the rarer "in the back" watches? If not why, he is a high quantity buyer?

Who does the interview? A shop assistant perhaps, where is the information stored, what safeguards are there?

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I will answer your question, unlike you who has ignored questions to your "discussion topic" that may be difficult to answer. I don't think any AD should have a discriminatory policy for selling any watch.

Here's some of the questions that you ignore, there are others that don't sit well with your view;

He also ignored my question if he willingly subjected himself to a background check and vetting... but hey, it's his thread.

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

He also ignored my question if he willingly subjected himself to a background check and vetting... but hey, it's his thread.

Happy to be more clear. As I said in previous post...

In one case, I met personally with the General Manager of the company. Another AD, the Store Director made a special trip to meet me in person on a Saturday -- when this person runs Sales/Operations and doesn't even work in the physical store.

Did I “willingly subject” myself? That’s an odd way of phrasing it. But, sure, I WANTED to meet with the management and bypass all the SAs. That’s the smart thing to do.

When I buy a car, I don’t walk into the dealership and deal with the first salesperson that introduces himself. I call the GM and deal with him directly. The GM doesn’t need to check with anyone before making a decision and will provide the most flexibility.

As I previously said, if you want to reassure the dealer that you aren’t a flipper, why wouldn’t you WANT to tell them why you’re interested in a particular piece, and flat out tell them you won’t make them look bad by putting the watch on eBay the next week?

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by daveathall

It seems to only be a "red herring" when it doesn't play to your narrative.

Just for info, every AD buys and sells watch for a profit, they flip, thats what they do, exactly the same as any retail business. What you seem to be saying is that once one buys a watch, it should be owned for life.

Are you saying that a Rolex AD can stifle any competition by default? That once you sell a Rolex, for any reason that you should not be allowed to buy another one? Is that what you are saying?

You have said above that it is not illegal, then why the interview?

I will answer your question, unlike you who has ignored questions to your "discussion topic" that may be difficult to answer. I don't think any AD should have a discriminatory policy for selling any watch.

Here's some of the questions that you ignore, there are others that don't sit well with your view;

Very thoughtful reply. My comments below...

Just for info, every AD buys and sells watch for a profit, they flip, thats what they do, exactly the same as any retail business. What you seem to be saying is that once one buys a watch, it should be owned for life.

I'm not really saying that. My position is simply that there is nothing wrong with the AD making reasonable attempts to discern if someone has intentions to wear and enjoy the watch OR just wants to buy it to sell it and make a quick buck.


Are you saying that a Rolex AD can stifle any competition by default?

I'm not sure I understand how competition is stifled. That's a legal concept that doesn't apply in this situation. Rolex doesn't have a monopoly on watches. Dealers are all independently owned.


That once you sell a Rolex, for any reason that you should not be allowed to buy another one? Is that what you are saying?

Depends. Did you buy it last week and immediately put it on eBay? If so, the AD might decide not to sell you another watch. Of course, you are still "allowed" to buy a Rolex. You can go to another AD or any secondary reseller.


You have said above that it is not illegal, then why the interview?

Because the AD doesn't want the watch they just sold showing up on Facebook Marketplace the next day. It makes them look bad. So, they want to take reasonable measures to prevent a blatant flipper from acquiring a watch that could otherwise go to bonafide Rolex lover.


I don't think any AD should have a discriminatory policy for selling any watch.

You are entitled to your opinion. I think there is nothing wrong with trying to prevent blatant flipping. Every single day someone walks into an AD, asks about a Pepsi, and the AD tells the person "It's a 2-year wait" even though they have one in the back. That's a discriminatory policy... and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, i would argue it's good to reserve that watch for someone whose business and relationship the AD wants to nurture. (Quick note: In the U.S., you can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, etc. I am not condoning any illegal discrimination.)

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by vh2k

Happy to be more clear. As I said in previous post...

In one case, I met personally with the General Manager of the company. Another AD, the Store Director made a special trip to meet me in person on a Saturday -- when this person runs Sales/Operations and doesn't even work in the physical store.

Did I “willingly subject” myself? That’s an odd way of phrasing it. But, sure, I WANTED to meet with the management and bypass all the SAs. That’s the smart thing to do.

When I buy a car, I don’t walk into the dealership and deal with the first salesperson that introduces himself. I call the GM and deal with him directly. The GM doesn’t need to check with anyone before making a decision and will provide the most flexibility.

As I previously said, if you want to reassure the dealer that you aren’t a flipper, why wouldn’t you WANT to tell them why you’re interested in a particular piece, and flat out tell them you won’t make them look bad by putting the watch on eBay the next week?

So you met with upper levels of service, and I wouldn't qualify that as vetting and background checking...so in essence you did not willingly offer yourself to be background checked, which was the subject of this strange thread.

[V25V]

Such an odd thread...... cannot believe it has come to this.

Quite ironic with the plethora of BNIB watches for sale from secondary sellers, still wrapped in plastic, on a daily basis. I suspect the majority of AD's are all playing the game anyhow.

[daveathall]

(Quick note: In the U.S., you can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, etc. I am not condoning any illegal discrimination.)

That is the same here, I was using the word "discriminatory" in regards to a broker/flipper.

Here's the thing, a person that gets access to the "in the safe watches" will be a high value purchaser, that includes a Grey dealer, he will only become a "Grey dealer" because the AD has allowed him to do so by offering him the highly desirable watches. In a way, he is the only way a "normal" person can gain access to those rare watches without having to spend huge amounts of money on other watches to gain the privilege of ever seeing them. (Which is the fault of the AD for "hiding" watches in the back for their preferred customers).

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by gnuyork

So you met with upper levels of service, and I wouldn't qualify that as vetting and background checking...so in essence you did not willingly offer yourself to be background checked, which was the subject of this strange thread.

I think this thread has been very illuminating and fun. I hope you feel the same way.

Of course, I didn't hand the AD a resume, list of references, and social media links and "willingly offer" to be vetted. But I did willingly meet with them in person, share my circumstances, and reassure them I was going to wear the watch and not flip it. Again, I think it's the smart thing to do.

ADs run their businesses differently... but my experience has been that they want to know who you are, meet with you in person, qualify/vet you as a customer, and then decide if/when to offer you a watch.

[gnuyork]

Originally Posted by vh2k

I think this thread has been very illuminating and fun. I hope you feel the same way.

Of course, I didn't hand the AD a resume, list of references, and social media links and "willingly offer" to be vetted. But I did willingly meet with them in person, share my circumstances, and reassure them I was going to wear the watch and not flip it. Again, I think it's the smart thing to do.

ADs run their businesses differently... but my experience has been that they want to know who you are, meet with you in person, qualify/vet you as a customer, and then decide if/when to offer you a watch.

Chatting with an SA about watches is very different than a vetting and background check, which is what the thread title suggests.

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Here's the thing, a person that gets access to the "in the safe watches" will be a high value purchaser, that includes a Grey dealer, he will only become a "Grey dealer" because the AD has allowed him to do so by offering him the highly desirable watches. In a way, he is the only way a "normal" person can gain access to those rare watches without having to spend huge amounts of money on other watches to gain the privilege of ever seeing them. (Which is the fault of the AD for "hiding" watches in the back for their preferred customers).

I think that's where you and I may disagree. My position is that a normal person who makes an effort to be vetted, CAN get a desirable piece without going grey and without spending a fortune first. ADs don't always just sell to people who buy jewelry or always bundle with a lady's diamond Datejust. If you don't walk in and assume you deserve the watch just because you have the ability to pay, you have a better chance to win the AD over and be offered desirable pieces. That's my argument.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by vh2k

I think that's where you and I may disagree. My position is that a normal person who makes an effort to be vetted, CAN get a desirable piece without going grey and without spending a fortune first. ADs don't always just sell to people who buy jewelry or always bundle with a lady's diamond Datejust. If you don't walk in and assume you deserve the watch just because you have the ability to pay, you have a better chance to win the AD over and be offered desirable pieces. That's my argument.

I think you are right my friend. We do disagree on that.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by daveathall

I think you are right my friend. We do disagree on that.

Seriously. I do not think the majority of AD's behave this way, quite the contrary as I mentioned above. Most play the game and are looking to move product, which makes sense.

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by V25V

Seriously. I do not think the majority of AD's behave this way, quite the contrary as I mentioned above. Most play the game and are looking to move product, which makes sense.

Let's say Rolex ships app. 80,000 watches to ADs every month. If 5% of those are desirable (wild guess), and only 5% of those are sold to flippers, that's 200 in-demand watches that can potentially find their way to trusted resellers on this forum, FB, eBay, etc. EVERY SINGLE MONTH. So, the practice doesn't have to be widespread in order for lots of brand new watches to show up in the secondary market on a regular basis.

[214270Explorer]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Jeebus.

Hey that's MY favorite response!

[904VT]

Originally Posted by vh2k

Many ADs do an admirable job trying to ensure that the watches they sell end up with customers who will wear and enjoy the watches for many years — not flip them for a quick profit or immediately sell them into the secondary market.

Would it be OK if your AD conducted a “background check” on you to verify your intentions? Reviewed all your social media posts, your history on Facebook marketplace/eBay/etc., and asked you to physically come into the showroom for an in-person meeting (vetting) to qualify you to buy a watch from them? Are you willing to do your part in the effort to minimize flipping?

Thoughts?

Um no. Background check for production watches, is about the most invasive thing I've ever heard. At most they can ask a customer to sign a no sell agreement/contract. The idea of a background check being suitable alternative is just

Since when has "doing your part" become doing whatever someone else thinks they should be dictating to everyone else.

[V25V]

Originally Posted by vh2k

Let's say Rolex ships app. 80,000 watches to ADs every month. If 5% of those are desirable (wild guess), and only 5% of those are sold to flippers, that's 200 in-demand watches that can potentially find their way to trusted resellers on this forum, FB, eBay, etc. EVERY SINGLE MONTH. So, the practice doesn't have to be widespread in order for lots of brand new watches to show up in the secondary market on a regular basis.

There are only a handful of trusted sellers on this forum. You need to think bigger. Grays in Asia, SE Asia, Middle East, etc. I think the number being sold to grays all over the world is MUCH higher than you are guessing.