NBTimes/Ben Poor Transaction, Watch not in condition promised

[Walter4]

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I have to share what was a very poor transaction with Ben/NBTimes.

The watch was advertised as being in "excellent condition" and when I asked him how accurate it was functioning, he promised that it was "running well...below 10 seconds difference per day!"

As you can imagine, I was quite disappointed and concerned when I found it to be running nearly one whole minute slow per day. Although I offered to have it serviced locally, he was insistent that I ship it back to HK for him to have his local watchmaker do, which I agreed to. At first I was pleased with his apparent willingness to arrange for the service -- although I was surprised why it was not in the condition represented when sold.

I received it back 12 days after I dropped it off to FedEx, and was informed that the watch had been running quite slow due to dirt between the wheels which needed to be cleaned. While this cleaning did a little to improve the performance, it was still operating 13 seconds per day slow and outside of the 10 seconds promised when I bought it.

It was at this point that things began to more significantly break down. Ben/NBTimes was very dismissive about the performance, stating that it was "impossible."

To remedy the problem, I proposed that I take it to a local vintage watch expert, and if the watch was found to be operating within the 10 seconds, I would pay for the visit. If it was operating outside but required no major improvements, that he pay for a regulation. And that if it required something more thorough that he either arrange for a return and refund for the entire watch, or pay for the local service. This seemed entirely fair to me given that the watch had never performed as sold, but that I was willing to take the cost if it was my error.

Ben/NBTimes replied: "Ken, to be fair! In case of that, I prefer you send me back the watch and I refund to you.

Or

You can take the watch to a local Rolex expert to test accuracy. If the accuracy is inside of 10 secs and in normal operating condition internally, this deal is finished. Otherwise I prefer you send me back the watch! Because I already paid extra double fedex shipping costs and the overhaul service cost. I don't want to pay any extra on it. Trust you understand."

He also stated that if it only required a regulation to bring it into the specs that he promised at time of sale, he insisted I should pay for it.

I took it to Russell Talerman, who has a an excellent reputation here in London and on these boards, which found the watch to in fact be operating at -13 secs per day, but also at a very low amplitude of 230 (far below 270). They also found the crown to be badly worn, and the crown gasket in need of replacement. The quality of the prior service was judged to be mediocre.

When I advised Ben/NBTimes of the watchmaker's findings, and asked him to pay for the service or have the watch returned and refunded, he stopped replying.

After chasing up with him, he said his boss and him thought I was asking for too much, and he refused to honor his prior promise to take the watch back and refund for the cost of the watch.

I think anyone dealing with him in the future, should buyer beware, that the watch may not be as promised, and he has reneged on promises made.

[toph]

Interesting.
Sorry to hear that.
I'm sure Ben may be along to give his version of events to so I'll refrain from any further comment until then.

[DCgator]

Walter4 has stated his side. Would like to hear your side of the story, please.

[Old Expat Beast]

Sorry to hear about this. So did you have to pay VAT or customs duty twice because the watch was sent to you twice from Hong Kong? That would compound the issue, I suppose.

[Walter4]

No, VAT and customs were avoided both times. And to be clear, Ben/NBTimes incurred the return shipping costs.

Unfortunately, I nonetheless, am stuck with a watch that is still not operating as sold, and clearly requires additional servicing to be brought into that condition.

I've offered to either do the service at his cost or return it for a refund, the later of which he originally agreed to, before he and his boss changed their minds, and now refuse to honor.

[Presa canary]

That doesn't seem right. Hopefully both parties will figure out a happy ending. I love happy endings

[Walter4]

After much back and forth, Ben/NBTimes has agreed to reimbursement for the local service to bring the watch into the condition promised at the time of sale. After agreeing to do this, he promptly forwarded the payment.

I applaud him for stepping up to resolve this, and wanted to share with everyone that ultimately, he did the right thing and backed up his sale.

[Presa canary]

Good for you Ben. That's a guy I'd work with in the future

[Rashid.bk]

This is excellent news. I would definitely buy a watch from a seller like this if he has the watch I want.

[Old Expat Beast]

Glad it worked out for you, with the deal and the VAT. Ben is known to be a straight shooter in HK.

[Walter4]

Wanted to give a thorough review of the experience for all those concerned and interested. I tried to be fair and full with my presentation of the facts, as I believe that this is helpful for future prospective purchasers.

[Old Expat Beast]

Can you tell us what watch it was, out of interest? A nice vintage, I expect.

[woodsworth]

Glad to hear that everything worked out in the end & you got the watch in the condition described.

[Welshwatchman]

Ben/NBTimes replied: "Ken, to be fair! In case of that, I prefer you send me back the watch and I refund to you.

That's as much as I'd expect from a professional seller.

I can't see why you'd need to slate him.

[Walter4]

I had no problem with his offer to send back the watch and refund me, until he changed his mind. Only after he stopped replying to my emails did I take my story here.

To be fair, I've been dealing with this for nearly a month in private, so I've tried to deal with this directly with the guy until he changed his mind, and refused to honor his original offer.

Only after I took my story here did he reconsider and agree to his original offer. And I believe that I have accurately reflected and presented this update.

[Walter4]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Can you tell us what watch it was, out of interest? A nice vintage, I expect.

It's a 1970 Rolex Submariner. Just looking forward to getting it back from service.

[Mosco]

all due respect, but I would never expect a 44 year-old watch to work within 10 sec/day...

[Saoirse32]

Not sure if you followed my thread but it's good to see there are trusted sellers here and that it all worked out! Enjoy your watch!

[SMD]

Originally Posted by Mosco

all due respect, but I would never expect a 44 year-old watch to work within 10 sec/day...

This. Unreasonable to expect such precision and unwarranted to slam him publicly over it.

[Walter4]

I would also like to clarify one aspect, as I very much want to give an accurate depiction of the events.

This morning, after 4 days of not having heard from him, I emailed Ben/NBTimes to follow up on the status of his prior offer to refund my watch since the watch was judged not to be in the condition/accuracy previously presented.

I received a prompt reply from him stating: "I have consulted my boss about your case and we believe your request is too much. And I don't need to do any extra on it. That's all what we have to do and we did what we should do. So, we will leave the deal like this!"

Subsequently, I sent multiple emails to him, which I never heard from, and after a number of hours, posted my experience on this forum.

After reversing his position this afternoon and agreeing to refund the watch, I have since spoken with Ben/NBTimes, and he has stated that he did not see my posts here, and was away from email speaking with his boss about how to resolve this matter.

Ben/NBTimes asked me to update this post with these details, which I have done per his request. This is not meant to be anything other than an honest account of the experience, which I have attempted to update accordingly for the benefit of future purchasers.

[Walter4]

Originally Posted by SMD

This. Unreasonable to expect such precision and unwarranted to slam him publicly over it.

It was represented as being in "excellent condition" and "running well...inside of 10 seconds per day." If it wasn't performing in that scope, I don't believe it is appropriate to represent it as such. To be sure, it was running nearly a minute slow when I first received it, and is still running out of spec and at a very low amplitude.

Further, when it was clear that it wasn't in such a condition, I don't think it is reasonable to renege on a prior promise to refund the item. Which he ultimately changed his mind on.

After telling me that the sale was final and no service would be paid for, he later today agreed to compensate me for the service, and the watch is now getting serviced to remedy the problems.

I think I've described this situation accurately, and updated it accordingly. And I would think the purpose of this forum is to describe things accurately good and bad. I feel I have been fair in describing this as it was, for the benefit of all readers.

[Walter4]

+

[powerfunk]

It seems like it's a growing trend to look at a watch's timekeeping as an indisputable number. The amount of "seconds per day" that a watch is running is not some concrete, hard number.

A watch may gain 13 seconds per day one one position, and lose 1 second per day in another position. The way a watch is worn through the week can affect its timekeeping. I guess if Ben had said "under 15 seconds" this thread wouldn't exist? It sounds like he shouldn't have reneged his offer to refund (unless there was a long delay after the offer) but I'm glad it ultimately worked out to everyone's satisfaction.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by Walter4

I think I've described this situation accurately, and updated it accordingly. And I would think the purpose of this forum is to describe things accurately good and bad. I feel I have been fair in describing this as it was, for the benefit of all readers.

When I talked to Dalton at ABC Watchworks, he said 10 seconds is what they strive for in a vintage watch. I do not think you are being unreasonable.

[Walter4]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

It seems like it's a growing trend to look at a watch's timekeeping as an indisputable number. The amount of "seconds per day" that a watch is running is not some concrete, hard number.

A watch may gain 13 seconds per day one one position, and lose 1 second per day in another position. The way a watch is worn through the week can affect its timekeeping. I guess if Ben had said "under 15 seconds" this thread wouldn't exist? It sounds like he shouldn't have reneged his offer to refund (unless there was a long delay after the offer) but I'm glad it ultimately worked out to everyone's satisfaction.

I agree it is not the best metric. Amplitude may be a better measure. But he promised it was in excellent condition and running well, which would imply a stable and appropriate amplitude (near 270), and not a low 230 as was determined by an independent. Also, it was originally running a minute slow per day, with dirt in the wheels.

But to be clear, he has stepped up to pay for a second service.

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by Walter4

Amplitude may be a better measure. But he promised it was in excellent condition and running well, which would imply a stable and appropriate amplitude

I agree with that. Hope to see some wrist shots when it's back from your watchmaker!

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by Walter4

Regarding previous refund offer ....

I received a prompt reply from him stating: "I have consulted my boss about your case and we believe your request is too much. And I don't need to do any extra on it. That's all what we have to do and we did what we should do. So, we will leave the deal like this!"

If this is correct (that Ben is selling on behalf of another party, his boss in this instance) then there can be no further listings by him on TRF.

"Any item listed must be legally owned by you and in your possession at the time you list it."

Clarification is required here, otherwise action will be taken.

[Welshwatchman]

.... and I note that Nbtimes is viewing this thread currently so clarification should be forthcoming.

[Welshwatchman]

.... and now not viewing.

[Frosty]