Rolex 5 Year Warranty (2015 Green Seal)

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Warranty follows the watch. It really does.

Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.

I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.

BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by highbob

Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.

I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.

BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As long as the warranty has been filled in by any official AD world wide the warranty is valid.Many Rolex watches today are bought as presents to a third party so the buyer might not be the watches owner.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by highbob

Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.

I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.

BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were a few idiots posting on Youtube last year saying Rolex had changed the policy. It was an internet rumour, and most if not all of them retracted. One or two people have maybe had an issue with RSC New York, which seems to have sometimes gone rogue in the warranty department, but there are many many people here, myself included on multiple occasions, who have had warranty work done as secondary owners, all over the world, both with Rolex and Tudor.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by highbob

. . .
I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

. . .

Perhaps you have been hearing stories of folks trying to get warranty work done when they do not have a valid warranty. Grey Market, modified, and third party serviced watches do not have a valid Rolex warranty.

In those cases there is no warranty to "follow the watch".

The bottom line is: A properly purchased Rolex includes a full warranty. Rolex does not know who purchased the watch and so anybody who takes a warrantied watch into an RSC for warranty work will get it. Rolex will not know, or care, that the watch was "previously owned"

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Tools

Perhaps you have been hearing stories of folks trying to get warranty work done when they do not have a valid warranty. Grey Market, modified, and third party serviced watches do not have a valid Rolex warranty.

In those cases there is no warranty to "follow the watch".

The bottom line is: A properly purchased Rolex includes a full warranty. Rolex does not know who purchased the watch and so anybody who takes a warrantied watch into an RSC for warranty work will get it. Rolex will not know, or care, that the watch was "previously owned"

Thanks for all the responses, folks. and Tools, what started my line of questioning was a conversation I had yesterday with a Rolex salesperson at my local AD. He was quoting information that he had from Rolex--that the warranty is not transferable--but much of what I've seen and heard refutes that, and makes the case for the warranty following the watch. The salesperson I spoke with spoke quite firmly about this, but IMHO, he seems a bit proprietary regarding ALL sales of Rolex watches. My watch was originally purchased from an AD; it has all the documentation including the card; I'm not sure what his take is other than the fact that he might be displeased that somewhere in the loop from the AD to me, someone else made some money.

What I fail to understand is any AD's displeasure once the watch has been sold by another AD. Once sold by the AD, it's out in the marketplace, free to find another home if need be. True, that means that the watch could face possible peril due to shipping and handling, etc., but the watch faces damage from everyday use that is pretty much the same as any damage it might incur from being on the market. The watch will either operate correctly or it might need warranty service. In which case, if the owner has the warranty card, Rolex should make good. My two cents--thanks again for the illumination.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by highbob

. . Once sold by the AD, it's out in the marketplace, free to find another home if need be. True, that means that the watch could face possible peril due to shipping and handling, etc., but the watch faces damage from everyday use that is pretty much the same as any damage it might incur from being on the market. The watch will either operate correctly or it might need warranty service. In which case, if the owner has the warranty card, Rolex should make good. My two cents--thanks again for the illumination.

True, a Rolex faces peril due to everyday use. Everyday use is not covered by the warranty, and so, it doesn't really matter whether the warranty is transferrable or not for damage repairs; the customer will have to pay.

The warranty covers manufacturer defects and most of those usually reveal themselves rather quickly.

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Tools

True, a Rolex faces peril due to everyday use. Everyday use is not covered by the warranty, and so, it doesn't really matter whether the warranty is transferrable or not for damage repairs; the customer will have to pay.

The warranty covers manufacturer defects and most of those usually reveal themselves rather quickly.

Exactly, and my point about use vs. manufacturing defects was simply trying to come up with some rationale for these ADs' displeasure about warranty coverage. Other than their worry about undue requests or loss of sales (and I suppose I can understand that to a point), I don't get the desire of some to mess with folks who buy second-hand. Yay for those guys who promote the brand, as well as all makes of timepieces, and who encourage after-market sales. It just helps keep the excitement and enthusiasm going. IMHO.

Cheers.