RSC did an unauthorized switch of Bezel Inserts

[Mr Perfect]

Originally Posted by 116710er

So you'd be ok with RSC changing out parts of value on your watch and replace them with parts are much less value without your express permission? Lol...new guy...

I'd get over it, your original insert isn't really worth anything, they are 10 a penny.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by Mr Perfect

I'd get over it, your original insert isn't really worth anything, they are 10 a penny.

Despite Mr Perfect ending up banned, I am inclined to agree with this statement.

I had previously been under the impression you had lost a tritium dot insert. Your watch is a superluminova hands/dial/insert variant. Your insert's 'resale value' isn't any greater than the cost of a replacement insert.

You are not out of pocket (not that that is the be all and end all, and I am not saying it is an ideal outcome, but what else is there to say or do?)

[Robtayham]

Originally Posted by 116710er

Yeah that was my bad then. It was original to the watch. The original owner never changed anything on the watch nor did he have anyone work on the watch.

Got it. Then I wouldn’t be happy. Regardless of the condition, it was original and you didn’t ask for it to be replaced. They shouldn’t have done it.

Ask any of the TRF members if they would tolerate original-to-watch parts being replaced on their Hulks, Batmans, Batgirls, etc. They would never tolerate having service parts on their watches.

You shouldn’t either. Definitely get rid of the replacement part.

[116710er]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

I had previously been under the impression you had lost a tritium dot insert. Your watch is a superluminova hands/dial/insert variant. Your insert's 'resale value' isn't any greater than the cost of a replacement insert.

You are not out of pocket (not that that is the be all and end all, and I am not saying it is an ideal outcome, but what else is there to say or do?)

Actually that's not entirely true. After this happened, I started looking for era correct replacement insert and the ones I was able to find were significantly more (in terms of % difference) than the service insert. Also note that this is in today's market. Ten, 15, 20 years from now, who knows. Look at the market for 4-digit inserts. I think we can agree that as a general rule, service insert aren't worth nearly as much as original inserts. I'm pretty confident that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd be willing to trade you a mint older insert for a new service insert, even a Luminova one. And as you alluded to (if I read that right), this goes beyond its raw resale value, this was the original "born as" insert to the watch and I wanted to keep it that way. At this point, what's left is to see how RSC makes this right.

Originally Posted by Robtayham

Ask any of the TRF members if they would tolerate original-to-watch parts being replaced on their Hulks, Batmans, Batgirls, etc. They would never tolerate having service parts on their watches.

Agreed...and how many threads are there about RSC butchering watches both now and in the past that are now vintage models. I wish RSC was less tone-deaf about this as a whole.

[watchmaker]

Originally Posted by 116710er

Actually that's not entirely true. After this happened, I started looking for era correct replacement insert and the ones I was able to find were significantly more (in terms of % difference) than the service insert. Also note that this is in today's market. Ten, 15, 20 years from now, who knows. Look at the market for 4-digit inserts. I think we can agree that as a general rule, service insert aren't worth nearly as much as original inserts. I'm pretty confident that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd be willing to trade you a mint older insert for a new service insert, even a Luminova one. And as you alluded to (if I read that right), this goes beyond its raw resale value, this was the original "born as" insert to the watch and I wanted to keep it that way. At this point, what's left is to see how RSC makes this right.

Show me a completed sale price that is significantly more than the price people pay for a modern service insert and I’ll happily apologise for being wrong.

From what I can see, eBay shows completed sales for what are brand new inserts (still in sealed packaging) for several hundred pounds or dollars - all it proves to me is that a fool and their money are easily parted, as they clearly have no idea how cheap they are and how easily obtained they are.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

Show me a completed sale price that is significantly more than the price people pay for a modern service insert and I’ll happily apologise for being wrong.

From what I can see, eBay shows completed sales for what are brand new inserts (still in sealed packaging) for several hundred pounds or dollars - all it proves to me is that a fool and their money are easily parted, as they clearly have no idea how cheap they are and how easily obtained they are.

Have to agree Scot and in the real world inserts are parts that are often changed by owner or at service.And again in the real world no matter the font type insert its doubtful if it would effect the value of any 14060 or 14060M watch, its just a appox £40 changeable insert nothing more.

[116710er]

Please let me know where I can pick on of these up for cheap. I'd love to find one for $50-$60.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 116710er

Please let me know where I can pick on of these up for cheap. I'd love to find one for $50-$60.

Direct from Rolex.

[037]

Originally Posted by padi56

Direct from Rolex.

But not a flat four. That's what he's asking about.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 037

But not a flat four. That's what he's asking about.

A plain and simple fact all this flat four stuff is mainly generated for the 16610LV and not the rest of the Sub SD range.The flat four font has been used many time over the past 50 years on most all of the Rolex sports range.Trouble now thanks to the internet hype, many think a flat four font is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[116710er]

But the flat four is correct for this year watch and regardless of the model, vintage correctness is more desirable, even outside of the nutty world of Rolex (anyone seen what Speedy "DON" inserts go for?) This reminds of the B&P issue. Some argue B&P means nothing and yet it does. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or that it's internet hype, etc, the fact is, it's reality. So unless someone can find me a vintage correct insert for the same price as a service insert, I believe my argument stands.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 116710er

But the flat four is correct for this year watch and regardless of the model, vintage correctness is more desirable. So unless someone can find me a vintage correct insert for this for the same price as a service insert, I believe my argument stands.

IMHO you are well overthinking this in the real world inserts were meant to be changed.And again in the real world 95% or more would not even know a period so called correct insert for any Rolex watch.The 14060 range was made in there millions condition of watch service history to most would be far more important than what font the bezel insert had.And in the same time frame as when the 16610LV was launched all the sub and SD range had flat four fonts, yet only the over hyped 16610LV brought hyped crazy prices.

[037]

Originally Posted by padi56

IMHO you are well overthinking this in the real world inserts were meant to be changed.And again in the real world 95% or more would not even know a period so called correct insert for any Rolex watch.The 14060 range was made in there millions condition of watch service history to most would be far more important than what font the bezel insert had.And in the same time frame as when the 16610LV was launched all the sub and SD range had flat four fonts, yet only the over hyped 16610LV brought hyped crazy prices.

That leaves 5%. Some of us are the 5%.

Cost and value be damned, the flat four simply looks better to some. And, period-correct inserts are important to some collectors. Value and hype aren't always a factor or consideration. If someone prefers it then they prefer it. It's no more complicated than that.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 037

That leaves 5%. Some of us are the 5%.

Cost and value be damned, the flat four simply looks better to some. And, period-correct inserts are important to some collectors. Value and hype aren't always a factor or consideration. If someone prefers it then they prefer it. It's no more complicated than that.

You have your opinion I have mine based on over 50 years of Rolex owning, when owning a Rolex watch was because of the quality of that watch, and not a internet hyped font.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

When a service centre handles thousands of watches a year there will statistically be some casualties due to heavy handedness and some due to existing damage (such as chips or cracks that are impossible to see when the part is fitted). It is a near certainty this is what happened.

You seem pretty convinced it was theft...why?

Why would someone risk their career over stealing a customer's bezel insert? Even if someone wanted a period correct one for themselves hundreds of them per year end up in the bin where the owner has agreed to change the insert*, why would anybody steal yours?

To suggest theft without a shred of evidence is petty at best and malicious at worst.

*To be clear, I am not suggesting that this is common practice, simply that anybody with even just two brain cells would do this over stealing from a customer. The amount of trust placed in watchmakers and technicians is something we do not take for granted. No trust; no job!

Why doesn't RSC at the very least give an explanation to the customer WHY his bezel insert was exchanged for a new one? Hypothetically can you imagine if the OP watch were an early version F or Y serial Kermit with a perfect condition flat 4 bezel insert and RSC damaged it and the watch came back to the customer with a pointed 4 new insert? Can you understand why so many here have absolutely no confidence and no warm fuzzy feeling from sending their watch to RSC which should be "the GOLD standard" for having your Rolex serviced? The reason independent CW21's continue to exist and thrive is because of crap like this and how the customer is treated.

[116710er]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Why doesn't RSC at the very least give an explanation to the customer WHY his bezel insert was exchanged for a new one? Hypothetically can you imagine if the OP watch were an early version F or Y serial Kermit with a perfect condition flat 4 bezel insert and RSC damaged it and the watch came back to the customer with a pointed 4 new insert? Can you understand why so many here have absolutely no confidence and no warm fuzzy feeling from sending their watch to RSC which should be "the GOLD standard" for having your Rolex serviced? The reason independent CW21's continue to exist and thrive is because of crap like this and how the customer is treated.

THIS.

To add to Bigblue10's comment, if this were a 16610LV, RSC would have forever damaged the appearance and value of the watch and all they do is shrug? I don't understand why some people are so quick to say "whatever". Personally, I much prefer the look of the F4's across the board. I also very much prefer to keep an "all original born as" watch as a "all original born as" watch. I don't think it's asking too much for RSC to keep the watch the way I want it especially when I'm paying a considerable amount of money to service it.

Padi, if you have any original inserts you'd like to trade 1:1 for a service insert, let me know, I'm interested! lol

[Tridor]

I would request an explanation from Rolex regarding the switch out. However, note that when you send the watch to RSC for service, they change internal parts such as a mainspring, so that part is not "born" with the watch, and you likely don't have an issue with that. Nonetheless, you deserve an explanation.

[116710er]

Originally Posted by Tridor

I would request an explanation from Rolex regarding the switch out. However, note that when you send the watch to RSC for service, they change internal parts such as a mainspring, so that part is not "born" with the watch, and you likely don't have an issue with that. Nonetheless, you deserve an explanation.

Yes, internal parts I do understand and I actually do what those changed. I think it's safe to say that most people (collectors included) probably don't mind/care that movement parts get changed...

...but externals, those do matter (Dials, Inserts, Hands, Bracelet including End Links and Clasp and to a lesser degree, crystals, crowns/tubes) as the market has clearly shown (regardless of whether anyone agrees with the influence/reason for it).

To add, I don't mind "all service parts" watches but I'm pretty sure that no one (in their right mind anyways) would pay as much for an all service 5513 (for example) as they would an all original matte 5513.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by 116710er

I'm pretty sure that no one (in their right mind anyways) would pay as much for an all service 5513 (for example) as they would an all original matte 5513.

While I'm sure that you're correct, I'm continually amazed that any one (in their right mind anyways) would pay substantially more for an all original matte 5513 (for example) as they would an all service 5513.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by 116710er

Yes, internal parts I do understand and I actually do what those changed. I think it's safe to say that most people (collectors included) probably don't mind/care that movement parts get changed...

...but externals, those do matter (Dials, Inserts, Hands, Bracelet including End Links and Clasp and to a lesser degree, crystals, crowns/tubes) as the market has clearly shown (regardless of whether anyone agrees with the influence/reason for it).

To add, I don't mind "all service parts" watches but I'm pretty sure that no one (in their right mind anyways) would pay as much for an all service 5513 (for example) as they would an all original matte 5513.

We are not talking about a 5513 your watch in a luminover 14060 or 14060M and no matter the insert will have no or little effect on value now or future just to many of them around.

[erhein]

I have to say, I don't even understand what the debate is here. Customer told RSC not to change the bezel insert. RSC changed the bezel insert. RSC is in the wrong. There's no debate there. It doesn't matter whether it affected the value of the watch, even if it increased the value. It doesn't matter whether it changed the look of the watch, even if it improved the look. It doesn't matter whether "you" would be upset that RSC didn't follow "your" instructions. The customer told them not to change the bezel insert. It's his watch. He is, at the very least, owed an explanation as to what happened, how it happened and why. Mistakes can occur. Customer service is measured by how the mistake is handled once it is discovered. This is, at best, piss poor customer service.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Why doesn't RSC at the very least give an explanation to the customer WHY his bezel insert was exchanged for a new one? Hypothetically can you imagine if the OP watch were an early version F or Y serial Kermit with a perfect condition flat 4 bezel insert and RSC damaged it and the watch came back to the customer with a pointed 4 new insert? Can you understand why so many here have absolutely no confidence and no warm fuzzy feeling from sending their watch to RSC which should be "the GOLD standard" for having your Rolex serviced? The reason independent CW21's continue to exist and thrive is because of crap like this and how the customer is treated.

Possibly because the vast majority of Rolex owners would prefer a crisp, new, unmarked bezel. This will be the absolute norm to the RSC technicians.

Add in the fact that this is not a rare or vintage watch and there is every probability the RSC in question is wondering what all the fuss is about.

Having said that, what is wrong here is that the RSC didn’t respect the instruction not to change the insert

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by Devildog

Possibly because the vast majority of Rolex owners would prefer a crisp, new, unmarked bezel. This will be the absolute norm to the RSC technicians.

Add in the fact that this is not a rare or vintage watch and there is every probability the RSC in question is wondering what all the fuss is about.

Having said that, what is wrong here is that the RSC didn’t respect the instruction not to change the insert

Read the original post. The bezel insert WAS crisp and mint according to OP. There was no logical reason to replace it, and they defied his wishes purposely. Utter BS and not excusable. Even good indie CW21's won't pull this crap.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by padi56

We are not talking about a 5513 your watch in a luminover 14060 or 14060M and no matter the insert will have no or little effect on value now or future just to many of them around.

While I respect your opinion, it is the principle here more than anything else. The OP wanted HIS bezel insert not replaced and RSC chose to defy his wishes and not even give a reason why. Regardless of the "value", it may be meaningless to you but it certainly had value to him wanting to keep it "original". The insert was NOT in need of replacing, so why? Isn't the CUSTOMER ALWAYS RIGHT? That's what I was taught in the business world.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by erhein

I have to say, I don't even understand what the debate is here. Customer told RSC not to change the bezel insert. RSC changed the bezel insert. RSC is in the wrong. There's no debate there. It doesn't matter whether it affected the value of the watch, even if it increased the value. It doesn't matter whether it changed the look of the watch, even if it improved the look. It doesn't matter whether "you" would be upset that RSC didn't follow "your" instructions. The customer told them not to change the bezel insert. It's his watch. He is, at the very least, owed an explanation as to what happened, how it happened and why. Mistakes can occur. Customer service is measured by how the mistake is handled once it is discovered. This is, at best, piss poor customer service.

Thank You!!! A GREAT explanation and I'm sure that is how the OP feels also. RSC needs to get off it's sanctimonious high horse and start treating customers as the life blood of their business. They may think they are the only game in town, but the reality is they are not. Plenty of independent watchmakers exist that still respect the customer!

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Read the original post. The bezel insert WAS crisp and mint according to OP. There was no logical reason to replace it, and they defied his wishes purposely. Utter BS and not excusable. Even good indie CW21's won't pull this crap.

I did. You should perhaps look at the picture - it was good but not perfect.

It’s a consumable part, frankly, and changed by routine.

There was every logical reason to replace it because that’s what Rolex does, and always has done when there is any damage at all ok that part.

You have zero proof they purposefully went against the OP’s wishes.

What we most likely have here is a simple mistake.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[116710er]

Originally Posted by Devildog

I did. You should perhaps look at the picture - it was good but not perfect.

Curious, but what about the insert would you consider replacement worthy?

And for the record, I absolutely stated that the insert should NOT be replaced. Here is a snippet from my service confirmation sheet.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by 116710er

Curious, but what about the insert would you consider replacement worthy?

And for the record, I absolutely stated that the insert should NOT be replaced. Here is a snippet from my service confirmation sheet.

Thank you for clarifying that to Devildog OP. I'm not exactly sure of his rationale, but he is entitled to an opinion but it contradicts ours.

I was taught this years ago. The two rules of good business.

1. The customer is always right.
2. If the customer is ever wrong, re-read rule number one.

I personally think many RSC's should post this in large bold face print in their facilities.

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by 116710er

Curious, but what about the insert would you consider replacement worthy?



And for the record, I absolutely stated that the insert should NOT be replaced. Here is a snippet from my service confirmation sheet.

Rolex SCs will normally look to replace inserts with any scratches, marks or damage, no matter how slight. The watches are examined under magnification.

It’s been well documented on here.

I’m not saying its correct that they do that, but it appears to be their standard procedure.

Your picture shows some damage. The RSC would have picked that up.

I agree with you 100% that having been asked not to replace it that they are in the wrong.

But I can completely understand why they could make that mistake.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Devildog]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Thank you for clarifying that to Devildog OP. I'm not exactly sure of his rationale, but he is entitled to an opinion but it contradicts ours.



I was taught this years ago. The two rules of good business.



1. The customer is always right.

2. If the customer is ever wrong, re-read rule number one.



I personally think many RSC's should post this in large bold face print in their facilities.

Jamie

I’m not saying that the RSC was correct in replacing the bezel. They were not as they were asked specifically not to do so.

What I am providing is a rationale as to why the mistake probably happened, as an alternative to the conspiracy theory that it was done intentionally.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk