Deal only after Authentication at RSC?

[Darkangel]

Common thing that buyers do when I deal with them, I go to RSC with them, they send it in and pay me.

They will collect the watch after that.

I mean...firstly if someone is willing to meet you at RSC...typically he/she is confident that it will pass the test that's why he's there with you if not he will meet you at some shady area right?

I leave the option open to buyers who are quite free to authenticate the watch and collect together, so in total we meet twice cos I m usually in town. But not everyone can do that...

[Oceanklassik]

I think this is simply a communication issue. Not a problem if both can communicate properly. Both parties should easily know how a watch is processed at the RSC. With this 'possible' waiting time, one way is that both can arrange to meet a second time at the RSC w/o going to the counter to collect the watch first. So it is only fair that both parties are informed at the same time if the watch is of expectations.

Another way may be to arrange with the RSC staff to SMS-notice both parties at the same time that the watch is ready and to only produce the watch at the counter when both parties have arrived. And of course, in some cases where time is of essence where either one party or even both can't afford the wait, trust comes in.

[novaol]

I agree with Oceanklassik, RSC will take the contact information from the buyer and not the seller and if the collection is done the next day, you could inform the seller to go with you if you are not confident. But usually this is not necessary as mentioned by DarkAngel. Communication are key so if you are really keen and that the watch can be verified as stated and you are sure the seller in forum are always ready to assist, chances are, you will get a good authentic watch you gonna buy.

[triton]

it is not RSC responsibility to deal with both parties. RSC only deal with the person who 'registered' the watch. in this case, if it is buyer, then buyer can simply collect the watch without paying the seller. buyer is unlikely to part money before being authenticated. in this case, it is the seller who will lose out.

with RSC doing this, informing owner of the watch that authentication requires few hours, they are indirectly telling consumers dont send in the watch for authentication. why? this is because, it is taking time away from the technician to do actual servicing of watches. unless they have 1 technician to do authentication only, would consumers be willing to pay the high cost? will a technician want to spend whole day doing authentication?

as more and more consumers serve the internet and get more updated information and gain additional knowledge, the things they look out for gets more and more. in the past, authentication is probably few and far in between, buyers trust the shop owner or end user. now with so many cases of fraud, many end up wanting to play it safe.

recently i wanted to buy a rolex from a forum member. both of us met @ RSC, they told me that authentication takes 1-2 hours. i said ok. send in the watch. i took a calculated risk because i have done my homework on seller and watch in concern. how i did it? use the forum tools and knowledge to your advantage.

i paid the seller and collected the watch 2 hours later authenticated.

[Alexlow]

I usually send in the watch to authenticate, take down seller's IC no/ name/ address, pay him the cash and collect later.

[skanps]

Thanks everyone for the very useful input.

It seems that the usual practice now would be:

1. Buyer and Seller to meet at RSC
2. Buyer do an inspection of the watch based on his knowledge
3. If Buyer finds it ok, then both proceed to RSC reception for authentication. However, the authentication will be done in the Buyer's name as opposed to the Seller's name
4. Buyer then obtain the Service Request from from RSC and pays the seller
5. Buyer collect the watch, say, a few hours later or even on the next day in the absence of the Seller.

Is that the usual practice now? If it is, is it reasonable for the Seller to oblige to the Buyer's request to let him take down his particulars such as Name, IC No, Address, etc? What if the Seller refuse?

It is quite true that if the Seller agrees to an authentication, he's confident that it'll "pass the test". However, if the Seller himself got the watch from someone earlier and he didn't have it authenticated, and believing that it is authentic and on-sell it subsequently, then this "New Buyer buying the Seller" thing is not really working as expected as this Buyer dealing with an innocent Seller here.

I know most Sellers are honest but I might sound really overly concerned (I know someone may just tell me to buy from AD lah, so Kiasu...)but we are not taking about few tens $ and I believe Seller would also prefer to have a hassle free transaction; rather than afterwards the Buyer telling giving him expected surprise after the authentication though he is genuinely innocent cause he also bought from someone else. The worst thing that can then happen to the Buyer would be when he contacts the Seller, the Seller saying "sorry, I can't do anything. I bought it from xxxx and he guaranteed it to be authentic. Perhpahs I can give your xxx's number so you chase after him?"

It therefore seems that the best way would be both Buyer and Seller meet 2 times:

1. Together to send the watch to RSC for authentication, (but in this case, the Seller has to trust the Buyer to register the service in the Buyer's name)
2. Together to collect the watch from RSC after authentication then Buyer pays Seller.

Really sorry that I might have made it too complicated and sound too kiasu but please bear with me that I've not transacted before and I'm just hoping to see if there are easier and workable ways to protect both parties from unnecessary controversy or hassle. Afterall, we're in a hobby to enjoy and be happy, and no one want to run into the reverse.

Again, my apology if I sound too naive....

Cheers!

[pegasi]

My preferred practice:

Buyer & Seller send in and collect the watch together.
Buyer inspects the watch to his satisfaction and according to seller's presentation.
Buyer pays for the authentication fee.
Buyer pays the seller for watch upon collection of the watch -> this is because until the authentication is complete, one is not sure if 100% (i.e. all parts) of the watch are authentic.

In this arrangement, under whose name should the watch be sent in is not important and can be agreed between buyer & seller, but the seller should keep the receipt/acknowledgement letter for the collection of the watch since he is not yet paid.

Note that all parts are authentic is not equal to all parts are correct to that particular model -> this is usually a concern only for vintage rolex.

[triton]

ideally, it is best both buyer and seller meet twice.

let me try to be devil's advocate here. receipt issue in buyer's name. buyer without paying the seller, collects the watch first without the seller. this is because RSC still contact the person whose name is on the receipt, RSC deem the person as the owner of the watch when registering.

now, receipt issue in buyer's name. seller keep receipt. buyer can still collect the watch without receipt. RSC will require NRIC and photocopy NRIC as proof of collection.

in this case, my preferred process to safeguard both parties to its best. both meet and agree to deal. seller registers the watch for authentication. seller keep receipt. buyer and seller meet again when collecting watch. buyer pays seller agreed price + authentication fees.

if buyer flaks out, seller is still ahead. receipt in seller name. watch in seller hands. just pass on the authentication fee to the next buyer. however, the next buyer can say authentication done before no guarantee. so seller can decide what to do next.

[triton]

i have merge previous discussion on authentication for rolex together.

[triton]

vintage watches servicing @ RSC is now really a pain. a lot of new policies in place.

Note that all parts are authentic is not equal to all parts are correct to that particular model -> this is usually a concern only for vintage rolex.

[pegasi]

receipt issue in buyer's name. seller keep receipt. buyer can still collect the watch without receipt. RSC will require NRIC and photocopy NRIC as proof of collection.

That I didn't know. If so I agree with you that it's better to send in the watch under seller's name (but buyer pays).

[Alexlow]

That I didn't know. If so I agree with you that it's better to send in the watch under seller's name (but buyer pays).

My experience told me otherwise, only the person holding the reciept can collect the watch, iregards of the name on the reciept. In another word, it's like a cash cheque, u lost the reciept, u lost the watch.

[3kingdom]

My experience told me otherwise, only the person holding the reciept can collect the watch, iregards of the name on the reciept. In another word, it's like a cash cheque, u lost the reciept, u lost the watch.

You are correct. Collect watch with the official receipt/paper, no identification check (I/C).

[skanps]

Thanks once again for all the input.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I think there are 2 purposes to send to RSC for authentication:

1. Obviously, the most important one is to authenticate the watch is a genuine Rolex; and
2. To enter the owner's name into RSC's database such that in future if the watch is lost, the owner can file a police report and inform Rolex about a stolen/lost watch.

If the receipt is in the Seller's name, then it serves only the first purpose but not the second. Only when it is in the Buyer's name then can both purpose be served?

So would it be a better practice as follow:

1. Buyer and Seller to meet twice - send to RSC and collection, together; and
2. Buyer to pay and receipt be in Buyer's name but held by the Seller before payment is received.

But then the downside is, if the authentication result is not satisfactory, RSC's record will reflect Buyer's (though transaction fallen through) as the owner though Seller still keep the watch.

Seems like there's no perfect way?

[triton]

to rolex, the name that appears with the watch bears no implication. why?

if i have a rolex watch. i ask my AD to send it in for me. the watch is registered in the AD name. it does not mean the watch belongs to hour glass.

no really no perfect way. go authenticate outside RSC. so long as seller and buyer are comfortable with technician who is going to authenticate the watch.

i have done that before.