Reply With QuoteReally interesting read and common sense outcome. Thank you for sharing.
Not sure if this already been posted? But an interesting read, which highlights a certain upselling of services you must purchase in order to have what you want done.
https://www.fratellowatches.com/unfa...mburse-client/
Really interesting read and common sense outcome. Thank you for sharing.
Never understood the ‘Yes, we can fit a new bezel but we have to service the movement’ argument.
Claimed to be ensuring the integrity of the brand but always smelled like up-selling BS.
I wonder what Mick P thinks?
Interesting, but why did the owner think that Rolex was best placed to fix the bracelet, surely most sensible people would seek out a trusted independent with a solid reputation for that particular kind of work. Surprised Rolex didn’t just chuck the bracelet in the bin and bang a brand new one on.
Agree, it's utter bullshit. Rolex need reminding who owns the watches, it's purely the owner's decision whether to have the watch serviced or not.....or it ought to be!Originally Posted by Onelasttime
Never understood the ‘Yes, we can fit a new bezel but we have to service the movement’ argument.
Claimed to be ensuring the integrity of the brand but always smelled like up-selling BS.
I wonder what Mick P thinks?
I can understand it if the movement has to be partially stripped to fix a fault, it usually makes sense to fully service the movement if it has to be partially stripped, but when it's a case-related job such as a bezel insert or a glass it makes no sense.
While I fully agree, so long as Rolex fanghurls continue to act like little bitches with their financial panties around their ankles, Rolex will continue to f*** them in every orifice at every possible opportunity. This case will change nothing, indeed, I'd expect Rolex to double-down on the ruthless exploitation of gullible brandwhores...
And the lines wanting this treatment will continue to grow longer...
"What watch should I wear to the AD?"
Would they even have one?
Not an original, they would probably have a modern equivalent that fits the lugs.
How you missed it is a mystery - posted 25 mins before yours.
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?527457
Wow!While I fully agree, so long as Rolex fanghurls continue to act like little bitches with their financial panties around their ankles, Rolex will continue to f*** them in every orifice at every possible opportunity. This case will change nothing, indeed, I'd expect Rolex to double-down on the ruthless exploitation of gullible brandwhores...
And the lines wanting this treatment will continue to grow longer...
"What watch should I wear to the AD?"
Oh well!
What I find interesting here is that the judge has based his/her decision on the repair to the bracelet being in no way linked to a service. Reading between the lines, most watch owners, possibly not Rolex, change their straps/bracelets on a regular basis so it's an ancillary item. If however, the part needing repair is linked to the case itself i.e. an intrinsic and not really user replaceable part of the watch then the judge may have ruled that a service might be necessary. I agree that the judge has ruled with common sense but I wouldn't get carried away that it might affect Rolex policy of watches needing a service for minor repairs.
They stick all sorts on these days my 2013 Rolex explorer 1 was pristine before it went to Rolex, "slight scratch or dent on bezel they said" replace, crown is common one now on all service Rolex's seem to need a crown 3 out 3 of mine have needed crowns.
Also they are removing service stickers as think thats to do with the new pre owned certified Rolex's they are starting so sell, bet they have stickers on lol
Sent from my SM-A325F using TZ-UK mobile app
And anyway, a foreign judge.
Posting Permissions
