Looks like i got conned when i bought my gold rolex submariner

[cdweller]

You got hustled a bit which stinks, but there really is nothing you can do at this point except learn from the experience and move on. Don't dwell on it, even though it was unfortunate! Goodluck

[broker]

I don't know if I can make a connection with the stainless steel models, but if your "93" has the old bracelet and the 2002 has the SEL I would, in the case of the model in gold, prefer the former.
It is worth mentioning also that the gold sub ​​is far from being a good seller and, therefore, the case "letter/year 93" does not mean that the watch was made this year or next, he may have been sitting in the factory for years ...

[Thatguy]

I know how you feel. When I was 14 I bought a Rolex in NY for about $10 and it might not have been real. Maybe I should go and see if he is at the same street corner.

[RIPLEYXL9]

Well the plot thickens. :) :) :)
The good news is the Head of Customer Services has checked that yes "X" was used in 91,92, & 93 for certain Rolex's so she thinks the prospective buying dealer [who is not an AD] just picked the date that would have the lowest value.

She also confirmed that various models use different letters for differnt years and that Rolex dont publish the full specialised list for confidentiality and to frustrate would be counterfieting. She also confirmed that the Letter "X" was used for my model in the last half of 2001 and 2002.

Furthermore she could see that my specific serial number was shipped from ROLEX Switzerland to the Rolex AD in the City I bought it in Germany in March 2002.
As they have seen the watch 4 times [service etc. and fiitting an additional link] she is positive the watch I bought in is a genuine 18ct Rolex Submariner, and it was shipped to Germany in 2002 by the Rolex factory/distribution and it was made in either the last half of 2001 or the the early months of 2002. Apparently its very difficult to determine the exact month of manufacture without a special request and a reason
Personally in light of the fact it all fits I am totally happy because I can now represent the watch fairly and with total confidence to any Buyer as a 2002 watch, as i have confirmation fro Rolex it was shipped to Germany by the Rolex factory in early March 2002 and an invoice from a Rolex AD stating 8th March 2002.
Whether it was made on the bench in November 2001 or Jan 2002 to be honest I dont think matters one jot - after all the Rolex system it self states it a 2001 or 2002 Watch!
Actually as she pointed out, as its a a very high serial number > 846,000 it suggests it was probably very late 2001 or more likely 2002.

Obviously I assume a Rolex UK employee in her position would not lie about this, and she also added that if required, she/Rolex could confirm this to any prospective buyer. Even to the point if they wanted to go in to St James Sq. with the watch they would then be abe to inspect it and say this watch is a 2002 version.
So I am a very happy bunny!
Good job I didn't liable the dealer eh!
And now I can ask top price for it with confidence.

Proving their is a god; mixed in with the original price list was the fax copy I sent the dealer. Specifcally requesting "they order for me a completely new watch direct from the Rolex Factory, specifically not one that has been lying on a shelf for years. On the basis that they are fully Authorised Rolex agents. And that I understand it will take 7 days for them to get the watch from Rolex"

So for the cynical posters: Actually the Rolex dealer could have been in serious do dos had he knowingly supplied an 11 year old watch to a customer, who in writing specifically only wanted a new one" direct from the factory".
My dear little nephew who is both a US Attorney and a UK Barrister said he'd have to check it out [as he specialises in Corporate Tax law] but he felt as a minimum the Dealer would have had to compensate me for the difference in value befteen a 2002 and a 1991 Submariner - which he felt was the minimum reasonable thing to do. And if the Dealer proved difficult then start looking at "misrepresentation of fact within the fullfillment of a contract" - OK I didn't follow everything as I was waiting for a definitive from Rolex plus these lawyers rattle of statue, precedence and case law like rattle snakes; But it sounded awfully like Fraud. Not to mention there apparently could be a possibility that I could force the dealer to 'perform the contract' namely supply a squeeky clean Submariner - naturally I would then have to return the old watch!
Er that I felt would be pushing it as the new its now £24K against £8.5 to £10K [not sure of best 2nd hand valu yet?] But little lawyer said he'd have to look it up as different types of assets are treated differently - I said yeah but Ive had 10 years use enjoyment out of it. He replied |I understand that but it depends how this has been classified could be that or could be a simple sorry you knowingly flooged of an 11 year old watch that was not worth £16770 on that date. So go and supply a new one as contracted and you can have the old one back your customr shouldnt suffer becuase the price of gold has gone up and no you can't rely on Equity to protect you, as you 'didn't come to court with clean hands' . I guess translated it means OK you the dealer lose out because you tried to cheat a customer and it backfired in your face!

And to all the sympathetic posters - appreciated as I was feeling a little hard done by.
It also not a bad idea for all buyers to check this out in writing and keep it in case it all goes nasty in future!


What would I expect directly from Rolex well obviously now we know its not 11 years older nothing ; but had it been a 1991 watch directly nothing, as they are 3rd Party to the contract. But indirectly, as I went out of my way to check the dealer was an Authorised Agent/Dealer; bluntly so I could buy with utter confidence and peace of mind!
I would have expected them to force the dealer [threaten to take away their dealerhip] to do the honourable thing of putting right the transaction financially. And if they couldn't make the dealer do it, as a gesture of goodwill for not policing their Dealership network properly; they could have offerred me a lovely discount on the new replacement Submariner [circa up to the dealers normal markup i.e. at Dealer cost ]- which they could have supplied direct to me.

[smallcandle]

You should make your posts longer...

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by Brenngun

This should have been your first clue a week after buying it. You may have had some recourse with the dealer at that time. Suprised you missed this opportunity to question the age of the watch considering how thorough you were during the purchaing process.

Yeah good point.
I just assumed as it was ordered over the phone without the watch there they had just made a mistake. Plus having faxed him specifically that I wanted a new one direct from Rolex - I guess I just trusted him.
Which now appears to have been justified!

[ChuckFinlay]

X prefix still dates to 1991, not sure how she got 2002 which were I believe K's

http://www.qualitytyme.net/pages/numbers.html

And here

http://www.oysterinfo.de/en/detailin...mern/index.php

X Serial for sale, 1991

http://www.chrono24.com/en/rolex/18k...acturerIds=221

So now I'm completely confused

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

If I'm not mistaken he found all this out after deciding to sell it. So I think much of his concern is that the price he will get will be less than expected because of the older age.

Absolutely - had it been 11 years older [which has now been confirmed as inaccurate as it is a 2002 watch] then it would have been worth between £1,000 to £1,500 less.
Having faxed the dealer specifically ordering a brand new one at the time not old stock one, had he sold me a 9 or 11 year old one I think that's dishonest.

[watchupee]

Oh thank god! Now I can sleep tonight. In al seriousness I'm glad it's sorted.

[Micha]

Originally Posted by smallcandle

You should make your posts longer...

x2

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by jay1988

I'd let it go.

You went to a lot of effort to get a cheaper price and now you're annoyed because you can't get a good price on selling it ?

YOU should of asked for the serial number all those years ago. Then you would of known.

I don't know what you mean about duty free watches btw. I'm currently considering asking someone to pick up a smooth bezel DJII for me and as it was only released at Basel 2012 I see nothing wrong with picking it up duty free. Also fully recommended a friend of mine who likes the 114060 (Basel 2012) or the 116610LV (Basel 2010) consider buying either from there. Bought from an AD with a 20% discount and at most it's three years old ? I'd take that.

OK crisis over as I said above Rolex have confirmed it is a 2002 watch.
Just so people don't think I'm too unreasonable:-
a] I didnt go to a lot of trouble to buy it cheaper, the price just happened to be slightly cheaper in Gernamy at that time because the £ spiked up against the Euro - a few hunderd pounds???.
The real reason for buying there was German dealers could get allocation from Rolex and the UK dealers were having to wait longer. And my localRolex AD dealer allows people to buy the watch and if they dont like it return it within 3 days, providing it doen't look damaged! I don't like that: reason e.g. some inexperienced rolex owner dont pull out the winder correctly thinks hes winding it and actuall is turning the date the wrong way - then goes oh sh+t and takes it back.

Re Duty free shops - no nothing against them, other than its hard to get them to order in a specific watch direct from rolex. And I personally had seen a Gold GMT Master sitting in the same place on a shelf in Heathrow for like years. Personally if oil deteriorates with age I 'd prefer a movement that has recent lly left the factory if buying new.
Thats all I meant by that.

[Welshwatchman]

Very odd indeed.

Keep the letter from Rolex since potential informed buyers will need their minds easing and then some.

Out of interest, can you post a few pictures to see if it actually looks like a 2001/2002 model?

It will be quite easy for us to tell.

Also, it is possible to mistake a K for an X, eyesight being what it is.

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by 77T

The OP stated:
"I specifically asked the retailer if he was an official Rolex Agent, which he said he was and I'm pretty sure I checked with Rolex Germany."

So he is suggesting Rolex is responsible. Yes, we know that ADs are independent dealers with a franchise, but the OP is not as aware IMHO.

It all irrellevant now as Rolex UK have verified the watch is actually as it states a 2002 watch.
But just so people don't think I'm too unreasonable and also to learn about Rolex watches and what goes on, as this wont be my last Rolex I answered a few posts.

OK Rolex are not liable directly, as legally they are 3rd Party to the contract.

However if Rolex promote a trusted franchise or dealership - i.e. you must buy here as they are registered trusted dealers; then they should police the dealership/franchise properly to trade honourably and with integrity. Or am I wrong expecting that?

Also remember Rolex did however look at the watch in March 2002 at London Rolex within a week or two of taking possession of the watch - when I asked them to check it was genuine, and that the watch was new, and that the hidden [under the braclet] serial number was the same on the paperwork!
So I would have expected them to alert me to the fact the watch was 11 or 9 years old!

Sure next time I will go further and get the serial number and pay a deposit and then get from Rolex written confirmation that this watches serial number means it is circa a few month old?
Actually I'm old school and think I should just be able to ask my local Rolex dealer or Mercedes Dealer how old is this watch? / car? and get a straight honest, answer.

[R_Ongjoco]

The problem is the watch could be new, but old stock. Since Rolex doesnt divulge their numbering system, no one is 100% sure when the watch was made. The dealer may have given you a brand new watch that they just received, but could have been really old stock from Rolex.

[Casey VP-26]

Wow!!!!!

[NKflyer]

Sorry OP, but this whole situation sounds a little fishy. Until I see some pics, I call b.s.

[superdog]

Originally Posted by RIPLEYXL9

Well the plot thickens. :) :) :)
The good news is the Head of Customer Services has checked that yes "X" was used in 91,92, & 93 for certain Rolex's so she thinks the prospective buying dealer [who is not an AD] just picked the date that would have the lowest value.

She also confirmed that various models use different letters for differnt years and that Rolex dont publish the full specialised list for confidentiality and to frustrate would be counterfieting. She also confirmed that the Letter "X" was used for my model in the last half of 2001 and 2002.

Furthermore she could see that my specific serial number was shipped from ROLEX Switzerland to the Rolex AD in the City I bought it in Germany in March 2002.
As they have seen the watch 4 times [service etc. and fiitting an additional link] she is positive the watch I bought in is a genuine 18ct Rolex Submariner, and it was shipped to Germany in 2002 by the Rolex factory/distribution and it was made in either the last half of 2001 or the the early months of 2002. Apparently its very difficult to determine the exact month of manufacture without a special request and a reason
Personally in light of the fact it all fits I am totally happy because I can now represent the watch fairly and with total confidence to any Buyer as a 2002 watch, as i have confirmation fro Rolex it was shipped to Germany by the Rolex factory in early March 2002 and an invoice from a Rolex AD stating 8th March 2002.
Whether it was made on the bench in November 2001 or Jan 2002 to be honest I dont think matters one jot - after all the Rolex system it self states it a 2001 or 2002 Watch!
Actually as she pointed out, as its a a very high serial number > 846,000 it suggests it was probably very late 2001 or more likely 2002.

Obviously I assume a Rolex UK employee in her position would not lie about this, and she also added that if required, she/Rolex could confirm this to any prospective buyer. Even to the point if they wanted to go in to St James Sq. with the watch they would then be abe to inspect it and say this watch is a 2002 version.
So I am a very happy bunny!
Good job I didn't liable the dealer eh!
And now I can ask top price for it with confidence.

Proving their is a god; mixed in with the original price list was the fax copy I sent the dealer. Specifcally requesting "they order for me a completely new watch direct from the Rolex Factory, specifically not one that has been lying on a shelf for years. On the basis that they are fully Authorised Rolex agents. And that I understand it will take 7 days for them to get the watch from Rolex"

So for the cynical posters: Actually the Rolex dealer could have been in serious do dos had he knowingly supplied an 11 year old watch to a customer, who in writing specifically only wanted a new one" direct from the factory".
My dear little nephew who is both a US Attorney and a UK Barrister said he'd have to check it out [as he specialises in Corporate Tax law] but he felt as a minimum the Dealer would have had to compensate me for the difference in value befteen a 2002 and a 1991 Submariner - which he felt was the minimum reasonable thing to do. And if the Dealer proved difficult then start looking at "misrepresentation of fact within the fullfillment of a contract" - OK I didn't follow everything as I was waiting for a definitive from Rolex plus these lawyers rattle of statue, precedence and case law like rattle snakes; But it sounded awfully like Fraud. Not to mention there apparently could be a possibility that I could force the dealer to 'perform the contract' namely supply a squeeky clean Submariner - naturally I would then have to return the old watch!
Er that I felt would be pushing it as the new its now £24K against £8.5 to £10K [not sure of best 2nd hand valu yet?] But little lawyer said he'd have to look it up as different types of assets are treated differently - I said yeah but Ive had 10 years use enjoyment out of it. He replied |I understand that but it depends how this has been classified could be that or could be a simple sorry you knowingly flooged of an 11 year old watch that was not worth £16770 on that date. So go and supply a new one as contracted and you can have the old one back your customr shouldnt suffer becuase the price of gold has gone up and no you can't rely on Equity to protect you, as you 'didn't come to court with clean hands' . I guess translated it means OK you the dealer lose out because you tried to cheat a customer and it backfired in your face!

And to all the sympathetic posters - appreciated as I was feeling a little hard done by.
It also not a bad idea for all buyers to check this out in writing and keep it in case it all goes nasty in future!


What would I expect directly from Rolex well obviously now we know its not 11 years older nothing ; but had it been a 1991 watch directly nothing, as they are 3rd Party to the contract. But indirectly, as I went out of my way to check the dealer was an Authorised Agent/Dealer; bluntly so I could buy with utter confidence and peace of mind!
I would have expected them to force the dealer [threaten to take away their dealerhip] to do the honourable thing of putting right the transaction financially. And if they couldn't make the dealer do it, as a gesture of goodwill for not policing their Dealership network properly; they could have offerred me a lovely discount on the new replacement Submariner [circa up to the dealers normal markup i.e. at Dealer cost ]- which they could have supplied direct to me.

dude, i see a really good therapist. she is in the US, but does do phone sessions.

if not that, you should look into seeing a dr. asap.

[beshannon]

Originally Posted by RIPLEYXL9

OK Rolex are not liable directly, as legally they are 3rd Party to the contract.

Are you an attorney or other contract law specialist?

[tedscott3]

This is the type of post that I hoped not to see when I first came here. It seems 99% of the people around here are serious about watches, but not too serious. They enjoy them for what they are. In my opinion once you get to the point that this person has got to it just isn't fun anymore...

[T.S.Eliot]

Originally Posted by smallcandle

You should make your posts longer...

I actually was not able to finish it

[Fagin]

Originally Posted by NKflyer

Sorry OP, but this whole situation sounds a little fishy. Until I see some pics, I call b.s.

[cajunron]

Rolex will never tell you the age of a watch. If it has never been purchased, and it is sitting in an AD's case, it IS new to Rolex, regardless of how long it has been sitting there.

[MonBK]

I'm a little lost here.

Is your watch a X or a K serial?

[~JJ]

Interesting, lets see some pics.

[The D]

OP has a collectors item on his hands by the sounds of things.

[jvo300]

I read through all of this and feel like I just wasted my time. So after all that there was never an issue?

[Yanks213x]

I think his watch was really a tudor that had the dial switched and then it transformed into a sea monster

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by jvo300

I read through all of this and feel like I just wasted my time. So after all that there was never an issue?

Yep hopefully it was [becuase that means it really is a 2002 watch] but I apologize for wasting your time, only managed to get confirmtion this afternoon but some are now doubting it..

[RIPLEYXL9]

Originally Posted by MonBK

I'm a little lost here.

Is your watch a X or a K serial?

it says X

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by MonBK

I'm a little lost here.

Is your watch a X or a K serial?

Since the OP is watching this thread is it too much to ask for an answer to this simple question?