UNIONmagazine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:30 pmIf I understood the French gentleman who spoke to me on the phone earlier today correctly they opened, dried, cleaned and re-sealed the watch before pressure testing.

Hardly scientific.

UNIONmagazine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:30 pm

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:14 pm Lots of people getting all bent out of shape, but the OP has stated that his watch was pressure tested and with no fault found. That would take the situation outside of a warranty repair or replacement and place the cost squarely on the OP. Those are the facts as stated. This is now one persons word against another, in effect.

Whether or not CW decide to offer any goodwill gesture is another matter entirely and the merits of doing so could be discussed endlessly, but if CW are right and the watch passes the pressure test, they are not wrong to refuse a replacement or repair to their cost.

If I understood the French gentleman who spoke to me on the phone earlier today correctly they opened, dried, cleaned and re-sealed the watch before pressure testing.

Hardly scientific.

stefs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:41 pm

UNIONmagazine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:28 pm

stefs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 pm Would it not be difficult to carry out a pressure test on a watch full of water?
Surely they wouldn’t have dried it out and resealed it prior to testing. If I had been the OP I would certainly have liked tohave seen the pressure test carried out for my own peace of mind.

This was a point I was making to the CW Head of Product Design. The watch they pressure tested had been opened up, cleaned and dried out and I would assume re-sealed. How is a test at this point of any relevance to the watch that was on my wrist in the water three weeks earlier?

I am completely with you on this one.
How can it possibly be a reliable assessment of the watch when you had it?
Feels to me you are forced into a corner where it is your word v cw. I do really sympathise with your position and I know how angry I would feel and I am sure most others would feel the same if they were brutally honest.

Chris if you see this do the right thing for this fella

Their justification for the charge is that there are some small marks on the bracelet that render the guarantee void.

EddieTheBeast wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm I've just read the first post again for facts/clues I find this odd:

Their justification for the charge is that there are some small marks on the bracelet that render the guarantee void.

Did CW really give this as a reason for the watch not being covered under warranty? No mention at this time that it was because the watch passed the pressure test!

EddieTheBeast wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm I've just read the first post again for facts/clues I find this odd:

Their justification for the charge is that there are some small marks on the bracelet that render the guarantee void.

Did CW really give this as a reason for the watch not being covered under warranty? No mention at this time that it was because the watch passed the pressure test!

groovin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:32 pm Although I somehow find it impossible for CW to have given the above reasons for not replacing the watch and somehow this whole story seems to miss some important narrative between the OP and CW I can definitely relate to the water resistance issue with the C65 and can imagine it happening without any mistakes in crown manipulation.

Exactly the same thing happened to me as just one "small part" of a replacement saga with a C65 with other manufacturing defects.
For context see link below:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=52396

Now regarding the water resistance issue I had the watch at the beach and did wear it in shallow water once with the crown being 100% pushed in while the outside climate during the rest of the weekend that I was wearing it was very humid.

Pictures below show how the watch started to develop fog/humidity on the inside of the dial.
After the watch was sent in for replacement because of the other issues when mentioning the issue with the watch getting foggy and raising my concern with why this happened and asking what will happen to the watch (wanted to prevent anyone else getting it as part of some sale) I was told the situation can not be replicated by CW and that the matter was settled.

IMG_20190728_154801.jpgIMG_20190728_154805.jpg

UNIONmagazine wrote:

welshlad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:32 pm My take on this situation is:

If the watch failed a pressure test when CW received it, then they should put it right under warranty. Probably a replacement watch, as so many internal parts, not just the movement, will have been contaminated by seawater.

If the watch passed a pressure test when CW received it, then the most likely explanation for the water damage is that the crown was left pulled open when the watch was immersed in the sea. The OP may dispute that, and indeed may not realise that it had happened, but that would be the most likely cause. In that situation, CW would be within its rights to not pay for the repair, as the user did not follow the instructions in the user manual. However, it may decide to fix it anyway as a gesture of goodwill, or meet half of the cost, etc. That will be for them to decide.

What we don't know is the crucial info of whether the watch passed the pressure test. If a pressure test was not carried out before CW disassembled the watch (if they have already) then my personal view is that CW will have to assume it was a manufacturing defect and sort out the issue for the customer under warranty.

Surely that's fair and reasonable? If not, any user who damages a watch by not ensuring the crown is closed (or, for another example, by pressing pushers on chronographs under the water) will expect to get their watch repaired free of charge, which then will just mean that watch prices will go up and all of us end up paying, even those of us who follow the instructions or never take their watches near water. That seems unfair to me. But I accept that other people will see it differently.

For clarity the crown was not pushed out. In actual fact the watch is uncomfortable to wear with the crown pushed out as it digs into the back of my hand.

However, CW claim to have pressure tested the watch and cannot find a fault. They have the faulty water damaged watch and my money and are seemingly reluctant to offer a replacement, let alone the refund I am seeking. I happen to believe that the potential damage caused to their reputation as a "luxury" watch-maker would easily exceed the cost of issuing a refund.

The whole episode is one massive dissapointment to me. As I've stated, I loved the watch. If anyone can recommend a suitable replacement Divers Watch at the £1000 price point I'm all ears.

UNIONmagazine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:09 pm

EddieTheBeast wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:32 pm I've just read the first post again for facts/clues I find this odd:

Their justification for the charge is that there are some small marks on the bracelet that render the guarantee void.

Did CW really give this as a reason for the watch not being covered under warranty? No mention at this time that it was because the watch passed the pressure test!

No mention of a pressure test until this afternoon while chatting to the Head of Product Design on the phone.

Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:36 am @UNIONmagazine - curious as the how you got to speak with the Head of Product Development (presumably Adrian Buchmann).

Surely your issue is with customer service and, if you are not able to get a satisfactory response from them or their manager, then perhaps you ought to speak with the ultimate head of CS, who is Mike France.

Just a thought.

Guy

Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk