Rolex warranty card no good?

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by Pauln

Pretty interesting information. Not saying this is more than anecdotal, but if Rolex wants to get rid of grey dealers, this is how It could really make a dent.

Kind of shitty though considering that their very popular mass produced watches cannot be had at retail.

If this is a new reality, very strategic on the part of Rolex because it will void the 5-year warranty period they recently introduced. I don’t think it will do anything to the grey market dealers because they will continue to sell with the warranty card in any case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Drkitch109

There really wasn’t a reason provided so much as a firm position held by the CSR based on the fact that he was not original owner and that there warranty is not transferable. Again, the CSR did not even take the warranty card at any point in the 20 minutes we were there.

The CSR is most likely wrong. I say "most likely" because I am not privy to the decision making process he employed. However, based on the facts as you present them, the CSR is wrong. If your friend wants to go to the trouble, he should go back with the warranty booklet that came with the watch, the warranty card, and a copy of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. (Follow the links I've outline in this post and print out the relevant portions of text.) Then follow these steps:

(1) If it's a different CSR when you walk in, try again from the ground up. If it's the same CSR, skip to the next step.

(2) If the CSR gives you the same story, ask to speak to a manager.

(3) Try your luck with the manager without getting confrontational. If the manager gives you the same spiel, hand him the warranty booklet and ask him to show you in what way the warranty is invalid, according to Rolex's own language. (Note that Rolex does not say the current owner's name must match the name on the card; only that the original owner's name must be on the card.) If the manager sticks to his guns and claims warranties are non-transferable, show him the text of 15 U.S.C. § 2304(b)(4), which says full warranties are transferable to all consumers for the duration of their term. Then ask him if he still takes the position the warranty is non-transferable, and on what grounds.

By this time, he (or she) should have a clear idea your friend is not a simpleton who can be easily waved off. However, if he still holds firm, your friend might consider threatening legal action or reporting them to the state attorney general if RSC won't budge.

Or he can take the easy route and just send it to Dallas RSC. They aren't dicks like NYC.

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by Macnavara

This is all you need to know

I suppose anything is possible but the AD is a major chain that has stores in several cities in the NE. Again, possible but knowing what is on the card I would be very surprised if the warranty wasn’t properly activated at point of sale.

He will likely go back and escalate given the way the conversation went.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

The CSR is most likely wrong. I say "most likely" because I am not privy to the decision making process. However, based on the facts as you present them, the CSR is wrong. If your friend wants to go to the trouble, he should go back with both the warranty booklet that came with the watch, the warranty card, and a copy of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. (Follow the links I've outline in this post and print out the relevant portions of text.) Then follow these steps:



(1) If it's a different CSR when you walk in, try again from the ground up. If it's the same CSR, skip to the next step.



(2) If the CSR gives you the same story, ask to speak to a manager.



(3) Try your luck with the manager without getting confrontational. If the manager gives you the same spiel, hand him the warranty booklet and ask him to show you in what way the warranty is invalid, according to Rolex's own language. If the manager sticks to his guns and claims warranties are non-transferable, show him the text of 15 U.S.C. § 2304(b)(4), which says full warranties are transferable to all consumers for the duration of their term. Then ask him if he still takes the position the warranty is non-transferable.



By this time, he (or she) should have a clear idea you're not a simpleton who can be easily waved off. However, if he still holds firm, you might consider threatening legal action or reporting them to the state attorney general if he won't budge.



Or you can take the easy route and just send it to Dallas RSC. They aren't dicks like NYC.

Thank you. I will let him know as he is not on the forums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lawrence1]

Originally Posted by lawrence1

did you ask them to show you where in the rolex written warranty guidelines it says that the warranty is non transferable. did you escalate to a manager?

on another note, if the watch is running within COSC specs, i doubt Rolex would regulate it for your buddy for free to begin with, even if he was the original owner.

Originally Posted by Drkitch109

He didn’t ask to see anything in writing. The CSR was not budging. He did ask to see her manager but she replied that the manager would tell him the same thing and that she was just doing her job.

This was a mistake, IMO. I would have escalated to a manager and requested to see where specifically in the warranty booklet does it stated that the warranty is not transferable.

I don’t think they charge. I have a deep sea and I’ve had it regulated for free in the past under warranty.

I doubt they would do it for free when the watch is running within COSC specs, although I suspect they would have mentioned this to you as well. If they didn't, that may be indicative of their willingness to do it free of charge.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

see in line comments.

[SS Oyster]

Wrong - warranty goes with watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

Wrong - warranty goes with watch


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand. I felt like it a very abruptly dismissed discussion. That said, this happened so I wanted to share the experience with everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[seabreeze60]

It all depends on ‘if’ the AD registered the Rolex before it went grey? Rolex Corporate Beverly Hills told me that the warranty followed the watch as long as it is registered.

The question is when you buy grey has it been registered? The only way to know for sure is have Rolex check your serial number.

I’m going Friday on a grey warranty and I will ask as I know the several of the staff and I’m giving them my Rolex Magazine #2 in Italian.

[lawrence1]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

It all depends on ‘if’ the AD registered the Rolex before it went grey? Rolex Corporate Beverly Hills told me that the warranty followed the watch as long as it is registered.

The question is when you buy grey has it been registered? The only way to know for sure is have Rolex check your serial number.

I’m going Friday on a grey warranty and I will ask as I know the several of the staff and I’m giving them my Rolex Magazine #2 in Italian.

that makes sense.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

The question is when you buy grey has it been registered? The only way to know for sure is have Rolex check your serial number.

This is a good point. They took Dr. Kitch's friend's watch in the back before denying coverage. Perhaps they ran the serial and determined the first sale was unauthorized. That's why it would help to ask them to explain the decision. If they're simply falling back on "the warranty is non-transferable," that's BS. If they say, "the warranty was not properly registered at time of the original sale, and therefore is not valid," that's a whole different bag of bananas.

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by psv

As long as the card is properly filled out and activated, the warranty transfers. If the card has been altered, e.g. the original purchaser’s name blacked out, that voids the warranty.

Also, Rolex bought internationally - you need to present a copy of the purchase receipt at the time of service, I’m speaking from experience.

Not true at RSC Beverly Hills


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SS Oyster]

Originally Posted by 2-reef

I only know what Rolex Toronto told me. At first they said come in and wait, if the watch is slow it is a simple regulation, and I can take it home with me.



When they saw my name was not on the card, the receptionist said this changes how they repair. She said they had to keep it for 10 days to validate it was not stolen. They would not touch my watch for 10 days then do the regulation.



I didn’t ask how they would do this, and I really didn’t care as I knew the watch was fine. Sure enough 10 days later they said the watch was with the technician and when tested I could have it back.



They did write on my invoice, the watch was verified as authentic, and the charge for authentication, they did not even list the regulation under warranty.

I have taken four watches in for service (1 for warranty, 3 for periodic service) all of which I was not original owner, the warranty work one I did not present the warranty card. All done without delay and none of them questioned my card. No one swiped the card to see if it was activated. No checking of stolen database.

Lots of “they did this to me” but not a single receipt or proof.

I can show you my receipts.

Why would a person pay for authentication if you sent it in for regulation? The fact they regulated the watch proves it’s real.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

This is a good point. They took Dr. Kitch's friend's watch in the back before denying coverage. Perhaps they ran the serial and determined the first sale was unauthorized. That's why it would help to ask them to explain the decision. If they're simply falling back on "the warranty is non-transferable," that's BS. If they say, "the warranty was not properly registered at time of the original sale, and therefore is not valid," that's a whole different bag of bananas.

Agreed but the jeweler on the warranty card is in fact an AD for Rolex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Drkitch109

Agreed but the jeweler on the warranty card is in fact an AD for Rolex.

Another good point.

I'm curious what RSC NYC is doing. If their policy is to deny coverage to secondhand owners of watches with valid warranties, that's kind of a big deal. It won't be easily fought by an individual seeking service, but could be grounds for greater legal action, either by the state AG, or a private lawyer looking to make hay with a class-action lawsuit. On the other hand, if it's one or a handful of CSRs who are talking out of their arses, they need some pushback and edification.

[seabreeze60]

I’d call a Rolex RSC and explain your situation. I find their staff very helpful but strict. They go by the book.

Generally, I just take my watches into Rolex anyway since I live close to a RSC. That way I avoid the AD’s markup.

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Another good point.



I'm curious what RSC NYC is doing. If their policy is to deny coverage to secondhand owners of watches with valid warranties, that's kind of a big deal. It won't be easily fought by an individual seeking service, but could be grounds for greater legal action, either by the state AG, or a private lawyer looking to make hay with a class-action lawsuit. On the other hand, if it's one or a handful of CSRs who are talking out of their arses, they need some pushback and edification.

One more item...I called the RSC in Dallas and asked them to explain how the warranty works given today’s experience. They said the warranty is transferrable if the sale is made from an individual to another individual. However, if the sale took place from a non-AD to an individual the warranty is void.

If the interpretation of the CSR was that this watch was purchased through a non-AD source I guess her position makes sense but that puts any individual who purchases from any non-AD source - individual or otherwise - in a tough spot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by seabreeze60

I’d call a Rolex RSC and explain your situation. I find their staff very helpful but strict. They go by the book.

Generally, I just take my watches into Rolex anyway since I live close to a RSC. That way I avoid the AD’s markup.

My boy ain’t going down without swinging. Will see how it plays out and report back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Drkitch109

One more item...I called the RSC in Dallas and asked them to explain how the warranty works given today’s experience. They said the warranty is transferrable if the sale is made from an individual to another individual. However, if the sale took place from a non-AD to an individual the warranty is void.

Man, that's getting into the legal weeds. 15 U.S.C. § 2304(b)(4) states, "The duties under subsection (a) extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product." However, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3) expressly states that buyers who procure goods for resale are not "consumers."

Your friend is a consumer under the law. A plain reading of the pertinent section suggests the warranty should extend to him. RSC Dallas's argument is essentially that sale to (and then by) a reseller, subsequent to the original, authorized sale, is a break in the "chain" of consumer ownership, and nullifies the warranty. However, this is not something stated in the law. This is the kind of thing that would have to get sorted out by case law, and for all I know, it has been.

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Man, that's getting into the legal weeds. 15 U.S.C. § 2304(b)(4) states, "The duties under subsection (a) extend from the warrantor to each person who is a consumer with respect to the consumer product." However, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3) expressly states that buyers who procure goods for resale are not "consumers."

Your friend is a consumer under the law. A plain reading of the pertinent section suggests the warranty should extend to him. RSC Dallas's argument is essentially that sale to (and then by) a reseller, subsequent to the original, authorized sale, is a break in the "chain" of consumer ownership, and nullifies the warranty. However, this is not something stated in the law. This is the kind of thing that would have to get sorted out by case law, and for all I know, it has been.

Interesting. I appreciate the response (all of the responses actually). Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Drkitch109

Interesting. I appreciate the response (all of the responses actually). Thank you.

No problem. Keep us posted. For the record, I'm pulling for your friend: RSC should honor the warranty.

[Drkitch109]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

No problem. Keep us posted. For the record, I'm pulling for your friend: RSC should honor the warranty.

All this for a SubC. Crazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

False. As long as the warranty was properly activated by an AD at the time of original sale, the warranty will travel with the watch for the full five years, irrespective of whose name is on the card. The pitfall here is if the watch was purchased "new" from a gray, and the warranty was not properly activated. Some are, some aren't.

All Rolex watches are sold through ADs. There is no other distribution channel. Watches thru grey are already sold.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

All Rolex watches are sold through ADs. There is no other distribution channel. Watches thru grey are already sold.

I understand that, but a number of the larger gray sellers withhold the warranty card and provide their own warranty. Whether they do this because the warranty was invalid out the door of the AD (if the AD is selling to a gray, they aren't selling to a consumer), or for some other reason, I don't know. But the point is, if you're buying from one of these sellers, you're not going to get a factory warranty.

[Drkitch109]

Just spoke to my buddy and good news. The RSC in NY is honoring the warranty on his SubC. Should have more details but he just let me know via text.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by dwjez14

I just read an article that said if you buy a Rolex on gray marker the 5 year warranties are no longer good as of 2016. So basically only the original owner can use the 5 year warranty and it is tracked by Rolex ? Is this correct or am I reading it wrong

if you have a true grey market watch it doesnt have a warranty because it never was originaly sold by an AD. Im skeptical there are any Rolex that meet that criteria.

[cornerstore]

No requirement in Canada to name purchaser on warranty cards as per Canadian laws. Dealer must sign and register sale with Rolex, particularly if they want to reorder that model.

[Fleetlord]

I have 2 USA purchased Rolexes with different warranty booklets.

1) Warranty Booklet Worldwide Service States "Full" Five Year Warranty

2) Guarantee Manual Worldwide Service Unititled (neither full or limited) in guarantee statement.

The Rolex website itself does not title the coverage as full or limited.

Both warranty cards are from AD's in the US. That is odd. Never noticed it until now.

It does seem that RSC NYC knows about the warranty terms for a "full warranty" vs the guarantee.

The full warranty, USA watches don't need proof of owner ship because the full warranty allows for transfer of ownership.

The international guarantee does NOT have this provision under the Magnus-Moss act and is subject to denial if not the original owner...

Why i have two different books from domestic AD's is interesting...

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Fleetlord

Where are you seeing the Rolex warranty titled a "Full Warranty" ?

Edit: You corrected yourself while I was typing this. Still, I'll leave it here in case anyone else is wondering the same thing.

Here's a scan from the first page of my warranty booklet accompanying the Sub Date I bought in November 2016. This is in exact compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 2303(a)(1): "If the written warranty meets the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a 'full (statement of duration) warranty'."

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by Drkitch109

Just spoke to my buddy and good news. The RSC in NY is honoring the warranty on his SubC. Should have more details but he just let me know via text.

Good news. I'll be interested in details, should you be provided any.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Edit: You corrected yourself while I was typing this. Still, I'll leave it here in case anyone else is wondering the same thing.

Here's a scan from the first page of my warranty booklet accompanying the Sub Date I bought in November 2016. This is in exact compliance with 15 U.S.C. § 2303(a)(1): "If the written warranty meets the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a 'full (statement of duration) warranty'."

Yeah...I found that text above in my SD43 booklet, but my EXP I booklet has a Guarantee Manual that has an untitled guarantee.

The website is also untitled.