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

[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?

[Dopeboy]

AD's won't do this, as it would be an invasion of privacy.

[Chewbacca]

Jeebus.

[sco]

For a watch?

[Achtung6]

This is nonsense when you have a rampant problem of ADs selling coveted pieces out the back door at a premium to flippers who in turn, sell them to us at a stiff markup because we can't get them from a store like normal people unless we "build a relationship with an AD" Total nonsense.

In short, ADs hold no moral high ground in this conversation.

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by Dopeboy

AD's won't do this, as it would be an invasion of privacy.

So, you consider an SA reviewing the social media posts (that you’ve chosen to make public) an invasion of your privacy? Or asking you to visit them in person is inappropriate? Please elaborate.

[alphadweller]

I see potential intrusion into personal life. None of their business. Also, although I don't have first hand proof, I'm certain many ADs themselves are selling to some dealers in bulk, thus partially responsible for so many new watches for sale in the grey market. But hey it's easier to blame the small buyer.

[Harry-57]

If they want to sell me a watch I will buy it. If they don't. I will go somewhere else.

Like many here, I own a number of things which are considerably more expensive, sought after and rare than a mass produced watch. No seller has yet assessed me as to my suitability to give them my money. Neither have they attempted poke their noses into what I do with my personal property.

Anybody, a prospective employer, an AD, the authorities, can look into anything I have posted in the public domain without an OK from me. It's public domain information. Since I only post on two forums, one of them being about watches, do not have social media accounts and have never gone out of my way to tell the world about myself, a "background check" on me will take less time than it took me to type this paragraph.

[jamesthejeweller]

I was vetted by Rolex Geneva SA before being invited to buy the SARU and the RNBOW. I had to send proof of address and a copy of my ID card

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by dopeboy

ad's won't do this, as it would be an invasion of privacy.

x1000

[Pw92676]

When you leave your name on a list, I think this happens more frequently than you think. SAs have some time on their hands, google is quick and free, and there may be a genuine curiousity about the person who is coming in and dropping large amounts of $ on watches and jewelry. Also a quick way to see who is genuine and who is playing their own games.

I have had several SAs “look into” who I was. They told me afterwards. I’m not not a big balling VIP. So I’m sure it happens to others.

[JSCP]

Can we check them out for not loosing their Rolex authorized Dealership agreement? specially those that dare to ask for a deposit.

[JRell]

If it helps stop the flippers that go for the quick, easy and small buck and can’t get a normal job, yes!

[vh2k]

Originally Posted by Achtung6

This is nonsense when you have a rampant problem of ADs selling coveted pieces out the back door at a premium to flippers who in turn, sell them to us at a stiff markup because we can't get them from a store like normal people unless we "build a relationship with an AD" Total nonsense.

In short, ADs hold no moral high ground in this conversation.

You mean SOME ADs — not ALL ADs, correct? Are you OK if the “good ADs” vet you to try to prevent flipping?

Originally Posted by alphadweller

Also, although I don't have first hand proof, I'm certain many ADs themselves are selling to some dealers in bulk, thus partially responsible for so many new watches for sale in the grey market. But hey it's easier to blame the small buyer.

The “bad ones” sell out the back door. Do you want ALL of them selling to brokers? Or is it OK if some honorable ADs try harder to sell to actual watch wearers?

[envuks]

Originally Posted by Pw92676

When you leave your name on a list, I think this happens more frequently than you think. SAs have some time on their hands, google is quick and free, and there may be a genuine curiousity about the person who is coming in and dropping large amounts of $ on watches and jewelry. Also a quick way to see who is genuine and who is playing their own games.

I have had several SAs “look into” who I was. They told me afterwards. I’m not not a big balling VIP. So I’m sure it happens to others.

Jewelry stores/boutiques tend to be pretty big on CRM databases. In most cases everything you’ve purchased is associated with you. Slicing and dicing your lifetime spend, and the items that comprise it, anyway they want to see it.

I'd be surprised if many of these CRMs didn’t offer services to “pull in” data from other sources. Address, home value, job and title, estimated income, estimated net worth, criminal history, etc etc could all be easily obtained. “Sales prospecting” info.

This is routine today. All our data is being sold so companies can better sell us stuff.

Your public social media can be viewed by the store clerks and staff. Heck, even if it’s private it’s certainly for sale B2B, staff just can’t self serve online and via google.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by vh2k

You mean SOME ADs — not ALL ADs, correct? Are you OK if the “good ADs” vet you to try to prevent flipping?







The “bad ones” sell out the back door. Do you want ALL of them selling to brokers? Or is it OK if some honorable ADs try harder to sell to actual watch wearers?

Fine, I tell you what. Let me see these "honorable" ADs' books and check who they've been selling watches to. Is it to members of the general public or some repeating VIPs who happen to own watch stores with plenty of new stock. If they're clean, I'll show them my social media posts, no problem.

[2nastie]

A proper AD in a luxury watch shortage like this should always be "vetting" their clients to ensure they are selling it to the right people. Some do it well, others do not.

Many ADs like asking the rhetorical question of "what have you done for me lately" and if the answer is "I haven't spent much at your shop" well their answer is: they don't do waitlists or its 5+ years or bundle this and that and they will see what they can do.

Actual "background checks" is a bit over the top and frankly doesn't mean much even if you pass the test.

[kieselguhr]

If it was that much trouble to spend my $, I’ll just spend it elsewhere. Then again I don’t get desperate for watches.

[mmmmp]

I could care less if some dumbell AD tries to check my background. There's literally nothing personal about me on the Web, Social Media or the local 'Penny Saver' bulletin board that would reveal my intentions.
I do wonder about folks who produce a 'minute by minute' diary of their daily activities online. Vacations, timest out the office, upcoming vacation dates & destinations, etc. And they wonder: "Why did we get burglarized when in Rio?"
I give everyone the benefit of the doubt with regard to common sense but sometimes ya gotta wonder.
If an AD wants to check me out, they'll do it without my co operation that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

[dricig]

It's a freakin watch! You're buying it not adopting it.

Screw the AD's and the Grays.

[gnuyork]

That would be a HELL NO

[ArtNouveau]

Originally Posted by 2nastie

A proper AD in a luxury watch shortage like this should always be "vetting" their clients to ensure they are selling it to the right people. Some do it well, others do not.

I’m going to agree with this. I know my AD is unlikely to deliver a “hot model” to anyone without knowing a bit more about them. I’m sure there’s more than one way to get in their good graces but I think it’s more than a simple $$ amount of spend. My “in” is knowing my SA for over 20 years. They have way more potential clients than they have watches so they can be picky.

[Time4aRolex]

No freakin way. They have the watch, I pay for the watch. That is the full extent of the transaction.

[Sprezzatura!,]

Originally Posted by Harry-57

If they want to sell me a watch I will buy it. If they don't. I will go somewhere else.

Like many here, I own a number of things which are considerably more expensive, sought after and rare than a mass produced watch. No seller has yet assessed me as to my suitability to give them my money. Neither have they attempted poke their noses into what I do with my personal property.

Anybody, a prospective employer, an AD, the authorities, can look into anything I have posted in the public domain without an OK from me. It's public domain information. Since I only post on two forums, one of them being about watches, do not have social media accounts and have never gone out of my way to tell the world about myself, a "background check" on me will take less time than it took me to type this paragraph.

Perfectly put.

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by envuks

Jewelry stores/boutiques tend to be pretty big on CRM databases. In most cases everything you’ve purchased is associated with you. Slicing and dicing your lifetime spend, and the items that comprise it, anyway they want to see it.

My AD has this type of info on me going back to way before I bought a Rolex from them. I've seen it, because I've asked to see it. I don't think this is the type of data scrape that the OP is referring to?

Being on file can come in handy. My first visit, by appointment, post COVID-19 lock down easing, included enquiring about a necklace for my wife who was still shielding at home. She already had a matching ring and once this legacy purchase had been pulled off the database, the matching necklace was identified, found to be in stock, and negotiations began.

[Nikrnic]

I'm pretty much an open book with my AD. He's a big WIS, were friends so to speak and he is on social media as well. I have no intentions of flipping, even my Blnr which he got for me but he did say if I do don't post it on the internet. ?? O well. NBD...I'd let him know anyway as he has connections and helped me out on other brands as well.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[jamesthejeweller]

There's no way in hell i'd have been allowed to buy a rainbow without track record and vetting. You're a fool if you think that this isn't a consideration for ADs and Rolex HQ.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[GradyPhilpott]

I don't think that there's anyway that anyone can stop anyone else from doing a background check.

Who cares?

There's nothing that anyone can do about the amount of public data that's out there.

I've had background checks done on me for a variety of reasons through the years, but I can't think of one single reason why someone would go to the trouble of doing one to sell a watch.

[42itus]

I get what you’re asking. Hypothetically of course. I would say no to this not because I have anything to hide but more because it’s just weird.
And the whole idea that they don’t want you to sell a watch is ridiculous. What if, after wearing a watch for a few months you decide it’s not for you? That’s happened to most of us and in most cases we take a loss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[avidflyer]

Its a mass produced watch....nothing special at all...we all like our collection but its massed produced. I think we take this hobby a little to far.