What's Considered "Shady" among Sellers?

[tranny]

I noticed recently that someone here bought a watch from Swiss Watch Expo and got link-leeched, and that's considered shady. Also saw someone else get banned for selling a watch with a chipped bezel that was not properly disclosed.

Question is... what if someone sold a watch that say, shows a ding in the bezel, but in a way that's not super easy to notice in the pictures, but is there if you're looking for it, and doesn't disclose it in the text of the ad? Is nondisclosure of exact condition (detailing all flaws in text and with close-up photos displaying them) considered shady here?

Thanks!

[MonBK]

Do you really have to ask?

[tranny]

Originally Posted by MonBK

Do you really have to ask?

Ok, well what if it wasn't intentional? What's the proper recourse?

[pawnshopkiller]

Don't be selling expensive watches if you can't take a moment to note all the flaws.

[pawnshopkiller]

You know BE FORe hand.:ro fl:

[Stonedcl]

What is link-leeched?

[tranny]

Originally Posted by Stonedcl

What is link-leeched?

A term I made up... I meant when a wholesaler keeps 1-2 links from the watch before reselling it.

[TakesALickin]

Originally Posted by transio

Question is... what if someone sold a watch that say, shows a ding in the bezel, but in a way that's not super easy to notice in the pictures, but is there if you're looking for it, and doesn't disclose it in the text of the ad? Is nondisclosure of condition considered shady here?

Thanks!

I always use the TZ Grading System when selling watches, and I recommend it for everyone. It establishes a standard for comparison of condition. Not everyone uses it correctly, and that's why it's incumbent on the buyer to determine whether the seller's Grading Sytem description matches what they see in the accompanying pictures.

Familiarity with the different levels of wear described in the TZ system can be very instructive. If I tell you that my watch is in "Good" condition, you know that means that the case "may show a few dings, nicks, or deep scratches". Look for that wear in the pictures. If I say the watch is "Near Mint", then the watch should show "very light signs of wear. Faint scratches on the case, bezel, bracelet or buckle (will be) visible to the naked eye". Is that what you see in the pictures?

Remember, you're buying used watches. Caveat Emptor is the prevailing rule. Trying to nail the seller when the watch doesn't meet your expectations (but may have been correctly described) is unseemly, and the fights that ensue on watch mesage boards are exasperating to watch unfold.

[wantonebad]

Steve, I think your "questions" are suspect, I mean really what is the purpose of asking this one?

[Megalobyte]

I'd suggest using the TZ grading scale. Ie. Mint, near mint, excellent, etc. And percentage, 93%, 97% etc. If there's a flaw that isn't noticeable in the pics that's unusual, or something you feel deserves special mention, you probably should. Better to be pleasantly surprised, than unpleasantly. :)

I wonder if the OP bought a watch that arrived with flaws he didn't expect, thus his questions.

[DARK_KNIGHT]

Originally Posted by transio

I noticed recently that someone here bought a watch from Swiss Watch Expo and got link-leeched, and that's considered shady. Also saw someone else get banned for selling a watch with a chipped bezel that was not properly disclosed.

Question is... what if someone sold a watch that say, shows a ding in the bezel, but in a way that's not super easy to notice in the pictures, but is there if you're looking for it, and doesn't disclose it in the text of the ad? Is nondisclosure of exact condition (detailing all flaws in text and with close-up photos displaying them) considered shady here?

Thanks!

Non disclosure is shady practice, right Transio?? i.e., "Oooops, hope they won`t notice"........(picture fingers and toes crossed) Sigh..............

[tranny]

I'm the buyer not the seller.

Thanks for the input though. I've contacted the seller and he's working with me to resolve it.

[Zed Homme]

Originally Posted by transio

I'm the buyer not the seller.

Thanks for the input though. I've contacted the seller and he's working with me to resolve it.

What is the issue?

Communication or lack thereof is usually a good indicator of how a transaction is going to transpire.

[tranny]

The issue is a ding in the bezel. Seller was unaware of it and has offered to have it polished. I think it's a fair resolution. Thanks.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by transio

Question is... what if someone sold a watch that say, shows a ding in the bezel, but in a way that's not super easy to notice in the pictures, but is there if you're looking for it, and doesn't disclose it in the text of the ad?

You noticed "The not super easy to notice" ding on the bezel and the seller had no idea it was there?

Originally Posted by pawnshopkiller

Don't be selling expensive watches if you can't take a moment to note all the flaws.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by transio

The issue is a ding in the bezel. Seller was unaware of it and has offered to have it polished. I think it's a fair resolution. Thanks.

As long as you're happy with the procedure.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by transio

Question is... what if someone sold a watch that say, shows a ding in the bezel, but in a way that's not super easy to notice in the pictures, but is there if you're looking for it, and doesn't disclose it in the text of the ad?

Is nondisclosure of exact condition (detailing all flaws in text and with close-up photos displaying them) considered shady here?

Thanks!

We expect disclosure here.

Any sign of subterfuge and dishonourable action by a seller will go down here like a lead balloon.

[tranny]

Originally Posted by MonBK

You noticed "The not super easy to notice" ding on the bezel and the seller had no idea it was there?

As long as you're happy with the procedure.

I noticed it after wearing the watch. It's in a perfect spot on the bezel where it immediately catches the eye while wearing but not very visible t all in pics or looking at the face straight on. I believe the seller's story because he has great feedback and he seems genuine in his desire to ensure my satisfaction. I don't care to disclose more details at this time as I don't want to unjustly tarnish anyone's rep. We're working it out privately and if that doesnt pan out I'll rehash the issue at that point. Thanks for understanding.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by transio

I noticed it after wearing the watch. It's in a perfect spot on the bezel where it immediately catches the eye while wearing but not very visible t all in pics or looking at the face straight on. I believe the seller's story because he has great feedback and he seems genuine in his desire to ensure my satisfaction. I don't care to disclose more details at this time as I don't want to unjustly tarnish anyone's rep. We're working it out privately and if that doesnt pan out I'll rehash the issue at that point. Thanks for understanding.

Also, you would have had to notice IMMEDIATELY and report it to the seller where you both can amicably resolve the situation.


I am extremely mindful of members using TRF as their own personal weapon to metaphorically hold a gun to a seller's head.

[tranny]

Originally Posted by Welshwatchman

Also, you would have had to notice IMMEDIATELY and report it to the seller where you both can amicably resolve the situation.

i disagree with this. I think up to a month or two after a transaction is a fair period for recourse if with fair cause.

I am extremely mindful of members using TRF as their own personal weapon to metaphorically hold a gun to a seller's head.

I agree. That's why I'm not disclosing details and am working it out privately. I believe in publicizing problems with someone only as a last resort.

Note the intention of this thread was not to shame anyone but to find out if I have the right to contact the seller to resolve the issue, which I have now done.

Thank you.

[ratae1950]

Originally Posted by transio

A term I made up... I meant when a wholesaler keeps 1-2 links from the watch before reselling it.

I hope you informed the folks at the OED!

[chicfarmer1]

Originally Posted by transio

i disagree with this. I think up to a month or two after a transaction is a fair period for recourse if with fair cause.

That's a lot of time for a buyer himself/herself to inflict damage, obviously. Without immediate reporting, but instead a large window of time and multiple opportunities to have worn it repeatedly, how can someone have any credibility claiming it had been there from the start? Come on.

Maybe there could be a parallel thread titled "What's considered 'shady' among buyers?"

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by transio

i disagree with this. I think up to a month or two after a transaction is a fair period for recourse if with fair cause.

Thank you.

I think you're waaaaay out of line unless the seller gave you a 3 month warranty.

[TakesALickin]

Originally Posted by chicfarmer1

That's a lot of time for a buyer himself/herself to inflict damage, obviously. Without immediate reporting, but instead a large window of time and multiple opportunities to have worn it repeatedly, how can someone have any credibility claiming it had been there from the start? Come on.

Maybe there could be a parallel thread titled "What's considered 'shady' among buyers?"

True - you could go out rock climbing with your new watch the day after you receive it and trash the h-e-doublehockeysticks out of it. If you buy a watch, you have a responsibility to inspect that watch upon receipt and report any problems immediately.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by transio

i disagree with this. I think up to a month or two after a transaction is a fair period for recourse if with fair cause.

Nope.

If it takes a couple of months to find a flaw then it was either nothing much to start with or could have easily been caused by the new owner in that time.

To just use the forum to frighten the seller is not on.

[tranny]

I can't believe I'm getting so much speculative criticism here. Some people sure jump to wild conclusions with very little knowledge.

[Welshwatchman]

Originally Posted by transio

I can't believe I'm getting so much speculative criticism here. Some people sure jump to wild conclusions with very little knowledge.

We're all talking hypothetically, of course.

Let's say, hypothetically, you bought a watch from a trusted seller here, found a flaw after five weeks and tried to bully the seller into "making good".

I'd bounce you out of the forums, hypothetically, of course.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by transio

I can't believe I'm getting so much speculative criticism here. Some people sure jump to wild conclusions with very little knowledge.

You earned it.

[tranny]

Originally Posted by chicfarmer1

Maybe there could be a parallel thread titled "What's considered 'shady' among buyers?"

Better yet, an article detailing the process for new buyers so they know what's expected of them and the sellers they deal with.

[azguy]

Originally Posted by transio

I can't believe I'm getting so much speculative criticism here. Some people sure jump to wild conclusions with very little knowledge.

I think it was how you phrased your question. Sellers are obligated to disclose as much as possible since these are transaction based on pictures, trust and our mutual love of watches..

What may be considered a normal blemish on a vintage watch would be totally unacceptable on a modern watch, IMHO

[Johny]

can you post a pic of the damage?