Is my brand new Rolex DJ ruined?

[Overwound]

Originally Posted by LukeGreg

I can’t stand it now - looks cheap and fake.

If it can’t be fixed I’ll be selling it at a huge loss.

This has to be terribly frustrating. I'm sorry to see you go through such a thing, and with a new watch. It's possible for Rolex to bring your DJ back to original form so don't loose hope. Contact Rolex directly and explain the situation. It happened once so this has the potential to happen to others. If it's truly some rare defect they will sort it out.

Good luck.

[Chadridv]

did I miss the confirmation on whether or not this watch was purchased from an AD?

[LukeGreg]

Originally Posted by Kostas

Let’s just take a step back here , can we see some more pics of the watch , I’ve gone back to the original pic and zoomed in and it seems the orange gold coloured parts exceed past where the bezel ends and the stainless case starts, could just be reflection, also noticed a single dot of orange right near the bezel at the 9 min mark.



I hope this isn’t some photoshop attention scheme

Any more pics of said watch ?

I honestly cant understand why the image looks "photoshopped" or why on earth anyone would waste time making it look like that....

Here are some more pics.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...nn?usp=sharing

They are hosted on my Google drive, the images taken on my phone are too high quality to upload to the forum.


Ive also included images up against another YG DJ to show the colour difference.

[LukeGreg]

Originally Posted by padi56

Make a claim against who the person or persons who put the extremely high chlorine mix in the hot tub.I would say you cannot put any blame on Rolex or the gold but hope if he has insurance and they can sort it out.

It was a family members hot tub. So unfortunately I cant.

[LukeGreg]

Originally Posted by Overwound

This has to be terribly frustrating. I'm sorry to see you go through such a thing, and with a new watch. It's possible for Rolex to bring your DJ back to original form so don't loose hope. Contact Rolex directly and explain the situation. It happened once so this has the potential to happen to others. If it's truly some rare defect they will sort it out.

Good luck.

What avenue would you say is the best one to take with contacting them? Social Media? Or?

[MinMay]

Rolex using fake gold lol

[TswaneNguni]

This shouldn't happen to a Rolex watch.Period.Rolex/RSC must sort this out for the owner .

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by Switch

The watch is H2O proof, not NaOCl proof.

Safe to assume that the most water activity most owners watches will see is chlorinated pool water. If this is the reaction the watch can potential have, I think there is some an obligation on Rolex to warn against that fact and advise against using in chlorinated water. Even if the chlorinated water was out of balance or had an extreme concentration, it’s safe to assume that could happen quite regularly and you would think the company would warn against it

[OysterBracelet]

Originally Posted by LukeGreg

What avenue would you say is the best one to take with contacting them? Social Media? Or?

And say what? You've already conceded that this is your own fault.

[OysterBracelet]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

This shouldn't happen to a Rolex watch.Period.Rolex/RSC must sort this out for the owner .

I'm sure RSC will sort it out for the owner, at his expense.

[MinMay]

Originally Posted by LukeGreg

I can’t stand it now - looks cheap and fake.



If it can’t be fixed I’ll be selling it at a huge loss.

You’ll be fine. Let AD fix it for you. Don’t do it yourself or you’ll make it worse. Rolex guarantee you can go swimming with it so they’ll cover it.

I wonder if Rolex is being cheap on their material. I know a lot of companies does that...use great material and then change it to save money and profit more. Hmmm.

[Chuckwagon]

Originally Posted by padi56

Make a claim against who the person or persons who put the extremely high chlorine mix in the hot tub.I would say you cannot put any blame on Rolex or the gold but hope if he has insurance and they can sort it out.

I’m curious why the hot tub owner or management should be held responsible for this. Someone else also suggested they could be deemed negligent.

Surely their duty of care to patrons using the hot tub was to protect their health, not to protect their watches. It could also be argued that watch owners have a responsibility to themselves to check beforehand if it is safe to wear their watch in chlorinated water. Hot tubs / jacuzzis are notorious for infection hazard and high chlorine levels will be very effective at killing nasty bacteria such as pseudomonas.

Hope the OP has a satisfactory resolution from Rolex. Unless the warranty terms & condition specifically warns against wearing the watch in chlorinated pools, I think Rolex should remedy it under warranty.

[Littletommy]

Originally Posted by OysterBracelet

And say what? You've already conceded that this is your own fault.

I didn't read anywhere that the OP 'conceded' that this was his own fault. Looks to me like he's asking a valid question.

[OysterBracelet]

Originally Posted by Littletommy

I didn't read anywhere that the OP 'conceded' that this was his own fault. Looks to me like he's asking a valid question.

He's stated that the chlorine levels were beyond what they should have been. If this wasn't the case, then his watch would have been fine.

[TswaneNguni]

Originally Posted by OysterBracelet

I'm sure RSC will sort it out for the owner, at his expense.

Why at his expense ? Should be covered by warrantee .

Tough Rolex tested and tested cant survive a hot tubbie ??

[Pauln]

Originally Posted by artschool

you might not notice it after a while and get used to it?

I would try not to stress about it.

I would definitely stress about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OysterBracelet]

Originally Posted by TswaneNguni

Why at his expense ? Should be covered by warrantee .

Tough Rolex tested and tested cant survive a hot tubbie ??

The watch has been subjected to conditions that are far beyond normal use, therefore no guarantee would cover it.

It could be a Rolex, PP, RM, whatever, the same thing would have happened when the gold has been exposed to such chemicals.

[Littletommy]

Originally Posted by OysterBracelet

He's stated that the chlorine levels were beyond what they should have been. If this wasn't the case, then his watch would have been fine.

Maybe, but I'm not sure the Rolex warranty specifies the 'not to exceed' PPM level that their product is capable of withstanding.

[OysterBracelet]

Originally Posted by Littletommy

Maybe, but I'm not sure the Rolex warranty specifies the 'not to exceed' PPM level that their product is capable of withstanding.

It doesn't say you can't run the watch over with a tank either but it probably wouldn't be advisable.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Safe to assume that the most water activity most owners watches will see is chlorinated pool water. If this is the reaction the watch can potential have, I think there is some an obligation on Rolex to warn against that fact and advise against using in chlorinated water. Even if the chlorinated water was out of balance or had an extreme concentration, it’s safe to assume that could happen quite regularly and you would think the company would warn against it

I would agree if standard concentrations of chlorine was doing this. It is reasonable that exposure to extremely high concentrations of corrosive chemicals is covered by general warranty terms like ‘misuse’ without having to devote a page in the instruction manual to talk about it specifically.

The warranty covers normal use. That can be extended to cover use in any normal environment. Where damage occurs from use in an abnormal environment your claim is against the person/people responsible for the abnormal environment, which can in some cases be yourself.

[Chuckwagon]

Rolex warranty booklet states that it excludes ‘damage due to mistreatment’. There is advice about care of your watch relating to salt water but not chlorinated water.

‘Mistreatment’ here is open to interpretation. I’d argue that subjecting the watch to soaking in an indoor pool within its WR rating is reasonable and not mistreatment, and if there was no warning about exposure to chlorinated water.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by Littletommy

Maybe, but I'm not sure the Rolex warranty specifies the 'not to exceed' PPM level that their product is capable of withstanding.

I think this would fall within the ‘Reasonable Person’ legal test which is why the instruction manual does not have a never ending list of scenarios you cannot place the watch in to.

Would a ‘reasonable person’ expect metal to react/oxidise/corrode when exposed to higher than prescribed concentrations of a corrosive/oxidising agent? I think the answer is yes they would.

Would a reasonable person be aware of the concentration of chlorine in a pool before they get in it? I think the answer is no. Which places responsibility with the pool owner/maintenance person.

The damage is not the OP’s fault, but that does not make it Rolex’s fault either.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by SearChart

???

How about a simple jewelry cleaning solution to get the oxidation off?

Originally Posted by Number3

I think Bas is far better placed to know than most of us.....

[OysterBracelet]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

I'd wager money that the bracelet needs to be properly refurbished rather than cleaned, hence a full service will be required

[LukeGreg]

Chlorines levels were high yes, but Im sure others have come across similar levels in the past with gold on. One guy here mentioned that he has been maintaining pools for 20+ years and never had an issue.

Also high levels of chlorine are more likely to cause damage to skin (chemical burns) and everyone's skin is fine - so even though the water tester was saying the levels were high it wasnt at an dangerous/unsafe level - which would mean its a very very thin line (which im sure rolex wouldnt chance)

Lets be real - its not like I was bathing in acid.

Also to add - this is the first time the watch has been exposed to chlorinated water (salt water was fine) so it could of been ANY amount of Chlorine that caused the issue.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by OysterBracelet

I'd wager money that the bracelet needs to be properly refurbished rather than cleaned, hence a full service will be required

You do know that Bas is a watchmaker in the employ of Rolex, don't you?



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by Tseg

Seems like a warranty issue to me. Rolex advertises water resistance and I'm not aware of a disclaimer about pools. I have to imagine Rolex will take it back if this is under warranty. They changed out my crystal on my year old BLNR back in 2015 because I got tired of looking at a date that was not magnified well enough by cyclops.

Water, not chemical resistant. Even the mighty Rolex is not immune to the chemicals that may be present in hot tubs.

I would be very surprised if Rolex comes to the party. The OP's watch has the same gold and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousand other Rolex watches. His watch was clearly exposed to something unusual and I am sure it is perfectly "water" resistant.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by LukeGreg

Chlorines levels were high yes, but Im sure others have come across similar levels in the past with gold on. One guy here mentioned that he has been maintaining pools for 20+ years and never had an issue.

Also high levels of chlorine are more likely to cause damage to skin (chemical burns) and everyone's skin is fine - so even though the water tester was saying the levels were high it wasnt at an dangerous/unsafe level - which would mean its a very very thin line (which im sure rolex wouldnt chance)

Lets be real - its not like I was bathing in acid.

Also to add - this is the first time the watch has been exposed to chlorinated water (salt water was fine) so it could of been ANY amount of Chlorine that caused the issue.

First and foremost I am glad to hear nobody has any chemical burns. That is far more important than a watch.

Ultimately tarnished gold through chemical exposure is not uncommon and is fixable depending on the degree of tarnish. It can be removed with a cleaning solution as Bas has suggested if the tarnish is thin. It may need to be polished out if it is thicker. And worst case scenario if it is pitted it requires replacement.

The question of whether or not it should happen is moot, it has happened. I will be interested to know the end result and hope it is a favourable decision for you.

[Chuckwagon]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

I think this would fall within the ‘Reasonable Person’ legal test which is why the instruction manual does not have a never ending list of scenarios you cannot place the watch in to.

Would a ‘reasonable person’ expect metal to react/oxidise/corrode when exposed to higher than prescribed concentrations of a corrosive/oxidising agent? I think the answer is yes they would.

Would a reasonable person be aware of the concentration of chlorine in a pool before they get in it? I think the answer is no. Which places responsibility with the pool owner/maintenance person.

The damage is not the OP’s fault, but that does not make it Rolex’s fault either.

The duty of care of the pool owner to those using the pool is to ensure effective sanitization and prevent hazard to health. If the water was not sanitized adequately and someone got a nasty infection, then that could be negligent. I’d argue that the pool owner does not owe a duty of care to their watches or other jewelry which they choose to wear in the water at their own risk.

[SearChart]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

First and foremost I am glad to hear nobody has any chemical burns. That is far more important than a watch.

Ultimately tarnished gold through chemical exposure is not uncommon and is fixable depending on the degree of tarnish. It can be removed with a cleaning solution as Bas has suggested if the tarnish is thin. It may need to be polished out if it is thicker. And worst case scenario if it is pitted it requires replacement.

The question of whether or not it should happen is moot, it has happened. I will be interested to know the end result and hope it is a favourable decision for you.

If it is anything like the tarnish you would get from years of wearing then the solution is fine. But like you said, it could be deeper than that and could need a light polish.