Not so DEEPSEA, and RSC NYC

[ikra]

Just a quick update- mentioned last week on this forum how i had my AD send up DS to Rolex NYC for a problem _specifically that case back and case are not fit (mated) correctly as space exists partially around the perimeter.

just got confirmation from rolex nyc that 1.indeed they see the space in question 2. it should not be 3. they are submitting to a pressure test tomorrow. (at this point i should add that had i not included a letter with such specificity a five year old could find the flaw and repeated calls to RSC NYC where it appears the service staff can read and comprehend material much better than the techs, and ultimately a supervisor- watch probably would have been on way back with a letter stating its a Superlative Chronometer.....

now i agree with 1 and 2 but it already appears as if they are going to return a watch with an acknowledged defect by saying it has performed well in a fish bowl (thats actaully what it looks like- check your service booklets included with each purchase, a picture of the "pressure proofing" test is comical- only missing the goldfish).

so i submit to you TRF'ers- is a case back not properly mated to a case acceptable whether or not it passes the fish bowl test?

i think not - especially when it is this very hallmark (the oyster case) on this very product the DEEPSEA- that Rolex has used to cash in upon- the least they could do is delivery to the consumer a complete product. Can anyone say COMEX hype.

[sbakar]

Sounds shoddy, but do you have any pictures of this?

SNB

[stevemulholland3]

you dont have to accept it...

[Bisquitlips]

Agreed! Do not accept imperfections.

[Tools]

Did you ake a picture.....???

The DSSD case-back is a titanium disc (or cover), a gasket, and a Stainless Steel ring that screws down, seating the titanium disc against the back...

I could see how the Stainless ring could be crooked, yet still apply pressure against the disc and gasket, passing a moderate pressure test...

but it would be wrong....

[Lol-x]

I think this will sort itself out, just give it some time to go through the necessary steps.

I don't see how Rolex would have the right to impose a defective case on anyone.

[dcvelo]

Originally Posted by ikra

Just a quick update- mentioned last week on this forum how i had my AD send up DS to Rolex NYC for a problem _specifically that case back and case are not fit (mated) correctly as space exists partially around the perimeter.

just got confirmation from rolex nyc that 1.indeed they see the space in question 2. it should not be 3. they are submitting to a pressure test tomorrow. (at this point i should add that had i not included a letter with such specificity a five year old could find the flaw and repeated calls to RSC NYC where it appears the service staff can read and comprehend material much better than the techs, and ultimately a supervisor- watch probably would have been on way back with a letter stating its a Superlative Chronometer.....

now i agree with 1 and 2 but it already appears as if they are going to return a watch with an acknowledged defect by saying it has performed well in a fish bowl (thats actaully what it looks like- check your service booklets included with each purchase, a picture of the "pressure proofing" test is comical- only missing the goldfish).

so i submit to you TRF'ers- is a case back not properly mated to a case acceptable whether or not it passes the fish bowl test?

i think not - especially when it is this very hallmark (the oyster case) on this very product the DEEPSEA- that Rolex has used to cash in upon- the least they could do is delivery to the consumer a complete product. Can anyone say COMEX hype.

I think is time to ask for your money back, what a bunch of crap!!