The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 9 April 2018, 10:41 AM   #31
Rolex fan 61
"TRF" Member
 
Rolex fan 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 1,061
I was insured with TH March, my watches were not covered when worn to work, they would only insure for 1 month if I left the UK and I'm often away longer than that, so I decided to self insure, I simply pay the insurance money every year into a separate account, and would use that money if the was a problem, ive never used the money and I have a nice lump sum building up combined with a small amount of interest.
Rolex fan 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:40 AM   #32
redfoxer
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: London
Posts: 79
Thanks all for all the information and experiences you have posted. Very much appreciated and food for thought!

Got some reading and quotes to do to see what is best for me.
redfoxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 06:11 AM   #33
Donnyal
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London
Watch: Submariner 116610
Posts: 110
What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'
Donnyal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 04:46 PM   #34
Simon040289
2018 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: U.K.
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnyal View Post
What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'


So you moan about the 90% instead of helping the OP?
Simon040289 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:23 PM   #35
tyler1980
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: london
Posts: 10,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnyal View Post
What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon040289 View Post
So you moan about the 90% instead of helping the OP?
The TH march quote i posted was not added to a home policy. They are a standalone insurance. Honestly the home contents posts are good for one thing, comparison. That way you know how much more it is to insure separately.

Personally i prefer not to have watches attached to a home policy though.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches
current collection: Patek 5990, Patek 5524G, Patek 5164A, Patek 5711/1A (white), Patek 5712/1A, Rolex 126710BLRO, Rolex 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver)
tyler1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:26 PM   #36
SC11
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
SC11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Posts: 5,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
The TH march quote i posted was not added to a home policy. They are a standalone insurance. Honestly the home contents posts are good for one thing, comparison. That way you know how much it is to insure separately.

Personally i prefer not to have watches attached to a home policy though.
But be aware some home insurance policy’s are void if you have separate standalone insurance for items which would be classed as contents ie watches.

M&S were one a year or so ago, I think they had a 10-15k watch limit and if you had a watch above this in the property it invalidated the policy!
SC11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:29 PM   #37
tyler1980
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: london
Posts: 10,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
But be aware some home insurance policyís are void if you have separate standalone insurance for items which would be classed as contents ie watches.

M&S were one a year or so ago, I think they had a 10-15k watch limit and if you had a watch above this in the property it invalidated the policy!
so basically that insurer won't insure a 100k RM watch as contents but if you get a separate insurance policy for it elsewhere and your house burns down and you lose the watch and the house your home insurer won't pay out for the house because you had a watch insured separately? Really ?

I wouldn't buy insurance from a grocery store anyway
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches
current collection: Patek 5990, Patek 5524G, Patek 5164A, Patek 5711/1A (white), Patek 5712/1A, Rolex 126710BLRO, Rolex 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver)
tyler1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:38 PM   #38
SC11
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
SC11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Posts: 5,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
so basically that insurer won't insure a 100k RM watch as contents but if you get a separate insurance policy for it elsewhere and your house burns down and you lose the watch and the house your home insurer won't pay out for the house because you had a watch insured separately? Really ?
In reality I donít know the outcome!

But from my experience and a couple of separate incidents reported by forum members, M&S stated that going over thier watch limit invalidated the policy!

One instance a member called to add a gold Rolex I believe and just expected to pay a slight increase in premium but was put on hold and then advised as he had already purchased the watch and had it in his possesion it invalidate his insurance and they have cancelled his policy.

I called and just asked as I was with them, they said if I owned a watch outside thier max limit they would no longer be able to insure me, I asked about not listing the item with them and having a third party insurance but they just stated as itís outside their limit the policy is invalid.

So in theory I guess if these rules are in place some people might own a high value watch and have chosen not even to insure it but the possession alone could invalidate thier current home insurance.

But as above Iíve not heard of anyone claiming being denied cover based on something like thi.

This was a year or so back so situation may of change but worth nothing as believe many wasnít aware of this.
SC11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:40 PM   #39
SC11
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
SC11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Posts: 5,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
I wouldn't buy insurance from a grocery store anyway
But they are the broker! The underwriter is the one to look for!
SC11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:43 PM   #40
tyler1980
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: london
Posts: 10,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
In reality I donít know the outcome!

But from my experience and a couple of separate incidents reported by forum members, M&S stated that going over thier watch limit invalidated the policy!

One instance a member called to add a gold Rolex I believe and just expected to pay a slight increase in premium but was put on hold and then advised as he had already purchased the watch and had it in his possesion it invalidate his insurance and they have cancelled his policy.

I called and just asked as I was with them, they said if I owned a watch outside thier max limit they would no longer be able to insure me, I asked about not listing the item with them and having a third party insurance but they just stated as itís outside their limit the policy is invalid.

So in theory I guess if these rules are in place some people might own a high value watch and have chosen not even to insure it but the possession alone could invalidate thier current home insurance.

But as above Iíve not heard of anyone claiming being denied cover based on something like thi.

This was a year or so back so situation may of change but worth nothing as believe many wasnít aware of this.
in short read the fine print

I have learned in my time here that in general UK insurers are a pain to deal with.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches
current collection: Patek 5990, Patek 5524G, Patek 5164A, Patek 5711/1A (white), Patek 5712/1A, Rolex 126710BLRO, Rolex 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver)
tyler1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 05:50 PM   #41
SC11
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
SC11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Posts: 5,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
in short read the fine print

I have learned in my time here that in general UK insurers are a pain to deal with.
In a nut shell
SC11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 06:03 PM   #42
redfoxer
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: London
Posts: 79
In all fairness, I do appreciate all comments as information is king! There's some great knowledge here.

I was looking into just content insurance vs jewelry insurance and both seem to come up pretty similar? Ripe seemed pretty decent value for money but pales in comparison when doing some contents insurance quotes.

I assume the difference is in the small print? Otherwise why would anyone not use home/contents insurance for coverage of a whole host of items vs just watches etc?

I read some state to cover watches/other high value items outside of home/contents but then some home/contents policies would be invalidated?? Such a minefield!!

If there's a key takeway from this thread - it's read the small print! Insurers don't like making things easy do they?
redfoxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 06:14 PM   #43
SC11
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
SC11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Posts: 5,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfoxer View Post
In all fairness, I do appreciate all comments as information is king! There's some great knowledge here.

I was looking into just content insurance vs jewelry insurance and both seem to come up pretty similar? Ripe seemed pretty decent value for money but pales in comparison when doing some contents insurance quotes.

I assume the difference is in the small print? Otherwise why would anyone not use home/contents insurance for coverage of a whole host of items vs just watches etc?

I read some state to cover watches/other high value items outside of home/contents but then some home/contents policies would be invalidated?? Such a minefield!!

If there's a key takeway from this thread - it's read the small print! Insurers don't like making things easy do they?

Hence why I went with Lark as they seemed more like the old school brokers where you told them what and how you want the cover and they found an underwriter.

Brief example
I could choose how many watches were covered outside the safe so say I had a collection of 5 watches and liked to travel with 2 I could of had 2 at anyone time out of the safe or just the 1.
Plus you could specify only 1 on the wrist so basically it was cheaper but you could only have 1 out of the safe at a time and it must be on the wrist at all times.
SC11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 06:14 PM   #44
tyler1980
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: london
Posts: 10,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfoxer View Post
In all fairness, I do appreciate all comments as information is king! There's some great knowledge here.

I was looking into just content insurance vs jewelry insurance and both seem to come up pretty similar? Ripe seemed pretty decent value for money but pales in comparison when doing some contents insurance quotes.

I assume the difference is in the small print? Otherwise why would anyone not use home/contents insurance for coverage of a whole host of items vs just watches etc?

I read some state to cover watches/other high value items outside of home/contents but then some home/contents policies would be invalidated?? Such a minefield!!

If there's a key takeway from this thread - it's read the small print! Insurers don't like making things easy do they?
in general i dont like the idea of mixing high risk to be stolen items with my house policy. A claim or two and then your home insurer will drop you and IMO home insurance is more important. Keeping them separate is a hedge against losing a great home policy.

Fine print of individual policies aside, just a general view.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches
current collection: Patek 5990, Patek 5524G, Patek 5164A, Patek 5711/1A (white), Patek 5712/1A, Rolex 126710BLRO, Rolex 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver)
tyler1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 06:23 PM   #45
BadBoyR
"TRF" Member
 
BadBoyR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Scotland
Watch: SubsGMTsSDsYM
Posts: 531
I went with M&S as it was the best policy I could find at a reasonable cost.
BadBoyR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 06:37 PM   #46
tyler1980
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: london
Posts: 10,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
But they are the broker! The underwriter is the one to look for!
my guess is the reason its cheaper even if the underwriter is the same for a different company's policy is because of the exclusions.

In much the same way you can get a Sony TV from best buy or a cheaper one from walmart. They are almost the same but the specs and number of HDMI ports or the processor is different. You are getting a good deal but its not quite the same TV even if it looks identical.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches
current collection: Patek 5990, Patek 5524G, Patek 5164A, Patek 5711/1A (white), Patek 5712/1A, Rolex 126710BLRO, Rolex 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver)
tyler1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 07:03 PM   #47
redfoxer
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: London
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
in general i dont like the idea of mixing high risk to be stolen items with my house policy. A claim or two and then your home insurer will drop you and IMO home insurance is more important. Keeping them separate is a hedge against losing a great home policy.

Fine print of individual policies aside, just a general view.
Very very interesting point!
redfoxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 07:34 PM   #48
SC11
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
SC11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Posts: 5,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
in general i dont like the idea of mixing high risk to be stolen items with my house policy. A claim or two and then your home insurer will drop you and IMO home insurance is more important. Keeping them separate is a hedge against losing a great home policy.

Fine print of individual policies aside, just a general view.
Valid point but I’d imagine more claims are made on house policies then individual and I know when I last arrange insurance I was asked if I had claimed on any past house or contents insurance, so technically if you had claimed on a individual watch policy you would be oblige to disclose!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
my guess is the reason its cheaper even if the underwriter is the same for a different company's policy is because of the exclusions.

In much the same way you can get a Sony TV from best buy or a cheaper one from walmart. They are almost the same but the specs and number of HDMI ports or the processor is different. You are getting a good deal but its not quite the same TV even if it looks identical.
Don’t dispute that but I was referring to the ‘insurance from a grocery store’ comment not the cost/exclusions POV
SC11 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 07:46 PM   #49
DavidUK
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Leicestershire UK
Posts: 529
OP, if you have home insurance check out how much it covers for valuables worldwide. This is different to personal possessions away from home. Don't assume that your watch is covered in any category without speaking to the insurer. You may benefit from changing home insurer to get a better deal including your watch.

I'm with John Lewis Premier which covers £40,000 of valuables but my DJ41 took me over that limit and so, after research, I went with T H March. Your Rolex AD probably insures with them too. Why? Because they're the best when you need them to pay out.
DavidUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 09:54 PM   #50
Soultime
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Just on this general subject....

I had an armed robbery back in 2007 when 2 cars were stolen - and also a Rolex LV (early flat four!!) an Omega Seamaster, diamond engagement ring.....amongst other things.
The insurer (Santander?) paid out no problem and it seemed to make no difference to premiums at renewal.

I switched insurer and insured the replacement Rolex YM as a specified item with a new insurer (Sainsburys) ......and smashed it up (attached).
The insurer picked up the bill for repair and once again seemed to have little, if any impact at renewal.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg watch.jpg (29.4 KB, 82 views)
Soultime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 April 2018, 10:37 PM   #51
jamesreid978
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Marks and Spencer Premier home insurance is pretty good. No need to name any specific item as long as it is under £15,000 and total for £50,000. Works well for me with 2 SS Rolex and a SS Omega, however if you have a large collection of SS or any PM watches, this won't be suitable.
jamesreid978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 April 2018, 03:31 AM   #52
Angelis
2018 Pledge Member
 
Angelis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Real Name: Sy
Location: London
Watch: GMT Coke
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelis View Post
Iím about to insure my watches with Ripe Insurance.

Never dealt with them before but they were substantially cheaper than a couple of other companies I got quotes from.

https://www.ripeinsurance.co.uk/valu...tch-insurance/
Don't bother with this company.

If you need to make a claim they will give you vouchers instead of cash, that you can only use in jewellery stores!!
Angelis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 April 2018, 04:16 AM   #53
Vetracer
"TRF" Member
 
Vetracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Real Name: Gary
Location: London
Watch: Patek, JLC, Rolex
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnyal View Post
What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'
Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I donít know...
Vetracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 April 2018, 04:34 AM   #54
Oryx
2018 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetracer View Post
Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I donít know...
Oryx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 April 2018, 07:12 PM   #55
redfoxer
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: London
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetracer View Post
Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I donít know...
Some might want to own a luxury good for a fraction of the cost of a house down payment to commemorate a special event rather than commit to a liability with commitments. But who am I to judge how people spend their money.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
redfoxer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 April 2018, 07:37 PM   #56
tyler1980
2018 RED-SD43 Pledge Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: london
Posts: 10,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetracer View Post
Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...
some people lease cars too. Its financial responsible if you like to switch cars often. Same with rent. If you want to move and not be tied down its smart

Ive met people who couldn't move to accept a better job offer because it would involve selling their house which proved to be too difficult. So basically they take less money and are tied down.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches
current collection: Patek 5990, Patek 5524G, Patek 5164A, Patek 5711/1A (white), Patek 5712/1A, Rolex 126710BLRO, Rolex 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver)
tyler1980 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18 April 2018, 08:55 PM   #57
Zakalwe
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: London
Posts: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vetracer View Post
Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...
That's easy to say from someone who is presumably rather wealthy. The reality of the property market is wildly different to how it was 20 years ago. Many thirty-somethings are living with their parents despite being, by most measures, financially well-off.

In my unfashionable part of East London, house prices have quadrupled in 2 decades. Many of my neighbours would be unable to afford their homes if they were buying today. They happened to get lucky with when they bought.

If you want to live in this part of the world, and not live in one of the pockets of neighbourhood where you live in fear of your car getting chored off the drive or your home being burglarised by an organised crime gang, then you'll have to pay north of £750k for a four bedroom family home. As I said above, this is not a fashionable area either. If you want a decent mortgage rate, you'll need to pony up at least £150k for a deposit. However that means you're looking to borrow £600k for your mortgage. In order to be approved for a £600k mortgage, you need to be earning £120k p/a minimum. If you get approved for such a mortgage, you're going to be paying over £2k pcm for the privilege on a typical capital repayment loan.

That's simply not realistic for the vast majority of people and it's perfectly possible, in London and the South-East at least, to earn 3-4 times the national average wage (i.e. be relatively wealthy) and not be able to afford to buy a home for you and your family. If I'm that guy, earning that much money and am comfortable renting, having paid all my bills, taken care of my wife and kids and have saved up some spare cash, then I'm going to spend my hard-earned on things that make me happy during my all too brief stint on planet Earth rather than worry about buying a slab of land, bricks and mortar that I might never be able to afford no matter how hard I try.
Zakalwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


*Banner Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2018, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.