earl_fabella1981 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:25 pm I had the same problem and im updating the forum, i sent it out in may of 2021, i have yet to receive it, they stated it was in their shop being attended to by one of their technicians and would be giving me a heads up as to when they'd be sending the watch back to me. Which of course damage was not covered under warranty and i had to pay for repairs out of pocket. This is was my first and last purchase with this company.

This seems unreasonable. A dive watch is meant to be in the water. A dive watch that fills with water is defective and should be covered under warranty. What am I missing?

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:52 pm

earl_fabella1981 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:25 pm I had the same problem and im updating the forum, i sent it out in may of 2021, i have yet to receive it, they stated it was in their shop being attended to by one of their technicians and would be giving me a heads up as to when they'd be sending the watch back to me. Which of course damage was not covered under warranty and i had to pay for repairs out of pocket. This is was my first and last purchase with this company.

This seems unreasonable. A dive watch is meant to be in the water. A dive watch that fills with water is defective and should be covered under warranty. What am I missing?

My best guess is that they they pressure tested the watch when received and it passed. This means the crown was open some when exposed to water or at some time when submerged. That would not be a warranty issue. The owner is then responsible for repairs. If it failed then CW would assume responsibility I presume.

Kip wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 10:42 pm

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 8:52 pm

earl_fabella1981 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 1:25 pm I had the same problem and im updating the forum, i sent it out in may of 2021, i have yet to receive it, they stated it was in their shop being attended to by one of their technicians and would be giving me a heads up as to when they'd be sending the watch back to me. Which of course damage was not covered under warranty and i had to pay for repairs out of pocket. This is was my first and last purchase with this company.

This seems unreasonable. A dive watch is meant to be in the water. A dive watch that fills with water is defective and should be covered under warranty. What am I missing?

My best guess is that they they pressure tested the watch when received and it passed. This means the crown was open some when exposed to water or at some time when submerged. That would not be a warranty issue. The owner is then responsible for repairs. If it failed then CW would assume responsibility I presume.

This makes sense.
Edit:
However, if I was certain that the crown was closed (I always double check before swimming), I would want proof of the pressure test and the results.

It sounds like a communication issue as much as anything else. If CW performed some sort of pressure test on the watch (of which there are several, and not all would work if there’s already moisture in the case), then I’m a little stumped as to why such a simple explanation wasn’t clearly articulated. Why not state: “we tested your watch to 150m using method…whatever, and the watch passed. This indicates the seals are operating per specifications, and water ingress must have been from user error.”

Such an explanation wouldn’t take the sting out of a repair bill, but it would at least remove much of this speculation. I had a similar issue with my Omega Speedmaster Racing Chronograph. Omega explained they had tested the watch (I don’t remember the method, but it was included in the explanation) and the watch had passed. Thus, Swatch Group US concluded the chrono pushers or crown had been operated under water. The crown and chrono pushers hadn’t been used submerged to the best of my recollection, but I could at least understand how SGUS came to such a conclusion.

Unless part of the communication from CW to the watch owner has been left out of the story in this situation, lack of a forthcoming explanation is an issue. It’s not a good practice for a company to leave it to an owner’s imagination why he or she is getting stuck with a stiff repair bill.

JeremyS wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:56 pm It sounds like a communication issue as much as anything else…. Unless part of the communication from CW to the watch owner has been left out of the story in this situation, lack of a forthcoming explanation is an issue. It’s not a good practice for a company to leave it to an owner’s imagination why he or she is getting stuck with a stiff repair bill.

Excellent point! I don’t mind paying a bill as long as I understand what exactly it’s for and why I’m paying it.

This reminds of when my health insurance once denied a dental procedure. My ex called to complain/inquire, and they simply said “it’s not covered,” with no further explanation. Quick follow up to the dentist to see exactly what was denied, then a quick follow up with the actual list of covered procedures revealed it WAS covered! Follow on call to the insurer to raise this point led to the CS rep saying to have the dentist resubmit and they’d pay. When the ex inquired as to why it was denied the first time, the rep actually said they routinely deny covered items, knowing most people don’t bother following up. The take away from all this? Always ask for an detailed explanation!

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:26 pm

JeremyS wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:56 pm It sounds like a communication issue as much as anything else…. Unless part of the communication from CW to the watch owner has been left out of the story in this situation, lack of a forthcoming explanation is an issue. It’s not a good practice for a company to leave it to an owner’s imagination why he or she is getting stuck with a stiff repair bill.

Excellent point! I don’t mind paying a bill as long as I understand what exactly it’s for and why I’m paying it.

This reminds of when my health insurance once denied a dental procedure. My ex called to complain/inquire, and they simply said “it’s not covered,” with no further explanation. Quick follow up to the dentist to see exactly what was denied, then a quick follow up with the actual list of covered procedures revealed it WAS covered! Follow on call to the insurer to raise this point led to the CS rep saying to have the dentist resubmit and they’d pay. When the ex inquired as to why it was denied the first time, the rep actually said they routinely deny covered items, knowing most people don’t bother following up. The take away from all this? Always ask for an detailed explanation!

That company would incur a hefty fine if the department of insurance knew about it. It’s an illegal and despicable practice. For an insurance company of course. I doubt manufacturers and warranties are regulated much if at all.

Clach77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:17 am

Amor Vincit Omnia wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:11 am I would also like to see the report. My first reaction on hearing a claim of water ingress into a new 600m WR dive watch, after 30 minutes of splashing around in waist high water, would be to ask:

“Did you have the crown screwed in?”

The OP doesn’t mention this either way, but I wouldn’t necessarily take it as a given.

It’s the C65 - it doesn’t have a screw in crown. Still, with 150m WR, it shouldn’t fill with water!

My C65 has a screw down crown, but this one is a GMT C65 so....

Lu.. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:31 pm My C65 has a screw down crown, but this one is a GMT C65 so....

When first released, the C65s didn’t have screw down crowns. my understanding is that’s been changed across the board because of customer demand.

Lu.. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:31 pm

Clach77 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:17 am

Amor Vincit Omnia wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:11 am I would also like to see the report. My first reaction on hearing a claim of water ingress into a new 600m WR dive watch, after 30 minutes of splashing around in waist high water, would be to ask:

“Did you have the crown screwed in?”

The OP doesn’t mention this either way, but I wouldn’t necessarily take it as a given.

It’s the C65 - it doesn’t have a screw in crown. Still, with 150m WR, it shouldn’t fill with water!

My C65 has a screw down crown, but this one is a GMT C65 so....

So... If it didn’t have a screw down crown, it wasn’t user error and it was a manufacturing defect or an engineering flaw and should be covered under warranty. Or am I missing something again?

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:06 pm So... If it didn’t have a screw down crown, it wasn’t user error and it was a manufacturing defect or an engineering flaw and should be covered under warranty. Or am I missing something again?

Why do you say that? It still could have easily been user error if the user had inadvertently pulled the crown out. Not out of the question when swimming.

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:16 pm

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:06 pm So... If it didn’t have a screw down crown, it wasn’t user error and it was a manufacturing defect or an engineering flaw and should be covered under warranty. Or am I missing something again?

Why do you say that? It still could have easily been user error if the user had inadvertently pulled the crown out. Not out of the question when swimming.

If the crown of a dive watch can be inadvertently pulled while swimming and result in water ingress, there is an engineering flaw. If that were my watch I would be very disappointed.

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:34 pm

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:16 pm

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:06 pm So... If it didn’t have a screw down crown, it wasn’t user error and it was a manufacturing defect or an engineering flaw and should be covered under warranty. Or am I missing something again?

Why do you say that? It still could have easily been user error if the user had inadvertently pulled the crown out. Not out of the question when swimming.

If the crown of a dive watch can be inadvertently pulled while swimming and result in water ingress, there is an engineering flaw. If that were my watch I would be very disappointed.

Not an engineering flaw. A pull-out crown needs to be able to be pulled out without breaking your fingernails or scraping and bruising your fingertips. It was a design choice to make these pull out rather than screw down.

My C65 crown has accidentally pulled out while pulling my hand out of my pocket, a couple times. I personally wouldn’t risk swimming with a watch without a screw down crown, because I might accidentally bump it or catch it and pull it out. That would be on me.

I take my C60 trident 600s with me while swimming. And still double check before going in that the crown is fully screwed in.

ajax87 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:09 pm

Surf609nj wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:34 pm

jkbarnes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:16 pm

Why do you say that? It still could have easily been user error if the user had inadvertently pulled the crown out. Not out of the question when swimming.

If the crown of a dive watch can be inadvertently pulled while swimming and result in water ingress, there is an engineering flaw. If that were my watch I would be very disappointed.

Not an engineering flaw. A pull-out crown needs to be able to be pulled out without breaking your fingernails or scraping and bruising your fingertips. It was a design choice to make these pull out rather than screw down.

My C65 crown has accidentally pulled out while pulling my hand out of my pocket, a couple times. I personally wouldn’t risk swimming with a watch without a screw down crown, because I might accidentally bump it or catch it and pull it out. That would be on me.

I take my C60 trident 600s with me while swimming. And still double check before going in that the crown is fully screwed in.

I concur. There may not be an engineering flaw with the pull out crown, but it is a design flaw to use a pull out crown for a dive watch. I would still be upset if it were my watch, but whether or not the manufacturer should cover the repair under warranty is a gray area.
Edit
Granted that the watch passed the pressure test upon inspection and the manufacturer shared this with the customer.

Will never take my C65 Dartmouth near water far less in it. I don’t trust push in crowns.

I wore my Mk1 C65 Trident Vintage in the ocean and regularly in a pool SOLELY because it has a acre down crown. It would be another story with a push crown.