Flooded Submariner

[jrbar-on]

Sorry to hear about your watch. Barton-Clay should be responsible for all additional charges since they did the original repair and advertise that they have a certified Rolex watch repairman.

If they give you a hard time I would email the owner/manager a link to your thread and advise him as to how much business he can loose due to bad publicity and "word of mouth" comments.

Good luck and let us know how things turn out.

Cheers,

Jonathan.

[honeybear]

Barton-Clay Fine Jewelers isn't a Rolex AD, but since their watchmaker is Rolex certified, they probably have a Rolex parts account, so Rolex should still be able to exert some leverage on your behalf. I hope it works out.

[Brenngun]

Originally Posted by honeybear

Barton-Clay Fine Jewelers isn't a Rolex AD, but since their watchmaker is Rolex certified, they probably have a Rolex parts account, so Rolex should still be able to exert some leverage on your behalf. I hope it works out.

Oh ....... Oh, Well good luck with this one. I've not had this happen before because I've always insisted on getting a copy of both the dry & wet pressure test print outs for future reference.

[Thatguy]

Originally Posted by TakesALickin

I have to say that the AD's response is unacceptable, and that they should be made to honor their warranty. However I'd also add that you can avoid this kind of headache in the future by buying a cheap Casio, Citizen or Seiko to dive in (this is what I do). Leave your expensive Rolex at home. Why subject it to risk?

I disagree. I personally bought mine to wear and it should hold up for it's intended use.

[Rags]

So sorry to hear of your misfortune. Hope it all works out for you.

[greekbum]

Originally Posted by MasterDiver

Last month, I went SCUBA diving for the first time since the watch had been serviced. On my very first dive, the watch flooded at a maximum depth of 60 feet. The crown was tight, as I checked it prior to the dive as I do all of my other equipment. On returning from the trip, I returned the watch to Bobby and he did a leak test and told me he couldn’t find a leak. After a week, he called me and told me he had dried out the watch and it would cost me over $1000 in parts to repair the watch, but I would not be charged labor. He also told me that he would not warranty this DIVE WATCH against leaking the next time I went diving. I told him that I needed a guarantee that the watch was waterproof, since it was a DIVE WATCH. He confessed that if it leaked again, I would be required to do the same thing and pay the same money to have it fixed.

I called Rolex Customer Service in NY and TX, and they both told me to ship the watch to the Service Center to be restored to factory standards, and that the store that serviced the watch should pay for shipping and repair of the watch, including parts and labor. I have shipped it back to the Rolex Service Center in TX and am waiting on the estimate. The store refused to pay for parts and only their labor was no charge.

Has anyone ever had this happen? What did Rolex do?

I am sorry to hear about your watch and your experience. Not that it will get you your watch fixed but did you verify the watch maker is a cw21 or that he has a rolex parts account? Get the watchmakers full name and go to the awci website and check it out.

[Thatguy]

Takesalicken,
If you check the current brochure for the sub it says waterproof. They must not have gotten the memo that it is illegal to label as such.

[TakesALickin]

Originally Posted by Thatguy

Takesalicken,
If you check the brochure for the sub it says waterproof.

You are correct. But I stand by my position. Anyone that thinks there's anything man made that is water proof has obviously never spent much time around water. Water is insidious. It will eventually get in.

If you understand the risks and still want to dive with your $5000 watch when a $100 Seiko will do just as nicely, that's your prerogative. And if the watch fails, you have every right to pursue whatever remedies the manufacture's warranty provides. I'm just saying you need to acknowledge that that headache may materialize for you, and you need to accept that you could have avoided it, and you have to accept that you chose to dive with your $5000 watch. Nobody made you do that.

Here's an analogy that may make my position a little easier to understand:

There are two vehicles sitting out in my driveway - a fairly new Cadillac SRX and a 15 year old Dodge Dakota pick up truck. Let's say I wanted to take one of those vehicles out into the woods behind my house and chop down a tree and cut it up into firewood. Which vehicle would it make more sense to take? They're both designed to go off road, and both are designed to haul heavy loads. Clearly, most people would take the Dodge before they'd take the Cadillac. Sure, you might get the Cadillac in and out of the woods without scraping it up too much, and you might get the firewood in and out of it without trashing the interior. But the odds are against it. And you understand that when you take a vehicle into the woods to cut firewood. That's why you take the old, cheap pickup.

Same goes for a dive watch. Both the Seiko and the Rolex can perform the function you want them to perform (honestly, with modern dive computers they're just a back up anyway). And both the Seiko and the Rolex can fail. But if the Seiko fails, you chuck it in the trash, and you're out $150 tops, no arguing with a watchmaker or an AD or RSC. Just go buy a new one. And your $5000 Rolex is still nice and new (or at least nice and dry). Who wouldn't do that?

[Furbo]

Originally Posted by TakesALickin

You are correct. But I stand by my position. Anyone that thinks there's anything man made that is water proof has obviously never spent much time around water. Water is insidious. It will eventually get in.

If you understand the risks and still want to dive with your $5000 watch when a $100 Seiko will do just as nicely, that's your prerogative. And if the watch fails, you have every right to pursue whatever remedies the manufacture's warranty provides. I'm just saying you need to acknowledge that that headache may materialize for you, and you need to accept that you could have avoided it, and you have to accept that you chose to dive with your $5000 watch. Nobody made you do that.

Here's an analogy that may make my position a little easier to understand:

There are two vehicles sitting out in my driveway - a fairly new Cadillac SRX and a 15 year old Dodge Dakota pick up truck. Let's say I wanted to take one of those vehicles out into the woods behind my house and chop down a tree and cut it up into firewood. Which vehicle would it make more sense to take? They're both designed to go off road, and both are designed to haul heavy loads. Clearly, most people would take the Dodge before they'd take the Cadillac. Sure, you might get the Cadillac in and out of the woods without scraping it up too much, and you might get the firewood in and out of it without trashing the interior. But the odds are against it. And you understand that when you take a vehicle into the woods to cut firewood. That's why you take the old, cheap pickup.

Same goes for a dive watch. Both the Seiko and the Rolex can perform the function you want them to perform (honestly, with modern dive computers they're just a back up anyway). And both the Seiko and the Rolex can fail. But if the Seiko fails, you chuck it in the trash, and you're out $150 tops, no arguing with a watchmaker or an AD or RSC. Just go buy a new one. And your $5000 Rolex is still nice and new (or at least nice and dry). Who wouldn't do that?

So he should also stop diving, because accidents do happen?

And you never drive your expensive car at top speed, because your mechanic was probably sloppy or maybe drunk while he was servicing it, but that is o.k., because you know how to avoid trouble and drive Yugo instead?

[Shelby-villian]

Originally Posted by Furbo

So he should also stop diving, because accidents do happen?

And you never drive your expensive car at top speed, because your mechanic was probably sloppy or maybe drunk while he was servicing it, but that is o.k., because you know how to avoid trouble and drive Yugo instead?

+1

Seiko guy's logic makes little sense.

[tattooedfagin]

Welcome to TRF, hope you're able to get this resolved, if the watch had been serviced & pressure tested correctly then this shouldn't have happened, seems 'Bobby' may not have done a good enough job & as such should take it on the chin & make good the repair or, at least foot the bill for RSC to do the job properly, I certainly wouldn't let him anywhere near my watch again... As for wearing a cheapie instead It's a Submariner, what a poorly named product for something that cannot be regarded as waterproof

[xjeeunitx]

Originally Posted by TakesALickin

You are correct. But I stand by my position. Anyone that thinks there's anything man made that is water proof has obviously never spent much time around water. Water is insidious. It will eventually get in.

If you understand the risks and still want to dive with your $5000 watch when a $100 Seiko will do just as nicely, that's your prerogative. And if the watch fails, you have every right to pursue whatever remedies the manufacture's warranty provides. I'm just saying you need to acknowledge that that headache may materialize for you, and you need to accept that you could have avoided it, and you have to accept that you chose to dive with your $5000 watch. Nobody made you do that.

Here's an analogy that may make my position a little easier to understand:

There are two vehicles sitting out in my driveway - a fairly new Cadillac SRX and a 15 year old Dodge Dakota pick up truck. Let's say I wanted to take one of those vehicles out into the woods behind my house and chop down a tree and cut it up into firewood. Which vehicle would it make more sense to take? They're both designed to go off road, and both are designed to haul heavy loads. Clearly, most people would take the Dodge before they'd take the Cadillac. Sure, you might get the Cadillac in and out of the woods without scraping it up too much, and you might get the firewood in and out of it without trashing the interior. But the odds are against it. And you understand that when you take a vehicle into the woods to cut firewood. That's why you take the old, cheap pickup.

Same goes for a dive watch. Both the Seiko and the Rolex can perform the function you want them to perform (honestly, with modern dive computers they're just a back up anyway). And both the Seiko and the Rolex can fail. But if the Seiko fails, you chuck it in the trash, and you're out $150 tops, no arguing with a watchmaker or an AD or RSC. Just go buy a new one. And your $5000 Rolex is still nice and new (or at least nice and dry). Who wouldn't do that?

Many divers here on this forum will dive with their Rolex watches. They are using the watch as they were produced to perform under water. What you're trying to say doesn't have anything to do with... this topic. So, please... Just stop before you make a bigger... out of yourself.

[SUBversive]

Call a local lawyer. Maybe someone on here can make a referral.

[Brenngun]

Originally Posted by MasterDiver

He informed me that he had serviced the watch and replaced some parts, including the crystal, and I paid over $750 for this first-ever service. I was told I had a two-year warranty.

I returned the watch to Bobby and he did a leak test and told me he couldn’t find a leak. After a week, he called me and told me he had dried out the watch and it would cost me over $1000 in parts to repair the watch, but I would not be charged labor. He also told me that he would not warranty this DIVE WATCH against leaking the next time I went diving. I told him that I needed a guarantee that the watch was waterproof, since it was a DIVE WATCH. He confessed that if it leaked again, I would be required to do the same thing and pay the same money to have it fixed.

Originally Posted by 77T

The watch passed PT in 1/2012 and again after leaking...anyone care to suggest how this can happen? Yep

Paul, OK I'll be the dummy I can't and wouldn't argue with your comments and certainly don't have any idea of the OP's intentions with repect to starting this thread but you bring up an interesting point that I'd like to explore further. These are just questions up for discussion and don't require a defending response.

1.) I didn't read anything that proved the watch passed a PT in 1/2012. I understand it might be natural to assume Bobby did his job correctly and performed both a dry and wet PT however there is no proof. Is it possible he didn't, or forgot, or only did a dry PT .... etc? As Armyguy03 mentioned earlier in his post he received a sub back from service that included a print out slip from the PT. I also insist on this from my watchmaker. Only way to be sure it was done and passed.

2.) How would Bobby test for a leak once the watch is flooded? I honestly don't know if this is possible without first opening it up to drain & dry it out. Of course the minute you open it you've compromised any possible test to prove it didn't have a leak. I suppose you could try to shake as much water out through the open crown as you can if you can and then do a dry PT but this wouldn't prove the watch wouldn't develop a leak when submerged.

3.) If any watch is properly serviced and passes both the dry and wet PT why would any watchmaker not warrant it's water resistance? If it passes that's the guarantee isn't it? I would never have a watch serviced by anyone who would not 100% guarantee their work.

Just my

[boywondergq1]

I am so sorry to hear this. I'm sure the Rolex will effect some leverage here and restore your confidence. If the service centre was Rolex certified, then I am confident this will happen.

Now, with respect to the argument about taking your expensive dive watch on a dive vs. something a little cheaper, does anyone have a link to that story posted here many months ago about the TT sub which was found at the bottom of the ocean 1-2yrs later, still working? I'm not advocating one or the other, just saying :)

[dysondiver]

Originally Posted by boywondergq1

I am so sorry to hear this. I'm sure the Rolex will effect some leverage here and restore your confidence. If the service centre was Rolex certified, then I am confident this will happen.

Now, with respect to the argument about taking your expensive dive watch on a dive vs. something a little cheaper, does anyone have a link to that story posted here many months ago about the TT sub which was found at the bottom of the ocean 1-2yrs later, still working? I'm not advocating one or the other, just saying :)

exactly ,,, perfect reason not to take a rolex diving ,,,,,
it was found two years later ,,, nuff said

[Mickey®]

Originally Posted by boywondergq1

I am so sorry to hear this. I'm sure the Rolex will effect some leverage here and restore your confidence. If the service centre was Rolex certified, then I am confident this will happen.

Now, with respect to the argument about taking your expensive dive watch on a dive vs. something a little cheaper, does anyone have a link to that story posted here many months ago about the TT sub which was found at the bottom of the ocean 1-2yrs later, still working? I'm not advocating one or the other, just saying :)

I think Rolex is going to get involved with every Independent watchmaker that screws up a service.

[BOA]

You shouldn't have to wear your aqualung and flippers into a shop for them to take you and your Submariner seriously and ensure that the service they give the watch makes it a true Rolex Submariner again for continued use in the field, which in your case happens to be in the water.

Considering they don't really want to guarantee their work, I'm sure if you take them to task and win on this one that they will put something in very fine print to try to get out of it the next time. In the end, such fine print will only protect them against people who won't take them to court, so don't eat this one. You're a pro doing what you do, so why expect anything less than that they should be pros at what they do? Sounds like they really don't have a leg to stand on, so don't let them off the hook. I'll bet Booby (sic) never checked the gaskets.

Good luck.

[Grissom]

I agree with those who say demand that they repair facility pay for all your expense at the RCS to fix what was caused by the technicians faulty work. I would imagine with a detailed letter from Rolex stating that the service was totally caused by the original faulty repairs, and that the watch, now repaired properly, is in fact able to be used as intended, you would prevail in a small claims court proceeding.

Do something, to obtain compensation, for their flawed work, and the added expense you are incurring.

Good luck!

[Marrk]

A twenty year old, recently serviced Rolex should not leak.

Looks like you've been screwed by your trusted local watchmaker. A lot of people prefer their local watchmaker to RSC. I don't know why.

Good luck.

[T. Ferguson]

It shouldn't matter if the invoice for the service specifically lists a pressure test. The store represented their repairman as Rolex Certified and they were given a Rolex to perform a full service on. AFAIK that always includes a pressure test.

I would definitely send the watch to the RSC. It wouldn't surprise me if a gasket wasn't replaced or aftermarket parts were used. The store isn't listed as an AD on the Rolex site though. There is one on that street in Mountain Brook, AL, and they ain't it. So I'm not sure what kind of leverage Rolex would have with the store.

[Andad]

[Camel]

If the store don't want to pay for the service at RSC, I'd go for a nice "name & shame" campaigne on TRF and other media - it might wake them up.

[Passionata]

But seriously how can someone release a watch w/o PT after charging more than 700bucks


Best
George

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[TempoKing]

This ..should not have happened - Barton-Clay Fine Jewelers should
pay for Bobby's Boo Boo (most likely) with the crystal change.

Rolex will take care of it ...but the bill will be h.u.g.e ...and there are other issues..like..
finding the original dial with matching hands and right insert to fit... if you care for that short of thing.

[dysondiver]

loose something cheaper instead.

[How]

Originally Posted by kilyung

Doesn't sound like Bobby properly checked for water resistance ergo they should pay for RSC to fix it under their warranty policy.

Totally!

[mjclark32]

One and done from the OP?

[powerfunk]

Originally Posted by TakesALickin

You you have to accept that you chose to dive with your $5000 watch. Nobody made you do that.

Really? You think he needs to learn some financial lessons from you because he chose to use a watch for its intended purpose? You believe then that it is unwise for anyone to ever dive with a Rolex Submariner?

I respectfully disagree. No need to condescend someone because they didn't think that a Rolex is just jewelry to be babied. The lesson to be learned here is to specifically ask about pressure testing when a watch is serviced. And to avoid that jeweler!

Good luck to the OP.

[TakesALickin]

Originally Posted by powerfunk

Really? You think he needs to learn some financial lessons from you because he chose to use a watch for its intended purpose? You believe then that it is unwise for anyone to ever dive with a Rolex Submariner?

I respectfully disagree. No need to condescend someone because they didn't think that a Rolex is just jewelry to be babied. The lesson to be learned here is to specifically ask about pressure testing when a watch is serviced. And to avoid that jeweler!

Good luck to the OP.

Yes, really. Look, I'm not condescending to anybody. There are a number of other things that can happen to your watch while you're diving other than having the seals fail. You could accidentally smash the crystal. Particulate matter (crushed shell fragments) can get under the bezel and cause it to seize up (this has happened to me). All I'm saying - and I'm saying this without calling anybody names, which several respondants to my posts have been unable to do - is this: dive with your Rolex if you want. But understand that there are risks, and that there are less expensive options for what you're wanting to do. My Rolex cost me too much, and I worked too hard to earn the money that it took to buy it, for me not to take care of it. I don't baby it, or keep it in a box, but I don't subject it to unnecessary risks either. You are free to do as you like (which I've said all along), and you are free, I suppose, to call me names now. Do as you like.

Originally Posted by Furbo

And you never drive your expensive car at top speed, because your mechanic was probably sloppy or maybe drunk while he was servicing it, but that is o.k., because you know how to avoid trouble and drive Yugo instead?

Well, I never drive my expensive car at top speed because that would be reckless and illegal. And leave my Yugo out of it...