Have you had problems with Steve Mullholland?

[djkennedy67]

Last month I purchased a supposedly full set matt 5513 Submariner from Steve Mullholland.

I initially inspected the watch, which looked in great condition, and stuck it in the safe before heading off on holiday.

On returning I took the watch out and checked the serial number and typed papers, which showed 8.67mill. After looking at various reference material and consulting some local collectors, which took a couple of weeks, there seems to be a doubt about a Mark III matt dial on an 8.67 mil 5513.

I love the watch and paid dealer price for peace of mind with an original watch.

I have asked for a full refund, but have only been offered a credit or trade value, as Steve reckons the watch is totally legit.

However, I think an 8.67mil 5513 was never a matt dialled watch and Steve seems to be in a minority of 1 in believing that it was the original dial.

'I am 100% confident that the dial is original in that watch, and anyone who says differently doesn't know crap.'SM

The papers show as shipped 1985 from the factory - RTTX. Also, it was advertised as a full set, but when it arrived it had no submariner booklet and those that did come had most of the pages stuck together.

The watch looks great, but a premium is always evident on matt watches and having paid good money, $6800, on a watch that I believe was originally a gloss dialled model I feel aggrieved. Gloss dialled watches pass hands for considerably less money.

As this was my first purchase from the states I thought it would be seamless with good reassurance that the watch and dealer would have good probity.


Am I being unreasonable asking for a full refund?


All opinions welcome.

Regards

David Kennedy

PS After discussing this on a UK based Rolex forum I have been contacted by a couple of people who have both backed my assessment of the watch and the dealer.

[Puffy]

It should be a gloss dial with white gold surrounds so you're not wrong there my friend

An honest seller's motto should be until the buyer is happy and 100% satisfied with the purchase, the deal is not complete.

I will always refund if the buyer is not happy or do everything I can to make sure the buyer is happy and has had a good experience. Treat others how you'd like to be treated.

Not wanting to refund you says it all - the worst a seller can do is to refuse a refund, which only suggests the goods are in a dubious state and can't be resold.

If the goods are what they are being sold as they can always be sold again so a refund must never be an issue.

Sounds like you've returned the goods in the state they came in so there shouldn't be an issue with the refund, unless of course the watch is damaged but it doesn't sound like it.

Steve should refund you as you're clearly not happy.

[pawnshopkiller]

I got my cape on today just so all of you know....



Ok, How long have you had the watch before wanting a refund????


Like how many days????



I understand you wanting a full refund but Steve offers a return policy which has expired.


The reason Sellers have a time limit is to stop joy riders from buying a watch to try it out for a couple weeks and then return it....


It was your job as a buyer to make sure this was the watch you wanted before you paid for it...


Didn't Steve offer you the Serial number range and provide pictures of the equipped dial??

[inspires]

David,

I do not think you are being unreasonable in requesting a refund as Puffy had stated the seller, in this case an actual dealer, should have no reservations with fully refunding the purchase unless he/she knows that the was is not easily resale able.

Hope everything works out. Jacek's got a nice 16800 posted.

Cheers,

Eric

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

It was your job as a buyer to make sure this was the watch you wanted before you paid for it...

the OP says this was sold as an original watch - so the sale shouldn't be bound by a seller's return policy

if something doesn't add up the seller must rectify it regardless of what the return policy says

at least that's what I'd do

EDIT: in fact, a sale should NEVER be dependant on a refund policy, especially if it turns out that goods have been modified from their factory settings and sold as all original! I might cry if I bought something that was actually far from what I thought I bought!!!

[azguy]

I think one problem is getting the watch back into the United States, Steve probably doesn't want to take the chance that customs grabs it and then we have some serious problems.........

This is a tough one; but if the experts feel that it should be a gloss dial and now has a matt, you have a good case that it has been switched out.

Steve is considered an expert, he should have known this, but nobody is perfect.....

[pawnshopkiller]

I will say this again......



It was your fault for not checking the serial number range till a month has passed.


Sorry your bad..

Just face it...

[Dave_T26]

Originally Posted by djkennedy67

On returning I took the watch out and checked the serial number and typed papers, which showed 8.67mill. After looking at various reference material and consulting some local collectors, which took a couple of weeks, there seems to be a doubt about a Mark III matt dial on an 8.67 mil 5513.

With all due respect, this issue sounds like something that could've/should've been addressed by you before closing the deal.

I'm assuming that prior to purchase:

You knew the serial number (hopefully)
You knew it was a matte dial (obviously)
You at least did some research about the likelihood of a matte dial being factory-installed on a 5513. Your research would've showed you that you'd be in a rather high-range for a matte dial, and then you could've had second thoughts or asked for expert input, at that point.

The time to think about these issues is prior to purchase, not after. I'd be a bit put off if I was the seller, especially if he (as I recall, correct me if I'm wrong) offers a 3 day "no hassle" return policy.

[mike]

I've moved this thread to the "who's who".

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by azguy

[B]Steve is considered an expert, he should have known this, but nobody is perfect.....

exactly, nobody is perfect, and when you stuff up you owe up to it and make things good

[djkennedy67]

Pawnshopkiller

I was very happy with the watch when I received it.

As detailed I had the watch a couple of weeks while when a collector friend of mine questioned the serial number versus the matt dial.

I took another week to research dial number before contacting Steve about the doubts over the watch.

I paid matt dial money for a dubious watch which I feel is a cheaper gloss dial watch all day.

I bought from a dealer who advertised a full set matt watch. I shouldn't have to do 2 weeks research to find if it has a dubious dial fitted.

Regards

David

[subtona]

the length of time for turnaround isn't ideal.... but the misrepresentation of the watch trumps.
how about pics and original advert?

[pawnshopkiller]

Ok. You don't want the watch anymore and Steve is offering you a trade in for the whole amount???


I guess you should pick another watch...


Or maybe he will bend on the refund who knows....



All I know is that being a seller of watches here locally that more than a few times I sell a watch to someone with money that ends up burning through all the money and then they come back wanting the full amount of the purchase back because now they are broke....


I tell every buyer I will give them 80% trade or 70% cash back...

I don't work for free


That is why I feel the time frame is off on your end...

All in all this sucks for both parties.


Risk is involved in returning the watch now and the seller may loose money on the import.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

It was your fault for not checking the serial number range till a month has passed.

Originally Posted by Dave_T26

With all due respect, this issue sounds like something that could've/should've been addressed by you before closing the deal.

I hope you two don't work in a legal capacity

a seller is responsible for the goods that are sold and if a buyer returns an item they purchased from you that is faulty (it does not conform to contract) because it:

• does not match the description - THIS WATCH DOESN'T
• is not of satisfactory quality - THIS WATCH DOESN'T
• is not fit for purpose - THIS WATCH ISN'T

When a buyer who wishes to reject or not accept faulty goods and claim a refund, the seller is entitled to ask the buyer to prove the goods were faulty when they bought them.

Clearly the OP has a strong case that this never came on a matte dial, hence faulty, and he should be entitled to a full refund

[djkennedy67]

I think we are talking at cross purposes.

I take your point on joy riders. Trust me I have a safe full of watches and do not need the money.

I love the watch, I only want a refund as I believe there is no way a matt MK III was fitted to a 8.67 mil serial Submariner.

The watch has been misrepresented and therefore worth far less than advertised. Hence there should not be any limit in time or refund amount.

David

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by djkennedy67

The watch has been misrepresented and therefore worth far less than advertised. Hence there should not be any limit in time or refund amount.

David

I'm with you here mate

this is misleading advertising, you've clearly been persuaded into a commercial transaction that you would otherwise have avoided

you don't put a Black plexi GMT insert up for sale, send a sapphire instead by mistake, then refuse a refund because the buyer was away on holiday and wasn't able to check in time that it was actually a plexi that was sent

[conrail]

Originally Posted by Puffy

I hope you two don't work in a legal capacity

a seller is responsible for the goods that are sold and if a buyer returns an item they purchased from you that is faulty (it does not conform to contract) because it:

• does not match the description - THIS WATCH DOESN'T
• is not of satisfactory quality - THIS WATCH DOESN'T
• is not fit for purpose - THIS WATCH ISN'T

When a buyer who wishes to reject or not accept faulty goods and claim a refund, the seller is entitled to ask the buyer to prove the goods were faulty when they bought them.

Clearly the OP has a strong case that this never came on a matte dial, hence faulty, and he should be entitled to a full refund

I highly doubt Steve warranted the watch fit for a particular purpose ;-) If the watch should never under any circumstances have come originally with a matte dial, and the only way a matte dial could get in there is if someone swapped it in, then the watch isn't original and that is devious sales tactics and I sympathize with the OP there.

As others have said though, you gota do your homework before buying. It would/should have made it clear especially in a case like this where there are bright lines as to what watch should come with what dial.

[djkennedy67]

Subtona

Advertised on this forum - Full set Matt 5513.

I believe the chances of it being a matt 5513 are very slim as it was shipped from the factory in 1985 - papers showing RTTX.

It is either the last matt 5513 ever produced and I've hit the jackpot or a redial. I think the former.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=221006

Regards

David

[Dave_T26]

Originally Posted by Puffy

I hope you two don't work in a legal capacity

Since the chances of this matter being resolved in a court of law are basically zero, I fail to see your point. This is an internet forum and an internet deal, not a courtroom.

I've been buying and selling collectibles online domestically and internationally since 1998, so yes, I have some idea about what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by djkennedy67

I shouldn't have to do 2 weeks research to find if it has a dubious dial fitted.

This is nonsense.

He didn't have to do "two weeks" of research. He could've asked directly in this forum (or searched the forum) and he would've had an answer-- and actually, that's what he did.

This is his query thread, and he had an answer in less than half an hour.

Had the buyer exercised a few moments of due diligence, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, he waited, what, weeks to raise the issue?

[subtona]

http://doubleredseadweller.com/5513maxi.htm

this page shows 8 mil with matte dial type V

The Type V is the very last style of matte 5513 dial usually found in watches from the late 7 to 8mil+ SN range, immediately before the change to gloss/WG surround dials. For the first time in non-date Sub history, SUBMARINER is printed wider than the depth rating, a characteristic that Rolex would make permanent with its glossy successors:"


i have almost no experience with vintage but this does seems to show possibility?

[pawnshopkiller]

Originally Posted by Puffy

I'm with you here mate

this is misleading advertising, you've clearly been persuaded into a commercial transaction that you would otherwise have avoided

you don't put a Black plexi GMT insert up for sale, send a sapphire instead by mistake, then refuse a refund because the buyer was away on holiday and wasn't able to check in time that it was actually a plexi that was sent

Puffy I have nothing to say about you.. I don't hope anything about you or toward you....


But...

Comparing someone advertising one thing and sending another is totally off base here and has nothing to do with what happened.


The same watch and dial in the pics was the one shipped.

Seem to me you have a personal problem with Steve and if I was Steve I would have one with you.

This guy is a member of the forum and could have researched on his own.

Bottom Line.

Maybe you are puffing too much of the funny stuff to understand that the buyer has had the watch over a month...

ANd is being offered a full price trade...

Keep puffing up though I find it funny you making stuff up about plastic and Sapphire part switchers that have nothing to do with the OP

[jdc]

If its a mark III dial it cannot be correct. Has this been established by someone who knows what they are talking about? Maybe some close ups of the dial could help.

[pawnshopkiller]

Ok fine wrong dial...


Should have researched it before the purchase or at the very least DURING THE3 DAY NO HASSLE RETURN PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Passed Three Days. It's your watch wrong dial or not!!!

[jdc]

Maybe he should but he put his trust in a respected vintage seller to sell a correct watch. This may all be a misunderstanding and the information that the buyer has been given that it is a mark III dial is wrong, hope this all gets cleared up for the benefit of both parties.

[Dave_T26]

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

Ok fine wrong dial...


Should have researched it before the purchase or at the very least DURING THE3 DAY NO HASSLE RETURN PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Passed Three Days. It's your watch wrong dial or not!!!

It was actually more than 3 days. From the original FS link from OP:

5 day no questions asked return policy

[Welshwatchman]

There's no reason for an amicable solution not to be found.

The dial doesn't appear to be a MKV type found on the late 7/early 8 million 5513s, though there are no face-on pics to say for sure.

Also, SM specifies a 5 day no-quibble refund and an indefinite period if found non authentic.

It leaves the grey area of non-originality, including the thorny issue of establishing the case.

It seems to me that Steve is a stand up guy. Don't rub him up the wrong way and I'm pretty sure he'll sort you out to your reasonable satisfaction.

[azguy]

Nobody has address how to get the watch back into the U.S.

[TattooedGQ]

I've only dealt with Steve once, and he was very knowledgeable and a complete gentleman the whole way through.

I'm sure he wasn't trying to be deceptive or dishonest....I'm sure one of two things are going to happen...1. Something will be revealed and the watch will be deemed original, OR 2. Steve will stand by his product and customer.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

There's no reason for an amicable solution not to be found.

The dial doesn't appear to be a MKV type found on the late 7/early 8 million 5513s, though there are no face-on pics to say for sure.

Also, SM specifies a 5 day no-quibble refund and an indefinite period if found non authentic.

It leaves the grey area of non-originality, including the thorny issue of establishing the case.

It seems to me that Steve is a stand up guy. Don't rub him up the wrong way and I'm pretty sure he'll sort you out to your reasonable satisfaction.

solid

[djkennedy67]

I bought from a respected dealer on this forum so that I didn't have to do a due diligence'. Steve has said that this is the original dial to the watch. I beg to differ hence I started to do some digging. I was not an expert on boundary serial numbers for various variants.

All I wanted was an honest good looking full set matt 5513, as advertised.

If I had bought some dodgy watch from some dodgy source then due diligence is critical. I sent various emails to Steve asking about originality, shipping and condition. They were all positive.

I was only made aware of the dial problem when a collector friend of mine questioned the serial number. I communicated this to Steve as soon as I was aware and was assured by Steve that it was fine. Some further digging led me to believe otherwise.

Subtona

A couple of images that you wanted to see.

I have asked politely for a refund and wanted a smooth and amicable solution, but by the amount of people that have contacted me about Steve I am not holding my breath.

To me the crux of the matter is it was advertised as a Full Set Matt 5513. 

I believe it is a gloss 5513 with a dial swap and not as advertised and much less valuable.