What does "worn" mean? & What if I think I am getting no joy from a dealer?

[phelix_da_kat]

Has been a while since I last posted... over the past few months I have had 2 new additions... a "healthy bouncy bundle of joy" and what most TRFers say when something comes in a parcel "incoming...!!"

The former has brought me sleepless nights but many moments of joy..
The latter sleepless nights and to be honest a bit of a headache..
Please see my former thread: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=209123

Ok, picture this.. (please bear with me as I try to provide a summary of the past 6/7 months)

1) I bought one of my Rolex grails (a 20 year old watch - based out of Asia).
- pictures look clean / watch in good condition
- the description is for a "worn" dial.
- I buy the watch for a fair price based on recent sales.

2) After receiving it, I take it to Rolex for a quote for a service (of the movement only) and a clean up.
- I ask for them to take a look at the dial as the glass seems smudged and the dial looks dirty under certain lighting/angles.

3) Rolex report states agrees that there is damage/flaw with the dial.
However Rolex agree that the watch and dial are authentic.

Here comes the pain.

4) I go back to the dealer - he will not accept a refund as I did not advise him immediately upon receiving it.. Unfortunately the report took (the standard) 10 business days to come back. He stated it was unreasonable for me to ask for a refund as I did not ask as soon I got it.

5) We agree to a partial refund or a replacement dial. It is up to me!

6) Later he comes back saying it is not fair to offer a partial refund but he will look for a replacement dial - however I do remind him that we agreed on either a dial or a partial refund.
- I allow for several weeks as he looks for a replacement dial. As a dealer, I am hoping he has lots of contacts etc...
- he later reiterates it is unfair to offer a partial refund when I query about the status of his search.
- After 6 months of emails and several trade shows later... the "pin has dropped" and I ask how often has he seen these dials for sale - no response to my question. The crux of the question (and I do eventually say this to him) is that the promise of a replacement dial is false, as the likelihood of finding a dial is very very remote, so is effectively an empty promise.

7) Still no joy so I ask for a partial refund again. His response was he could not calculate a partial refund value and I would have to wait for a dial.

Ok - don't flame me just yet as it does take "two to tango".

With hindsight, I know I should have emailed the dealer even if I remotely suspected an issue with the watch - so this is partly my fault. I accept I may not get a full refund.

However, I did think the dealer was "bending the truth" when he had photos of the dial that looked clean - but stated it was only "worn". Looking back, I feel like this should have been a warning sign as it is such a generic comment.

I have tried to photo the "flaw" in the dial with the crystal on and later at the Rolex Service Centre without the crystal - to be honest, I could not capture it.

Also, what irked me is he said:
- it was that it was normal for a 20 year old watch to have imperfections on a dial especially if it was used. And he sold it to me cheap as it was not perfect.
- that he did not "ask me to take it to Rolex to evaluate", I had to state it was my right to get a second opinion, especially as I do not have tools to crack open a Rolex etc.

So.. here is what I wanted to ask the esteemed members of TRF..

1) when a seller sells you a watch, what do you expect if the watch is sold as "worn" but the photos of the dial are clean?

2) what do you do if the seller back peddles on his offer of either a replacement dial or partial refund (remember I have waited 6 months for a replacement dial - so have asked for a partial refund)?

3) how would you even calculate a partial refund??

I have not named the dealer, as I do not want to cause any misunderstanding nor damage his reputation if my expectations are unreasonable - hence the litmus test and my questions to the forum.

If you respond - it would be interesting to know if you are answering from the perspective of a dealer or buyer please.

Pre-emptive "many thanks" to the forum and it's members..

[azguy]

a picture is worth a thousand words...

[phelix_da_kat]

Hi azguy,
Done,

- please see attached, this is one of the photos from the dealer (from my original thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=209123)
- I would have attach my own photo, but I cannot capture the flaw, only shows under specific angles/lighting
- However, it can been seen with the naked eye and I do have a Rolex service quote stating the dial is damaged.

[superdog]

sounds to me like you have been pretty reasonable and the dealer has not been 100% up front. i am sure there will be differing opinions, but if he is a reputable dealer a full refund should have been offered even after 10 days. it sounds like you communicated with him pretty well.

i would personally post his information so that other people don't get burned.

[Brenngun]

Did the seller at any time confirm he also saw the same dial flaw when in his possesion? If so I'd ask why he didn't disclose this fact. Is it possible he didn't know it was there? You obviously know the watch is your's. At this point I'd do what you need to do to make yourself happy. Did Rolex give you an estimate to replace the dial? Did you get a great price for the watch? If you cover the dial replacement yourself would the combined cost of the watch and the replacement dial still add up to a good price? If so then get the dial changed and be happy with your new watch. Continue asking the seller for partial compensation but at some point you need to stop an be glad there's not more wrong with it. Good luck.

[phelix_da_kat]

@superdog: thank you.

@brenngun:
- yes. The dealer knew about the flaw. He said that's why he accepted my lower offer.
- the dial is not stocked by Rolex anymore. As it is a 1991 Rolex Explorer with Blackout. Was made only for 1 year. Kind of looks like a 214270 but smaller.
- I would have made a lower offer if I had all the information at hand.

[Brenngun]

Originally Posted by phelix_da_kat

@superdog: thank you.

@brenngun:
- yes. The dealer knew about the flaw. He said that's why he accepted my lower offer.
- the dial is not stocked by Rolex anymore. As it is a 1991 Rolex Explorer with Blackout. Was made only for 1 year. Kind of looks like a 214270 but smaller.
- I would have made a lower offer if I had all the information at hand.

OP, I ask these questions strictly to understand the chronology of events. Knowing about the flaw and communicating that info is 2 different things. Did you understand that he was accepting your lower offer because of a dial flaw? If so did you ask him to capture the flaw on a pic before completing the transaction? If no pic then how did you satisfy yourself with respect to the extent of the flaw before agreeing to purchase? If he didn't reveal the flaw at all then he should allow a return.

[slcbbrown]

IMO, a listing of a "worn" dial would be a pretty clear warning of problems. I've got a 1950's and a 1960's Rolex with no noticeable (to my eyes, not loupe) wear, so don't really understand how a watch in good condition could have any-- other than water damage or manufacturing flaw.

I sympathize because that dial is pretty special and is going ot be difficult to replace, in kind. However, the watch in the picture sure is good looking.

[GradyPhilpott]

Great watch.

Good luck with your negotiations!

[acce1999]

Originally Posted by phelix_da_kat

Hi azguy,
Done,

- please see attached, this is one of the photos from the dealer (from my original thread http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=209123)
- I would have attach my own photo, but I cannot capture the flaw, only shows under specific angles/lighting
- However, it can been seen with the naked eye and I do have a Rolex service quote stating the dial is damaged.

First: That is a blacked out Explorer dial. Be very, very careful to have it replaced or changed. It is - as you say - rare.

Second: I have trouble understanding what is wrong with the dial. Early gloss dials can go matte, and can also develop cracks/bubbling, when ageing.

Third: What did you pay? The case looks good, and the blacked out Explorers command a rather hefty premium.

Fourth: RSC always says the dial is damaged as soon as the tritium starts to grow old, or there is no lume any longer.

Best,

A

[phelix_da_kat]

Originally Posted by Brenngun

OP, I ask these questions strictly to understand the chronology of events. Knowing about the flaw and communicating that info is 2 different things. Did you understand that he was accepting your lower offer because of a dial flaw? If so did you ask him to capture the flaw on a pic before completing the transaction? If no pic then how did you satisfy yourself with respect to the extent of the flaw before agreeing to purchase? If he didn't reveal the flaw at all then he should allow a return.

Morning.
In hindsight I thought the seller was just being "generic" in his description as worn - my error.

I did not know he was accepting my offer because there was minor wear. Hence I did not ask for a photo to show the flaw.

Just to add some background about 3 months after the sale the seller says: "I clearly wrote that the dial has "minor wear", and so even if it is not shown in the pictures, it indeed has "minor wear". ".


WRT the pricing of the watch is a little volatile if you go through the past "concluded" sales especially as published prices are off auctions (They range from as little as $4k to the heady heights of $20+k.) or the few off say TRF or vintage rolex market.

I took a pinch of common sense and made an offer based off my research. (I had seen a few private sales close with other reputable sellers in this range for clean dials)

Thanks

[phelix_da_kat]

Originally Posted by slcbbrown

IMO, a listing of a "worn" dial would be a pretty clear warning of problems. I've got a 1950's and a 1960's Rolex with no noticeable (to my eyes, not loupe) wear, so don't really understand how a watch in good condition could have any-- other than water damage or manufacturing flaw.

I sympathize because that dial is pretty special and is going ot be difficult to replace, in kind. However, the watch in the picture sure is good looking.

Thank you Steve... It does look good.
But you are correct, my next purchase I will be loupe!

[phelix_da_kat]

Originally Posted by acce1999

First: That is a blacked out Explorer dial. Be very, very careful to have it replaced or changed. It is - as you say - rare.

Second: I have trouble understanding what is wrong with the dial. Early gloss dials can go matte, and can also develop cracks/bubbling, when ageing.

Third: What did you pay? The case looks good, and the blacked out Explorers command a rather hefty premium.

Fourth: RSC always says the dial is damaged as soon as the tritium starts to grow old, or there is no lume any longer.

Best,

A

@ acce1999
Hi Anders,

1) Agreed - replacing this dial at a RSC is a no no.
2) Maybe I can talk to you some more or this could even be a good new "educational" thread. I know aging does occur, so am hoping to learn some more about what is "acceptable" in a 20 year old tool watch.
3) I did some research on concluded sales of private dealers/online sellers.
4) True - that is something I learnt on this forum. Have a red sub that does not glow anymore.

Thank you

[John in MA]

Is the flaw above the 3? Looks like a discolored spot.

I'm a buyer.

When he said "worn dial" did you ask for details? To me a "worn dial" means "damaged dial." Plain.Simple.Clear. Did you ask for details or specifics?

You say if you knew of the flaw you would have offered less. How much less? Was the seller at fault to begin with? I don't think so.

Is the seller now at fault for backing out of the agreement at a partial refund? Absolutely.

[phelix_da_kat]

Originally Posted by John in TN

Is the flaw above the 3? Looks like a discolored spot.

I'm a buyer.

When he said "worn dial" did you ask for details? To me a "worn dial" means "damaged dial." Plain.Simple.Clear. Did you ask for details or specifics?

You say if you knew of the flaw you would have offered less. How much less? Was the seller at fault to begin with? I don't think so.

Is the seller now at fault for backing out of the agreement at a partial refund? Absolutely.

Morning John.

I am at fault for not asking enough questions and relying too much on the photographs. I use descriptions as a guide, but I also believe in "what you see is what you get". They go hand in hand.

However I do think "It takes two to tango.."
- The use of "worn" descriptor with a clean picture.
- The offer of a partial refund being revoked was frustrating.
- And then having to wait indefinitely for the seller to find a dial with the caveat "this is probably the only thing that I can do for you now".
It just feels like my options being erroded at every step by the seller.

To be honest I do not know what I would have offered if I knew of the issue. Especially as the value is in the dial.

Thanks for your post John

[azguy]

I think at this point I would just enjoy that watch and chock up the dial as being full of patina, finding a replacement dial is going to be near impossible but you may want to PM some of the watchmakers on this forum.

You never know...

[phelix_da_kat]

@azguy

You have a good outlook -
Thanks John

[mrbill2mrbill2]

What is the imperfection?

[phelix_da_kat]

@ mrbill2mrbill2

Hi Mr Bill.
As per the RSC report: "dial marked due to water contamination"
- Could they misdiagnose the imperfection on the dial?
- Would this be considered normal wear & tear?

Under certain angles and lighting you can see "smudges" on the dial. Resembles water marks - afraid I could not capture the imperfection with a camera. Hence I am kicking myself for relying on the sellers photos.

The watch lived in Asia (Japan and HK) and it is very humid over the summer, huge disparity when going between the "outside" and the air conditioned buildings?

However the seller is convinced that if it was water contamination, that there would be rust. He was correct that there were no signs of rust. But in my opinion water contamination is quite a general term so could include condensation.

[springer]

The term "worn dial" can have many meanings to many different people. To me, worn means the dial is no good or damaged beyond repair. I would not advertise a dial as "worn" but would be more specific with the condition that makes it "worn."

Additionally, the watch was discounted due to the dial. I think as a buyer I would have asked a few more questions after seeing the photos of the dial as it doesn't appear too "worn" to me.

[mrbill2mrbill2]

Originally Posted by phelix_da_kat

@ mrbill2mrbill2

Hi Mr Bill.
As per the RSC report: "dial marked due to water contamination"
- Could they misdiagnose the imperfection on the dial?
- Would this be considered normal wear & tear?

Under certain angles and lighting you can see "smudges" on the dial. Resembles water marks - afraid I could not capture the imperfection with a camera. Hence I am kicking myself for relying on the sellers photos.

The watch lived in Asia (Japan and HK) and it is very humid over the summer, huge disparity when going between the "outside" and the air conditioned buildings?

However the seller is convinced that if it was water contamination, that there would be rust. He was correct that there were no signs of rust. But in my opinion water contamination is quite a general term so could include condensation.

I don't if it is water damage. But, from your pics - it is one Nice watch - a rare one at that.

I don't know what you paid - it's none of my business.

If you're not happy - that's all that matters.

Best of luck in sorting it out.

[Andelain]

Originally Posted by superdog

sounds to me like you have been pretty reasonable and the dealer has not been 100% up front. i am sure there will be differing opinions, but if he is a reputable dealer a full refund should have been offered even after 10 days. it sounds like you communicated with him pretty well.

i would personally post his information so that other people don't get burned.

This. I'd like to know so I can avoid him. Offering a partial refund, then denying it is dishonest.

[Givmeabrek]

Originally Posted by Andelain

This. I'd like to know so I can avoid him. Offering a partial refund, then denying it is dishonest.

Everything else can be explained away due to communication issues and misunderstandings. Any dealer making a promise of a partial refund has to stand by his agreement even if he has second thoughts! Even if it's only $10 or any amount.

A dishonest dealer should be made public.

[Bangel]

First up, congrats on both of your recent incomings!

My take on a couple of the issues you brought up (from the buyer's perspective):

The use of the word "worn" is highly ambiguous and open to interpretation. The presence of this word alone in any description would lead me to seek further clarification as to the specifics this is referring to. Photos, intentionally or not, do not always tell the full story as you noted yourself when you found it difficult to recapture the smudge with your own camera.

On the issue of getting a refund, I think the action of the seller totally stinks. I'm specifically referring to the back peddling and reneging on a commitment he made to you. Not sure what avenues are open to you to pursue compensense.

Naming the seller is certainly an option, not for "revenge" sake, but as a service to other potential buyers.

Hope it all works out for you and thanks for sharing your experience.