Deposit Before Authentification

[bigbrudder]

Hi, what is the norm regarding deposit before authentification? Up to half?

Is there a difference if the watch is 'crack open' for the first time by RSC?

Thanks for reply

[bigbrudder]

Deposit Before Authentification

Hi, like to know what is the norm regarding payment of deposit before authentification. Up to half of price?

Is there such a thing as crack open for first time by RSC, therefore not 'original' anymore? Noob, sounds 'unusual' ...

[triton]

if you are asking whether a buyer should pay the seller up to 50% of the agreed transacted price prior to going to RSC for authentication, then it depends whether a written agreement stating amount received, buyer and seller name and NRIC.

if the watch is authentic, i dont see why the seller will need a deposit. however, if the seller request the authentication fee, i would not mind giving. provided that either i trust the seller and hand over the amount without any agreement or a written agreement between buyer and seller bearing both parties' names & NRIC and amount paid and agreed transacted price.

i know of a seller who did this in the forum.

[bigbrudder]

I understand that it is the norm for buyer to pay for authentication fee, but was a bit stumped when asked to pay deposit, esp up to 50% of transaction price. Money handed over is as good as gone if the authentication turns out negative.

if you are asking whether a buyer should pay the seller up to 50% of the agreed transacted price prior to going to RSC for authentication, then it depends whether a written agreement stating amount received, buyer and seller name and NRIC.

if the watch is authentic, i dont see why the seller will need a deposit. however, if the seller request the authentication fee, i would not mind giving. provided that either i trust the seller and hand over the amount without any agreement or a written agreement between buyer and seller bearing both parties' names & NRIC and amount paid and agreed transacted price.

i know of a seller who did this in the forum.

[Oceanklassik]

This is subjective. Whatever the arrangement/agreement is depends on both parties. If you are comfortable with 50% of payment, then go ahead. If not, then re-negotiate. Sometimes, it may be due to the seller's past, unpleasant experiences that resulted in such a request. If still can't come to terms, then call if off. No one loses anything.

[jieming]

If the watch is Brand new. The seller may want some assurance from the buyer, in case the buyer reject the goods even it is authentic. The seller would be left with an "opened" watch which should not consider brand new condition.

But this is an agreement between seller and buyer, if the buyer do not feel comfortable, it is up to him to neg or walk away.

[bigbrudder]

That's another point to get some views on. Is there any difference if a new watch is 'opened' for inspection? Objectively speaking ... Unless there is something irreversible ... If it is inspected by RSC, it is almost like going to factory for 2nd inspection.

If the buyer is willing to pay to have the watch authenticated (which is most of the case), what is the seller worried about? The buyer will have more to loose if the seller walks away after the paper work is completed.

If the watch is Brand new. The seller may want some assurance from the buyer, in case the buyer reject the goods even it is authentic. The seller would be left with an "opened" watch which should not consider brand new condition.

But this is an agreement between seller and buyer, if the buyer do not feel comfortable, it is up to him to neg or walk away.

[pegasi]

"Is there a difference if the watch is 'crack open' for the first time by RSC?"

I think depends on who you ask, and if the watch is brand new. If the watch is brand new, it may matter to some. Some may say that even the technicians from the official service centre can cause scratches to the watch in the process of opening/disassembling a watch for repair/authentication.

But to ask for 50% deposit is too much. A fairer practice imo is to ask the buyer to pay the authentication charge (which is refundable only if the watch is not authentic) when sending in the watch.

Once upon a time, some brand new watches like omega's have a red dot seal on the back case to indicate that the case hasn't been opened before - perhaps something more relevant in the modern days when reselling of watches are very common?

[Oceanklassik]

That's another point to get some views on. Is there any difference if a new watch is 'opened' for inspection? Objectively speaking ... Unless there is something irreversible ... If it is inspected by RSC, it is almost like going to factory for 2nd inspection.

If the buyer is willing to pay to have the watch authenticated (which is most of the case), what is the seller worried about? The buyer will have more to loose if the seller walks away after the paper work is completed.

I disagree on this. What happens if after authenticating is done and the buyer pulls out of the deal? So what even if the buyer pays for the fee? If nothing happens, well and good. What if the technician accidentally causes a scratch on the watch while authenticating and upon seeing this, the buyer doesn't want to honor the deal anymore? Who stands to lose more in such a circumstance?

I have come across a case where the technician, while authenticating a watch, urged for it to be serviced and quoted few hundred dollars. Upon learning this, the buyer didn't want to honor the deal unless the seller bear the cost of servicing. Is this fair to the seller?

Best is to communicate properly and come to a certain agreement before meeting up. Otherwise no point.

[Ender]

....I have come across a case where the technician, while authenticating a watch, urged for it to be serviced and quoted few hundred dollars. Upon learning this, the buyer didn't want to honor the deal unless the seller bear the cost of servicing. Is this fair to the seller?
...

yeeep, i kenna this before. what to do? suck thumb, learn frm mistake, put 'buyer' on blacklist.

[Keith8896]

I have come across a case where the technician, while authenticating a watch, urged for it to be serviced and quoted few hundred dollars. Upon learning this, the buyer didn't want to honor the deal unless the seller bear the cost of servicing. Is this fair to the seller?

This type of buyer i met before.
LL, buyer ask for lower price to help cover the service cost. I pay 60% he pay 40%.

After I agreed, since both make our way down to Richemont.
Deal closed, but buyer walk away without sending it for service.
Have a kind of cheated feeling.

[bigbrudder]

If it is proven that the RSC technician damaged it, then RSC should know what to do. In any case, the buyer is always at the losing end: 1) pay for authetication; 2) pay for the watch; and 3) bear risk of undiscovered damages after transaction.

As for any goods, once the goods is out of the AD, whatever the condition, it is not new.

The irreversible things may include damaged waterproof seal, scratches on lugs when removing bracelet and scratches on caseback thread when opening caseback, any other scratch on case and bracelet
All avoidable in the hands of a skilled technician

[bigbrudder]

For the first case, shouldn't the technician be responsible? For the second case, the seller should communicate to the buyer that the condition is not new and warrant work, and such cost to be priced in. If the watch is priced for good condition and it turned out not to be, the buyer will feel cheated.

I disagree on this. What happens if after authenticating is done and the buyer pulls out of the deal? So what even if the buyer pays for the fee? If nothing happens, well and good. What if the technician accidentally causes a scratch on the watch while authenticating and upon seeing this, the buyer doesn't want to honor the deal anymore? Who stands to lose more in such a circumstance?

I have come across a case where the technician, while authenticating a watch, urged for it to be serviced and quoted few hundred dollars. Upon learning this, the buyer didn't want to honor the deal unless the seller bear the cost of servicing. Is this fair to the seller?

Best is to communicate properly and come to a certain agreement before meeting up. Otherwise no point.

[triton]

I would say RSC technician is responsible, what can they do? polish the watch for you for free. even if it is free, would the original owner of watch be happy?

when we hand over our watch to RSC or any technician, we expect them to handle with certain level of care. but one has to understand the mentality of these technicians, if their mentality is scratch can polish and owner of the watch is those who is extreme careful type who prefers watch nto to be polished, i think there might be a problem.

[Oceanklassik]

I would say RSC technician is responsible, what can they do? polish the watch for you for free. even if it is free, would the original owner of watch be happy?

when we hand over our watch to RSC or any technician, we expect them to handle with certain level of care. but one has to understand the mentality of these technicians, if their mentality is scratch can polish and owner of the watch is those who is extreme careful type who prefers watch nto to be polished, i think there might be a problem.

Exactly!