Have you had problems with Steve Mullholland?

[Al1988]

The way I see it one of three things is going on here.

1. The watch originally came with a matte dial and acts as a reminder that Rolex do not stick to any particular hard and fast rules r.e. using old parts.

2. The watch originally came with a gloss dial but was replaced with a Mk3 Matte dial at service. I know someone made the point that why would someone want to go from a gloss dial to a matte dial when the gloss dial was new at that time, well perhaps the original owner of this watch decided gloss wasn't for him/her and preferred the matte dial. Maybe they just didn't care enough to note that their dial had been replaced with a matte dial lol. Either way, it isn't out of the realms of possibilities for this to be a service replacement dial, as I understand it.

3. Steve and the OP both made a mistake by not doing their due diligence.

Personally I think its the second scenario but then again what do I know lol.

Either way, I hope you guys find an amicable solution, there's no reason why this needs to get any uglier than it already has

[Mosco]

Given what I am deriving about the OP and what I know about Steve M, an amicable solution will be reached. OP seems like a levelheaded, reasonable type - and Steve is a terrific seller and a great dude (speaking from personal experience). Don't think there is any room for silliness here, there are plenty of other threads for that. Let's stick to the topic.

[dalip]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

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

Tut tut...I'll put this comment down to you becoming emotional. Can't think of why you belittle TRF though.

[Earl]

Sure is a nice looking watch tho ;-)

[psv]

[dalip]

Originally Posted by psv

Shark infested waters.....

[dalip]

In any case....as has been said Steve is a well known seller and I hope there's a way for you both to sort this out - and that once you've done that you'll post it here.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by psv

tuned in to see what the latest was

[psv]

It is Memorial Day Weekend Friday after all...

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by psv

It is Memorial Day Weekend Friday after all...

i know, can't wait, i'll have a very quiet monday

[stevemulholland3]

I had a very long diatribe mostly written out and read and re-read it again and again..adding all the while.
but the more I lament on the audacity of the querant ,or rather the crass and superciliousness intwined by his debauchery of the brotherhood spirit that has permeated our small super-continental club ala Rolex.
Our trading practice is almost exclusively built upon a fine layer of blind trust.,.
in my truest sense I am more amazed that a seemingly decent gent weould first ask me to break the laws of his beloved country by deceiving her of the amount of currency spent on the watch(therefor allowing him to scurt by tax free virtually)
then to not ask,but TELL ME what my course of actiopn will be..
he would probably want hios shipping fee back.
after he has worn the watch for a year plus..no telling what type of devious changes where yundertaken..a man whop will cohearse a seller to lie to their tax collector (or else they will unfprtunately have to go with another seller)seemingly wouldnt be too far from other animus nocendi..these things are surely uncomfortable to discuss yes..but is he not the originator of a tactic commonly used to antagonize and basically to bribe into giving in to any demand whether good or bad..
a customer of this type is no longer appealing to me,especially given the fact that I am no longer in a state of financial in limine..
so,this undoubtedly will not sit well with the antagonist and his gang of electron soldiers..
but [I] am quite comfortable in my stance against bullies and preponderate business tactics..

[gimpex]

.

[psv]

Steve,

I don't perceive that anyone trying to bully you, or anyone, into doing anything. People were simply presented with one side of the story - we kept asking for your side - and forum members (that you for some reason decided to call "electron soldiers"?) gave their personal opinion on the topic. You run your business the way you see fit, no one can force you into doing something different.

I think what most of us fellow collectors and bystanders to this affair want to know - and the question you decided not to answer - is if the dial installed was original to the watch in question or if you/anyone has changed it at some point. I think we would all benefit from your answer as you obviously have a vast amount of knowledge on the topic as a professional vintage watch dealer.

[mopsey]

I don't think Steve owes anyone anything except the OP.
That said, this type of thing shouldn't be posted in an open forum, on the busiest Rolex site on the net. It should be done in private.
Now, as to whether the watch actually wasn't as described really isn't the issue now. SM's name has been properly dragged through the mud over 100 posts and, quite honestly, if I were him I'd stand firm with my offer of an exchange and nothing else.

[jjkapsberger]

Originally Posted by theloxmyth

Sorry for the interruption, but where does it state "matte" in the advert.

I see only "maxi."

"FS-Full set 5513 MAXI Submariner ND..box-papers-booklets-band..etc..7k
BEAUTIFUL is too understated to describe MY feelings about this watch..but most of you know that the 5513 has been my favorite watch to sell/collect and heck..even just to talk about!
the 5513 was really the first sports rolex that was produced in abundanced and priced so that even the working class gents of the time could realistically afford to buy one(with a tiny bit of saving upo)
It has the widest and most varied spectrum of dial styles and is just affordable enough to attempt to own one of each!
anyways..here we have a great example 5513 with nice thick case,nice strong movement keeping good time,nerly mint dial with lovely light yellow patina on the matching hands and hour plots
maxi dial
8 million series case
93150 bracelet
box (inner and outer)
papers
booklets
paperwork envelope
and finally a signed photograph of the famouse wound that tried to annihilate the Mulholland!..lol
(just kidding..you DONT want to see it!)
7K u.s. currency and includes Insured world-wide shipping(international customers may experience some difficulties in returns ,so please ask any questions before you commit..I dont mind answering them,it's my job!..lol)
5 day no questions asked return policy (no time limit on issues of authenticity,However the odds on there bieng any non Rolex parts are next to zero,I thouroghly inspect each and every watch that I sell)"

Regards,

He who alleges must prove. If I were a judge and had this case before me, I'd find in favour of Mulholland. The OP has not shown that Mulholland's ad mislead him.

The dial might not be original. The ad doesn't claim that it is. OP provides no pre-sale correspondence between him and Mulholland in which Mulholland misleads.

Mulholland allows redress if authenticity is reasonably in question. OP hasn't shown that the watch contains non-Rolex parts.

Several people who have posted here hold Mulholland to an unreasonably high standard. One poster even asserts that the price alone means that Mulholland may have put the buyer at risk of being fooled, which is rubbish. He's entitled to charge whatever he wants for whatever watch he advertises. It's the buyer's responsibility to glean as much as possible about the watch before purchasing it.

Mulholland's alleged email reply--that anyone who doubts the originality is full of crap--is unfortunate. It might be erroneous, but it does not show that the ad misrepresents, or that he, Mulholland, has misrepresented the watch.

I don't know Mulholland. I've never dealt with him in any way. I merely offer CAD 0.02.

[michel33]

The OP already tried to settle this out with the seller. He is not sure about what solution would be fair, so he asks for advice. What's wrong???? This obviously is in the range of this Rolex Forum section imho.

As to the Tax fees regarding the shipment of a Rolex watch to the US, there is no big deal:
It is so easy to find a relative/friend/co-worker who travels to the US and will ship the watch from there......

I still think the seller is committed to his assertion that the dial is original to the watch. He states it very clearly in his answer to OP's mail. So why would it be "unfortunate" or "erroneous"???? On the contrary, clear as crystal...
So, if the dial is not original to the watch, the seller should refund the OP, and it seems there is an incompatibility with the Mark III dial and the serial number.....


And do not forget that the price range is far beyond the price of a gloss dial watch, it matches the price someone would pay for a nice matt 5513 with papers, both the seller and the OP were aware of that, so solely based on this price, it goes without saying that the malt dial has to be original to the watch.



Just my opinion, and I don't see myself as an "electron soldier"


Originally Posted by theloxmyth
Sorry for the interruption, but where does it state "matte" in the advert.
I see only "maxi."



Are you kidding????? A maxi dial is necessarily a matt dial........

[jjkapsberger]

Originally Posted by michel33

So why would it be "unfortunate" or "erroneous"???? On the contrary, clear as crystal...
So, if the dial is not original to the watch, the seller should refund the OP...

It's unfortunate because (apparently) it's erroneous.

In any case, Mulholland's alleged error is irrelevant. The ad didn't represent the dial as original. Originality wasn't a selling point in the context of the ad. OP hasn't shown that any pre-sale correspondence led OP to conclude that the dial is original.

OP had time before his purchase to determine originality. He had five days after the sale to do the same. It's unreasonable for him to claim a refund based on originality a full month after buying the watch. The cancellation terms are clearly stated in the ad. OP cannot impose extra terms simply to make up for his lack of diligence.

OP is still entitled to cancel if he can show that parts are inauthentic. So far he hasn't.

[conrail]

Originally Posted by jjkapsberger

It's unfortunate because (apparently) it's erroneous.

In any case, Mulholland's alleged error is irrelevant. The ad didn't represent the dial as original. Originality wasn't a selling point in the context of the ad. OP hasn't shown that any pre-sale correspondence led OP to conclude that the dial is original.

OP had time before his purchase to determine originality. He had five days after the sale to do the same. It's unreasonable for him to claim a refund based on originality a full month after buying the watch. The cancellation terms are clearly stated in the ad. OP cannot impose extra terms simply to make up for his lack of diligence.

OP is still entitled to cancel if he can show that parts are inauthentic. So far he hasn't.

[Welshwatchman]

I have read the original fs advert looking specifically for any claims of originality or statement of non-originality.

Neither.

The wholeness was placed on the buyer to ask the correct question and this didn't happen it appears. Can't say that I like that technique but there you go.

Whilst SM's statement is a tough chew to comprehend it is clear that he's not interested in coming together with the buyer to reach a sensible compromise.

Service and reputation is built on the more difficult cases, and sometimes just placating the difficult buyer (no implication being made here).

The duty/tax avoidance allegations are completely and utterly irrelevant to the complaint, however.

I've moderated too many of these types of problem threads to remember and I always ask myself "What would I do if I were the seller?".

Generally I answer "full refund, even if it's just to put the damn thing to bed and out of memory", including this one.

Now, I must say that my expertise on vintage is not up to par with the heavy hitters. I have a general understanding that, if matt, the mark V dial would have been fitted and the dial in question pre-dates the watch by a number of years.

I would be very interested to see a post from those so qualified stating that the dial is likely (or even reasonably possibly) original to the watch, just for the record.

[FremStar]

Originally Posted by psv

x2, however, this is a very serious matter and I am curious to see how this will be remediated!

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by djkennedy67

Pawnshopkiller

I was very happy with the watch when I received it.

As detailed I had the watch a couple of weeks while when a collector friend of mine questioned the serial number versus the matt dial.


Regards

David

You know I love watches and I always have, but its things like this that make me not want to know so much about them sometimes.....

David, you were thrilled with your new piece until you were shown that your Maxi dial didn't match the case #.....honestly did it change the watch at all???

The answer in NO, except in your mind! YES YES I know we crazy Vintage nuts want everything to be "original" from the factory and we (you) pay top dollar to have it that way.

However this is the hard lesson of Vintage watch buying there are few clear cut lines and in the moment you read what you wanted out of Steve's Ad and cut a deal. We have all been there at one point or another looking for a watch and jumped on something only to realize later that it is different than expected. Yes it stings, but lets look at the bright side you have a beautiful watch and you WERE enjoying it.....sooo go back to enjoying it and write it off as a learning experience. Atleast you have a really cool Vintage Sub!

IMHO you should either take Steve's offer of a trade in and ask all pertinent questions or just keep your beautiful 5513 and forget all the maxi III, IV, V and the "it should of come with this or that dial" stuff.

LIFE IS TOO SHORT AND THE WATCH IS STILL THE SAME WATCH YOU PROBABLY OVER WHEN YOU OPENED THE PACKAGE FROM STEVE.....REMEMBER THAT FEELING AND APPRECIATE YOUR WATCH!!

My

[michel33]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

I have read the original fs advert looking specifically for any claims of originality or statement of non-originality.

Neither.

The wholeness was placed on the buyer to ask the correct question and this didn't happen it appears. Can't say that I like that technique but there you go.


.

Wel all know the Vintage Rolex business is risky , and this is why some of us, who are not experts, want to "buy the seller" first, for a smooth deal, without issues regarding the authenticity or the originality of the watch.
And the Originality of the watch is implied in the advert and the price, and then clearly confirmed in the later mails of the seller, without any doubt.....
Do you mean that his responses stating that the dial is original to the watch do not bind him? Legally they do anyway.(Though I hope it won't go so far...).

I do not see the benefit of buying to a reputable seller if the advert is purposely worded in an ambiguous or tricky way, but I'm sure the seller, as he strongly maintained that the dial is original, did not intend to do so and that he and the buyer will sort this out.
This Forum should be a safe place for collectors imho.

[Pep04]

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.

You're right I am wrong. I apologize. Congrats on the 64 Rolexes. For someone not needing this "silly" forum, you seem to bump your ads a whole lot. And I mean A WHOLE LOT. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything though.


And for the record, I have NOTHING against pawnshop owners or workers. As I see it, you are making a living and solving someone's problem. Some might not like the process but customers walk into pawnshops on their own. Don't like it, don't borrow money. So, I don't "hate". I really could not careless.

[Pep04]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

I have read the original fs advert looking specifically for any claims of originality or statement of non-originality.

Neither.

The wholeness was placed on the buyer to ask the correct question and this didn't happen it appears. Can't say that I like that technique but there you go.

Whilst SM's statement is a tough chew to comprehend it is clear that he's not interested in coming together with the buyer to reach a sensible compromise.

Service and reputation is built on the more difficult cases, and sometimes just placating the difficult buyer (no implication being made here).

The duty/tax avoidance allegations are completely and utterly irrelevant to the complaint, however.

I've moderated too many of these types of problem threads to remember and I always ask myself "What would I do if I were the seller?".

Generally I answer "full refund, even if it's just to put the damn thing to bed and out of memory", including this one.

Now, I must say that my expertise on vintage is not up to par with the heavy hitters. I have a general understanding that, if matt, the mark V dial would have been fitted and the dial in question pre-dates the watch by a number of years.

I would be very interested to see a post from those so qualified stating that the dial is likely (or even reasonably possibly) original to the watch, just for the record.

You articulated exactly what I was thinking. Specially this part:

"the original fs advert looking specifically for any claims of originality or statement of non-originality.

Neither.

The wholeness was placed on the buyer to ask the correct question and this didn't happen it appears. Can't say that I like that technique but there you go."

Don't ask don't tell?

[Swearengen]

Originally Posted by Puffy

tuned in to see what the latest was

Best thread for a while

[psv]

Many importants lesson and conclusions to be drawn from this thread, both about buyer as well as seller behaviors and responsibilities.

[T.S.Eliot]

A lot of lessons are learned on this thread.

[T.S.Eliot]

Originally Posted by tseliot

A lot of lessons are learned on this thread.

Even though I didn't understand Mr. Mulholland's post.

[HERITAGE82]

Originally Posted by tseliot

Even though I didn't understand Mr. Mulholland's post.

x 2....I had to have google open to look up some of the words.....

[Lentz]

Originally Posted by tseliot

even though i didn't understand mr. Mulholland's post.

x3