Rolex 5 Year Warranty (2015 Green Seal)

[Tools]

As of July, 2015, Rolex has extended the initial Rolex Warranty to 5 Years.

Rolex has also re-defined it's Superlative Chronometer statement. Watches delivered with the Green Seal are expected to meet their new Superlative Chronometer Standards of -2/+2 seconds per day.

Rolex 5 Year Warranty.jpg

20659449690_ea086fca5b_k.jpg

[Professorfingers]

Does the warranty go to the watch or the buyer?

If the warranty goes to the buyer, can the buyer transfer the warranty to the new owner if he sells it?

Thanks,

TW

[Chalet]

The warranty follows the watch.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[Professorfingers]

Thanks for your reply.

So, does it matter if I live in the USA but have a watch warranty from another country?

[Chalet]

No. It is a worldwide warranty.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

[cjohns]

I guess it's true timing is everything.

[cda555]

Wait... this is a year old announcement, correct. 100% not trying to be a jerk. It's been a long week and the date of the tread and the date of the letter made my brain break.

[Professorfingers]

Yes,
Old thread that I hijacked and got off track.

TW

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Chalet

The warranty follows the watch.

Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk

Just returned from a visit to my local AD, and the Rolex rep earnestly informed me that the warranty is "not transferrable." So ... does the warranty follow the watch or what?

I own have a new lume Explorer I that I recently bought here on the forum--the entire package, including warranty, my first Rolex--but the rep at my AD is of the opinion that Rolex will not honor that warranty, should I need to use it. BTW, we were just talking about the Explorer, but I do think he was perhaps a little put out that he couldn't sell me one ... but then, at the time, he had none to sell. I might've bought from him, but he couldn't sell what he didn't have.

I'm flummoxed. How do we know here on the forum that the warranty follows the watch? This is not a challenge, but an honest enquiry from a enthusiast who doesn't stay up nights worrying about such possibilities but who would nevertheless rest easier were he a bit more sure about his options should his Rolex decide to revolt. Do we have opinions from legal types that would nail this down, or are we working on anecdotal evidence from forum members who've gone through the warranty-go-round? Or are we simply dependent on the good will of individual ADs?

I apologize if this is old, old hash, because I've read lots of discussion of this topic on the forums, and I've heard much discussion on YouTube, but I'm not sure about how much weight that discussion has when it comes to actually having work done on one's watch under a pre-owned warranty.

As always, thanks for the discussion,

highbob

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by highbob

Just returned from a visit to my local AD, and the Rolex rep earnestly informed me that the warranty is "not transferrable." So ... does the warranty follow the watch or what?

I own have a new lume Explorer I that I recently bought here on the forum--the entire package, including warranty, my first Rolex--but the rep at my AD is of the opinion that Rolex will not honor that warranty, should I need to use it. BTW, we were just talking about the Explorer, but I do think he was perhaps a little put out that he couldn't sell me one ... but then, at the time, he had none to sell. I might've bought from him, but he couldn't sell what he didn't have.

I'm flummoxed. How do we know here on the forum that the warranty follows the watch? This is not a challenge, but an honest enquiry from a enthusiast who doesn't stay up nights worrying about such possibilities but who would nevertheless rest easier were he a bit more sure about his options should his Rolex decide to revolt. Do we have opinions from legal types that would nail this down, or are we working on anecdotal evidence from forum members who've gone through the warranty-go-round? Or are we simply dependent on the good will of individual ADs?

I apologize if this is old, old hash, because I've read lots of discussion of this topic on the forums, and I've heard much discussion on YouTube, but I'm not sure about how much weight that discussion has when it comes to actually having work done on one's watch under a pre-owned warranty.

As always, thanks for the discussion,

highbob

Warranty follows the watch. It really does.

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

Warranty follows the watch. It really does.

Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.

I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.

BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[padi56]

Originally Posted by highbob

Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.

I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.

BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As long as the warranty has been filled in by any official AD world wide the warranty is valid.Many Rolex watches today are bought as presents to a third party so the buyer might not be the watches owner.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by highbob

Thanks for the response, and please don't hurt your head.

I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

I've also read and heard from more than one Rolex professional that the warranty is not transferable. Thus, my questions.

BTW, my concerns are. It an indictment nor a rejection of the mantra, "the warranty follows the watch." But I would like to know if there is any documented material that supports this position, apart from the rather substantial and copious anecdotes found here. Once again, I'm not refuting anything. I'm simply trying to nail down any corporate evidence from Rolex that would support this well-accepted and important notion re: warranty service for secondary watch owners, and anyone subsequent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There were a few idiots posting on Youtube last year saying Rolex had changed the policy. It was an internet rumour, and most if not all of them retracted. One or two people have maybe had an issue with RSC New York, which seems to have sometimes gone rogue in the warranty department, but there are many many people here, myself included on multiple occasions, who have had warranty work done as secondary owners, all over the world, both with Rolex and Tudor.

[Tools]

Originally Posted by highbob

. . .
I know the mantra. At this point I'm looking for evidence. As I wrote earlier, I've read several instances of folks coming up against various brick walls when they try to have repairs done via warranty for a previously owned watch. I've also read many stories of individuals who've sailed through the process with no impediment at all. Yay!

. . .

Perhaps you have been hearing stories of folks trying to get warranty work done when they do not have a valid warranty. Grey Market, modified, and third party serviced watches do not have a valid Rolex warranty.

In those cases there is no warranty to "follow the watch".

The bottom line is: A properly purchased Rolex includes a full warranty. Rolex does not know who purchased the watch and so anybody who takes a warrantied watch into an RSC for warranty work will get it. Rolex will not know, or care, that the watch was "previously owned"

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Tools

Perhaps you have been hearing stories of folks trying to get warranty work done when they do not have a valid warranty. Grey Market, modified, and third party serviced watches do not have a valid Rolex warranty.

In those cases there is no warranty to "follow the watch".

The bottom line is: A properly purchased Rolex includes a full warranty. Rolex does not know who purchased the watch and so anybody who takes a warrantied watch into an RSC for warranty work will get it. Rolex will not know, or care, that the watch was "previously owned"

Thanks for all the responses, folks. and Tools, what started my line of questioning was a conversation I had yesterday with a Rolex salesperson at my local AD. He was quoting information that he had from Rolex--that the warranty is not transferable--but much of what I've seen and heard refutes that, and makes the case for the warranty following the watch. The salesperson I spoke with spoke quite firmly about this, but IMHO, he seems a bit proprietary regarding ALL sales of Rolex watches. My watch was originally purchased from an AD; it has all the documentation including the card; I'm not sure what his take is other than the fact that he might be displeased that somewhere in the loop from the AD to me, someone else made some money.

What I fail to understand is any AD's displeasure once the watch has been sold by another AD. Once sold by the AD, it's out in the marketplace, free to find another home if need be. True, that means that the watch could face possible peril due to shipping and handling, etc., but the watch faces damage from everyday use that is pretty much the same as any damage it might incur from being on the market. The watch will either operate correctly or it might need warranty service. In which case, if the owner has the warranty card, Rolex should make good. My two cents--thanks again for the illumination.

[PJ S]

The salesperson you spoke with is a dick – and you can quote me on that!
He would be better suited to serving hamburgers, chips, and lemonade – you can quote me on that too.

If you want a definitive answer, pick up the phone and simply call RSC in NY or SF, or email them.
If your warranty card has been stamped or filled in by an AD, then it has a manufacturer warranty.
Time to find a new jewellery store to shop at – one which doesn’t employ idiots or staff who’re prepared to lie to put the frighteners up you!

[Tools]

Originally Posted by highbob

. . Once sold by the AD, it's out in the marketplace, free to find another home if need be. True, that means that the watch could face possible peril due to shipping and handling, etc., but the watch faces damage from everyday use that is pretty much the same as any damage it might incur from being on the market. The watch will either operate correctly or it might need warranty service. In which case, if the owner has the warranty card, Rolex should make good. My two cents--thanks again for the illumination.

True, a Rolex faces peril due to everyday use. Everyday use is not covered by the warranty, and so, it doesn't really matter whether the warranty is transferrable or not for damage repairs; the customer will have to pay.

The warranty covers manufacturer defects and most of those usually reveal themselves rather quickly.

[highbob]

Originally Posted by Tools

True, a Rolex faces peril due to everyday use. Everyday use is not covered by the warranty, and so, it doesn't really matter whether the warranty is transferrable or not for damage repairs; the customer will have to pay.

The warranty covers manufacturer defects and most of those usually reveal themselves rather quickly.

Exactly, and my point about use vs. manufacturing defects was simply trying to come up with some rationale for these ADs' displeasure about warranty coverage. Other than their worry about undue requests or loss of sales (and I suppose I can understand that to a point), I don't get the desire of some to mess with folks who buy second-hand. Yay for those guys who promote the brand, as well as all makes of timepieces, and who encourage after-market sales. It just helps keep the excitement and enthusiasm going. IMHO.

Cheers.

[Boman]

thanks for sharing

[airpeace]

i think that warranty only applies to US AD.