Shreve in San Francisco/ Palo Alto lost Patek status

[bay_area_kid]

Originally Posted by Chris8535

Was walking past Union Square today and to my surprise saw a new dedicated Patek Boutique opening up this year next to a dedicated Rolex. This is right next to Graff and Torbillion which I heard was closing

Those are the two boutiques in SF that will be operated by Kerns.

[codecow]

I’m sure if I come in with my 5522 they will be blown away by the splendor and immediately put me in for <insert hot model here>.

[jon_jon]

Originally Posted by LJubel328

I’ll be curious to hear if any of the salons will allow you to start purchasing from them. I was in Geneva last month but didn’t ask if I could. I’d switch to the salon route in a heartbeat if, in fact, it is possible for non-locals. The ADs in the U.S. have gotten way too greedy and, in my experience, have dangled Patek in front of customers to sell other items.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the old days, the 3 Salons were open to all customers and most watches on display were for sale. However over the past few years, they seem to be catering more to their local customers, especially for watches that are in demand. However I would not be surprised if the Salons are open to selling the slow movers to non-local clients. It wouldn't hurt to ask if you are visiting one of them.

[Pimpsy]

Originally Posted by jon_jon

In the old days, the 3 Salons were open to all customers and most watches on display were for sale. However over the past few years, they seem to be catering more to their local customers, especially for watches that are in demand. However I would not be surprised if the Salons are open to selling the slow movers to non-local clients. It wouldn't hurt to ask if you are visiting one of them.

I haven't asked my PP dealer for anything in over a year.; the current watch market just made me feel more like a beggar than a customer, so I stopped trying to get new pieces. Consequently, I only just found out that LaViano in NJ lost their PP line last year. (!)

Guess I better head on over to the new boutique and introduce myself...

[codecow]

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/0...r-got-lawsuit/

Oops!

[Coolcamden]

Originally Posted by codecow

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/0...r-got-lawsuit/

Oops!

Thanks for sharing. About time!

[dauster]

Originally Posted by codecow

https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/0...r-got-lawsuit/

Oops!

lol but I doubt this will go anywhere - seems like a bunch of he said she said

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by dauster

lol but I doubt this will go anywhere - seems like a bunch of he said she said

The lawsuit might not go anywhere, but I sincerely wish it gets reported more across different media outlets to deter other ADs from doing something similar. It must also be noted that Shreve lost their AD status and that alone should be a significant deterrent for other ADs to pull the same BS. Don’t promise things they can’t keep.

[GK12345EMAIL]

I hope this lawsuit gets a lot more attention. The only benefit we can expect to see of this will come from bad PR.

[codecow]

I don’t think this is why they lost status, it was just interesting.

The most interesting part in the allegations was that they strung this person along after they knew they were losing status, however they still might have expected delivery before that time so who knows?

I can’t imagine going in front of a jury and expecting them to award the poor watch guy (still has everything he bought) $500k because he didn’t get his fancy trinket that is probably worth more than many jury member’s annual income. Seems like a bad plan.

[Tom V]

Shreve Palo Alto was the worst AD I have ever interacted with and represents the worst of the industry. When I inquired about some mens Rolex and Patek models, they were not shy to suggest that I should buy some ~20,000 USD earrings for my wife. I never asked for jewelry, just watches. In many occasions I visited, they were clear: I needed to buy jewelery. They even pointed out that spending some 100,000 USD in jewelry would help to be considered for a steel Rolex. In another occasion, when I asked about a Patek after being in their fake waiting list for almost 2 years they laughed at me. More recently, when I asked about the Rolex 1908, they didnt even bother to register my interest or to entertain a conversation. They mentioned they already have plenty of "their clients" interested.
Their tactics to get crazy expensive jewelry sold are predatory, and the way they treat those potential clients not interested is so bad.
I am not surprised at all they lost their Patek status; they never deserved it. Kern, while also difficult to buy there, is much better. They will talk to you about watches, discuss your interest etc. Completely different experience.

[Bmats]

Originally Posted by codecow

I don’t think this is why they lost status, it was just interesting.

The most interesting part in the allegations was that they strung this person along after they knew they were losing status, however they still might have expected delivery before that time so who knows?

I can’t imagine going in front of a jury and expecting them to award the poor watch guy (still has everything he bought) $500k because he didn’t get his fancy trinket that is probably worth more than many jury member’s annual income. Seems like a bad plan.

Seems like just a suit to make a point. Customer probably has enough where legal fees don’t mean much, and this will impose pain and bad press on the store for its not so great practices.

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by codecow

I don’t think this is why they lost status, it was just interesting.

The most interesting part in the allegations was that they strung this person along after they knew they were losing status, however they still might have expected delivery before that time so who knows?

I can’t imagine going in front of a jury and expecting them to award the poor watch guy (still has everything he bought) $500k because he didn’t get his fancy trinket that is probably worth more than many jury member’s annual income. Seems like a bad plan.

Unless the AD decided to come public and clarify why they lost their status, all of these are of course just speculations. But it’s highly likely that this guy isn’t the first who was asked to buy a highly priced jewellery to “build relationship” in order to obtain the 5980. I was hinted specifically that while Patek doesn’t mind having customers building a relationship with other Patek pieces to buy Nautilus (their words were “no control of what ADs do independently”), using Patek as a bundling reward with non-Patek items is strongly frowned upon as Patek themselves can’t commit to pieces that were promised by the AD to the customer as part of the bundle. So I suspect that this isn’t an isolated case and it’s one of the reasons why they lost their AD status.

[dlmocdm]

My experience with Shreve Palo Alto was that I was, not hinted, but very explicitly told that to be considered for any rolex I would need to make some very expensive jewelry purchases. There were very clear about it. They wouldn't even register my interest for Rolex/Patek because I don't have enough purchasing history. So I am not surprised at all about them losing their Patek status.

[dlmocdm]

Originally Posted by codecow

I’m sure if I come in with my 5522 they will be blown away by the splendor and immediately put me in for <insert hot model here>.

I once walked in with a very niece piece, and the sales person at Shreve literally said to me that, as I am wearing a very nice piece, wouldn't I think my family also needed some nice items? Then started to ask if I had wife, or a mother, or sister etc. Presumably trying to sell me female jewelry.

[dauster]

Weird thing is that Shreve treated me very nicely and offered me a white dial skydweller after a 10
Months wait for the DD 40 rose gold green dial. Skydweller came and I bought it , I think someone else must have passed on it and shortly after I got the DD that I was waiting for.

Never once did they asked me to buy jewelry or anything. That was in 2021. No more interest since they lost Patek but I really liked working with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Apheaven]

I have not read the legal brief…that being said, this is clearly a case of both contract law and consumer law. Presumably they made written (texts, emails, etc.) promises that he will receive said watch after (contingent on) spending XYZ…I would say this puts Shreve in a very precarious position. No fun for anyone.

Curious if the salesperson in the Palo Alto store who made these false promises happens to be the same one who lost Shreve’s AD status for them, whom as I understand was subsequently fired.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[codecow]

In my experience Shreve and their parent company are exemplary professionals of the highest order.

I’d be happier if they still had Patek, Lange, and Omega though…

[Ichiran]

Rezaei spent 200k in a 18-month period buying watches and jewelry in the hope of being allocated a 5980/1R, which is what many people do because sport Patek are hot. Did Shreve tell him when he will receive his 5980/1R? I don't expect them to commit a date to Rezaei since AD does not know what models they receive from Patek and when.

Subsequently in April 2022, Shreve lost their AD status. This is unfortunate but how was Shreve able to allocate a 5980/1R to Rezaei after they lost their license? Maybe there is a case if Shreve continued to make Rezaei spend after April 2022 (but I would imagine the amount is minimal because Rezaei would have known Shreve has lost their license).

I think it is hard to determine the "compensation", if any, because Rezaei got his watches and jewelry on his own will and they are not donations to Shreve. There wasn't any monetary loss to Rezaei, unless he made a point to Shreve the 5980/1R was for flipping. But who does that to get an allocation?

[codecow]

This story is now linked on hodinkee, we made it boys!

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by HMHM

The lawsuit might not go anywhere, but I sincerely wish it gets reported more across different media outlets to deter other ADs from doing something similar. It must also be noted that Shreve lost their AD status and that alone should be a significant deterrent for other ADs to pull the same BS. Don’t promise things they can’t keep.

Yeah, that they kept promising things after their management knew their AD status was being pulled was pretty naughty. Whether that entitles the buyer to damages will be interesting to see. I guess almost anything can happen.

[Apheaven]

The outcome of this case will be heavily weighed on the details of their communications ie how were things promised to a point it would bring the court to compel the dealer to specific performance….whereupon the breaching party is required to perform its obligations under the terms of the agreement.

Given they no longer sell Patek, Shreve could be ordered to pay the DIFFERENCE in market value of a new 5980/1r watch at approx. $200k minus the AD retail price of the watch $108k, which is the amount he would have paid at time of his purchase. That would give him $92k (based on $200k - $108k)in compensatory damages….I don’t believe this case will amount to an additional $408k in punitive damages from what I can see.

That said, we are watching the dealer having the script flipped on them very publicly…while putting all AD’s that engage in such sales practices on notice.

I can only imagine how many AD sales meetings will be happening this week where they ask all the SA’s “has anyone overtly promised a client a specific model watch if the client purchases $XXXXX of jewelry?” And every sales person raises their hand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cassian739]

I’m not surprised at all, and I hope they lose Rolex as well. I’ve had SAs at both SF and Palo Alto locations openly tell me that to even be considered for a Rolex/Patek allocation I need a purchase history of both jewelry and other watch brands. I get how the game works and building a relationship is important, but I’ve never experienced this level of open “pay-to-play” behavior at any other AD.

[bay_area_kid]

For those who are just coming into this thread, I'd like to summarize some key points that were discussed back then and are now even more compelling with this news of a lawsuit:

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

Looks like more details are coming to light. I'm unable to post links so just read the latest Google Reviews for Shreve Palo Alto location.

Since more details are coming to light, I'd like to share even more from a few sources of mine, one of which came from a Shreve employee in the SF location.

It appears they got caught selling some Patek pieces in the grey market. One of those pieces found its way on 1stdibs and that's how Patek HQ found out.

One of their long time (10+ years tenure) employees from the Palo Alto location was blamed and let go back in April 2022 (see Yelp review for management's response laying blame on ex-employee for a bad review).

Was not clear if he was the one selling the pieces or if he was just a convenient scapegoat. He may be selling the pieces but under shadow approval from some higher ups.

And that's how you sever a 100+ year relationship with one of the most prestigious brands in horology.

Originally Posted by dannyp

A little amateur detective work suggests:

1. Who the recently let-go employee is.
2. Where that former employee is now.
3. That said former employee is at another Patek AD.
4. That there must be more to this story, since "people talk" and new employer wouldn't want to risk its own relationship.

Originally Posted by solowarrior

It is probably true. I cannot think of another reason why PP would end a long-term relationship with an AD, or (even impossible) an AD would ended such relationship with PP.

JFYI, here is the Google review from Nate Lamb.

Originally Posted by bay_area_kid

Exactly. If they wanted to have a Rolex boutique location then they could've just turned the PA location into one and still keep Patek in the SF location.

It doesn't make sense to sacrifice their 100+ year Patek relationship for a Rolex boutique.

In my first post, I was merely passing on some of the rumors from my salesperson in SF Shreve. They are very familiar with the PA branch and have hinted several times the shadiness goes pretty high up the management chain. And some long-term employee got the blame but somehow that ex-employee still got a "parachute" exit so they're still able to work at another Patek dealer.

I hate rumors but there's too may dots that connect. Whatever happened, it was a big enough deal to completely sever a century-old relationship.

Originally Posted by 0xalate

I've been holding this in for a few days, so maybe it's time for me to speak out. The employee let go was my former SA. Shreve (as an AD, both in SF and the manager + a new SA at PA) have treated me extremely well over the years, but my former SA....not so much.

More likely than not this employee was selling pieces from brands that Shreve wasn't even an authorized dealer for, let alone selling Pateks directly to greys. How do I know? We got into an argument quite recently where this individual got extremely mad when he found out I wasn't buying Omegas from him. Yes, Omegas (Shreve isn't an Omega AD). Even in the slightest possibility that Shreve carries pre-owned brands, this could've been resolved and communicated to me a lot better.

But above all, what shocked me was the tone and language used by him as I explained "I didn't know they carried Omegas, or else I might've just bought it from them". You don't go into a Nike store and get yelled at by a Nike employee for not buying Adidas shoes from him. SA used words like, and I quote, "excuses", "common sense", "you were secretly buying all these Omegas and not letting me know" etc. Easily the worst interaction I had in my life as a customer. Incredibly rude, let alone someone who works in the luxury industry.

Good riddance my former SA and I agreed to part ways!

You know how the saying goes, where there's smoke...

[bay_area_kid]

Here's the initial filing: link

The name of the Shreve & Co.'s sales associate (JK) was revealed in the filing.

So we have several more dots that connect:

• TG - the sales associate from the Palo Alto location mentioned earlier in this thread, left Shreve on April 2022 (see their LinkedIn)
• JK - the sales associate from the San Francisco location who is now involved in the lawsuit, left Shreve on April 2022 (see their LinkedIn)
• Shreve & Co. - lost their Patek status on April 2022

[dlmocdm]

The link to the filing is https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo...55AE441BAA94C5, specifically see here.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by Apheaven

The outcome of this case will be heavily weighed on the details of their communications ie how were things promised to a point it would bring the court to compel the dealer to specific performance….whereupon the breaching party is required to perform its obligations under the terms of the agreement.

Given they no longer sell Patek, Shreve could be ordered to pay the DIFFERENCE in market value of a new 5980/1r watch at approx. $200k minus the AD retail price of the watch $108k, which is the amount he would have paid at time of his purchase. That would give him $92k (based on $200k - $108k)in compensatory damages….I don’t believe this case will amount to an additional $408k in punitive damages from what I can see.

That said, we are watching the dealer having the script flipped on them very publicly…while putting all AD’s that engage in such sales practices on notice.

I can only imagine how many AD sales meetings will be happening this week where they ask all the SA’s “has anyone overtly promised a client a specific model watch if the client purchases $XXXXX of jewelry?” And every sales person raises their hand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not a lawyer, but I could certainly see a scenario where the court forced Shreve to buy back all items purchased by plaintiff after it found out it would be losing Patek line. Only problem is that (I'm guessing) most of those items were gifts to others. Awwwwwwkward...

As someone else suggested, this guy seems to have plenty of money and is more interested in punishing the defendant than simply obtaining a watch at MSRP. I say that, because what AD is going to want to sell to him now (seeing as none will take the risk of "building a relationship" with the guy, nor will they allocate one out of the gate).

[dlmocdm]

Originally Posted by dannyp

As someone else suggested, this guy seems to have plenty of money and is more interested in punishing the defendant than simply obtaining a watch at MSRP. I say that, because what AD is going to want to sell to him now (seeing as none will take the risk of "building a relationship" with the guy, nor will they allocate one out of the gate).

Maybe he also bought from other ADs and now he is going to be getting all the allocations out of fear. That would be a master move.

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by dlmocdm

Maybe he also bought from other ADs and now he is going to be getting all the allocations out of fear. That would be a master move.

Touche! Come to think of it, there are a lot of ADs between Orange County and San Francisco...

His plan all along?! Thoroughly diabolical... Love it!

[1William]

I saw this on Hodinkee and have enjoyed reading the comments and the facts as we currently know them. My speculation is that S&Co will attempt to have the suit dismissed for various reasons prior to any other filings or court action. Should they not be successful they will then have to weigh the implications of discovery. When they have to reveal the PP contract on how many watches they received, when, and then who and under what circumstances they were sold it is a wrap. Once the lawyers have that information they can get the purchase history of the buyers and the names and off to court and the court of public opinion you go. This will be interesting but I bet it is settled quicky as the stakes are too high to play around.