My rolex is not original.How can this happen?

[Darkangel]

maybe hor either rolex themselves make a mistake during manufacturing or ... usually AD wont risk this type of swop, likely hor the SA do some 'Leg Hand' ... more individual involvement than company

No la...rolex no mistake during manufacturing. Coz it was a swap of dials...COULD be the SA

[tomcatf]

If SRC reject the watch, quite sure the MOP dial is not original, it could be those after-market MOP dial. Glad that you have resolve the problem.

Sad to know this happened from a AD.

[Oceanklassik]

We r all receiving hearsay evidences here. I'll stay tune to this episode. Sorry to learn of your plight.

[seiko.citizen]

interesting topic..... maybe the AD involved got some SA here to have their input.

[Oceanklassik]

I will not believe that my rolex is not under warranty because of the swap. Shouldn't all rolex bought from ADs are supposed to be under rolex internationally warranty?

On the other hand, if you produce the papers to rolex, Rolex will not blame the AD you bought from. The reason is no one knows whether the dial is changed by the AD or the buyer... unless Rolex send someone to the AD and catch them selling rolex with after-market dials....

A chain of evidence. Yes, I think this is a serious consideration. The seller can easily shirk responsibility since there was a "vacuum", meaning, suspecting the buyer to meddle with the watch.

[rlx]

Thanks for offering your thoughts. Just to share with you how the retailer positioned himself in the dispute...The retailer insisted that whether the staff changed the dial without disclosing the details or whether the change was carried out upon customer request is not verifiable. Furthermore, the staff who sold me the watch then has resigned. The sales record did not contain sufficient information to support the details of the transaction. This argument was pretty lame. Since I did not intent to bring this case to the court provided there is a satisfactory solution, I didn't probe the retailer further. Moving forward, when making a purchase, you may request the detailed specification of the good to be written down including the discounts when possible...

A chain of evidence. Yes, I think this is a serious consideration. The seller can easily shirk responsibility since there was a "vacuum", meaning, suspecting the buyer to meddle with the watch.

[ohlins]

one good reason to stay away from this retailer then.......

[116520]

You cannot draw into conclusion just based on this thread. It is very unfair for them....

one good reason to stay away from this retailer then.......

[ohlins]

You cannot draw into conclusion just based on this thread. It is very unfair for them....

why not? since nothing much is conclusive, i rather take my business elsewhere..... better be safe than sorry.......

[Oceanklassik]

Thanks for offering your thoughts. Just to share with you how the retailer positioned himself in the dispute...The retailer insisted that whether the staff changed the dial without disclosing the details or whether the change was carried out upon customer request is not verifiable. Furthermore, the staff who sold me the watch then has resigned. The sales record did not contain sufficient information to support the details of the transaction. This argument was pretty lame. Since I did not intent to bring this case to the court provided there is a satisfactory solution, I didn't probe the retailer further. Moving forward, when making a purchase, you may request the detailed specification of the good to be written down including the discounts when possible...

Your sentence "the staff who sold me the watch then has resigned", is very stupid and lame. I don't mean you, but the one who told you this. Sounds deceptive. The staff may jolly well be posted to another branch or lie low for a while. Well, this is verifiable and the staff can be traced easily. It is the company that has to be responsible whether or not the staff has resigned/sacked, whatsoever. If this is not resolved amicably, I feel that you should take it up officially.

Just my thoughts.

[Oceanklassik]

You cannot draw into conclusion just based on this thread. It is very unfair for them....

Well true to a certain extent. Like I mentioned earlier, "hearsay" only. But if this case is blown up, when the victim take it up officially, do you still think people will not draw conclusion? It's a very humanistic response. Eg. you read in the papers that a particular food chain has sold contaminated food and consumers were poisoned. Do you think for the next few days/weeks, even months, you'd ever dare to patronise the food company?? I'm not saying that the complaint here is real/bluff but let's see how it goes.

Thanks for reading.

[ohlins]

If this is not resolved amicably, I feel that you should take it up officially.

to reiterate, the matter is considered "settled" for rlx. pls refer to what he said in the first post.

In the end, I have settled with a brand-new replacement watch (the right model with MOP dial), and topped-up the difference. Well, I don't think this is the best solution but we finally reached the agreement.

[pam1938]

why not? since nothing much is conclusive, i rather take my business elsewhere..... better be safe than sorry.......

I stance is the same and I agree with Ohlins totally.
Perception is more often than not real, Capability is almost always secondary.
If I cannot have the assurance, I would go elsewhere.

[Taurus75]

Everything was perfect until I sent the watch to RSC for servicing. Almost within 24 hours, I was notified the watch was not the original model. The dial has been changed from metal one to MOP. As such, RSC would not service my watch or returned it unless the dial is changed back to metal. According to RSC, there is a master catalog containing all models. The consumer is advised to request a reference from the master catalog when making the purchase. However, how many first-time buyers are as savvy as this?

Thanks for offering your thoughts. Just to share with you how the retailer positioned himself in the dispute...The retailer insisted that whether the staff changed the dial without disclosing the details or whether the change was carried out upon customer request is not verifiable. Furthermore, the staff who sold me the watch then has resigned. The sales record did not contain sufficient information to support the details of the transaction. This argument was pretty lame. Since I did not intent to bring this case to the court provided there is a satisfactory solution, I didn't probe the retailer further. Moving forward, when making a purchase, you may request the detailed specification of the good to be written down including the discounts when possible...

I'm puzzled on RSC's stance on orginality of parts on a particular model when they determine whether to service a Rolex watch or not. If the replacement dial is Rolex authentic dial (although from another model) and it is their own Authorised Distributor (AD) who replaced the dial, shouldn't RSC carry out the servicing as long as u can show proof of purchase from that AD? I mean, in the first place, it is Rolex themselves who appoint their own AD according to their "strict" criteria isn't it? I'm sure as in any exclusive distributorship, Rolex would have prescribed a set of Do's and Don'ts for their ADs to adhere to and if it is their own AD who dabble in such practices, why should consumer answer for their AD's malpractices if RSC believes so strongly that such practices are prohibited to warrant a non-servicing of the consumer's watch itself ? My point is, should the replacing of non-original but authentic Rolex external parts such as dials or bezels by some ADs to spruce up the watch aesthetically considered a prohibitive practice by RSC?? If so, why is it that such practices are still offered by their own ADs in the first place ?
Base on the above argument, i guessed that RSC's refusal to service the watch on the argument of caveat emptor is not justifiable in this case.

[116520]

If it can happen in D****, it can also happen in other ADs...

why not? since nothing much is conclusive, i rather take my business elsewhere..... better be safe than sorry.......