My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
User avatar
A1soknownas
Guru
Guru
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:40 pm

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by A1soknownas »

Shall I delete my reply...Ha.

It's back. Proof of the lack or waterproof.
User avatar
welshlad
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8486
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:33 am
CW-watches: 12
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by welshlad »

Easy guys, don't jump to conclusions! The OP edited his first post to include a picture, which then put it back in the queue to be approved as it is one of his first 5 posts, hence why it disappeared for a bit. It's back now.
CWL C3 | C60 Ombre | C60 #tide | C63 Elite | C63 GMT | C65 Chrono | C65 SC | C65 SH21 | C70 | C8 | C8PR | C15
Omega Speedy | AT8500 | AT2500 | PO Ti Rolex Exp | Sub Zenith EP1969
Seiko 55 Fathoms Citizen Promaster Vratislavia S6 Luch 1Hand
jtc
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3838
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:50 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by jtc »

Sounds like poor (or none at all) QC. I'd return for a refund; you're entitled under UK consumer law.
Jon

Trusted Seller Feedback

CW | Tudor | Tag Heuer | Omega | Longines | Halios | Oris
User avatar
Bahnstormer_vRS
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 28170
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:06 pm
CW-watches: 25
LE-three: 1
LE-foura: 1
LE-fourb: 1
LE-six: 1
Location: Hertfordshire, UK

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by Bahnstormer_vRS »

UNIONmagazine wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:10 pm
welshlad wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:47 am Something doesn't add up here or, perhaps, has been misunderstood.

I wonder if the OP could post a picture of the communication from CW about the reason for the charge and marks on the bracelet etc.
"We have received the C65 vintage GMT you sent back to us for an exchange.

Unfortunately, we cannot authorize an exchange for the watch as it is showing obvious signs of wear as it has heavy scratching on the bracelet and light scratching on the case back, the plastic covers for the dial, case back and bracelet were not attached either.

The 60 day return policy for either a refund or replacement states that the watch must be returned in box new condition as well as being returned within the 60-day purchase period. Because it does not meet our requirements we cannot authorize the exchange.

My colleague will be in touch with an update in regards to a quote for your repair as soon as possible."
UNIONmagazine wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:14 pm Hi, I received two emails. One informing that that that watch had two many scratches to be fixed under warranty and a second email informing of the cost of repairs.
Welcome to the forum. Hope you stick around and have some fun, once you have the situation with your C65 GMT resolved.


Its difficult to know what to advise you as I am confused, by the two contradictory statements highlighted in bold from your quoted posts.

In the second, you appear to be expecting a repair under warranty, but in the first CW appear to be suggesting you are simply asking for an exchange under the 60/60.

You have added a useful photo of the watch in its 'contaminated' condition. Did you send it to CW in this condition?

Guy
C1 GBT| C4&W7 BBMF| C5 BOB LE| C5 FLE| C7 Apex| C7 MkI 47AD| C7 MkII Harrier
C8 Reg LE| C8 M2.04 LE| C8 Al Deere| C9 FLE| C9 Me109 SPC LE| C11 Mak Navy| C40
C60 FLEx2| C60 Bronze GMT| C60 AbyssSH21-Apex-Blue-Chrono-Concept-Elite P'type |C65 AMGT 2VEV
User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine »

Mikkei4 wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:53 am It's good to hear from new members as we were all a new member at 1 time so welcome to the OP, UNIONmagazine.

I've definitely said this before but it's a real shame that several recent first time posters only seem to write on here when a problem arises.

So I'd like to understand why having looked into CW for some time then buying 1 of their watches a few months ago the OP hasn't written an introduction or an "I've just bought this excellent CW watch" type of first post before this "problem" first post. If on purchase of the C65 the OP had introduced themselves and the new watch I think it less likely that there would be some suspicion mooted regarding the issue of the faulty watch and CW's pathetic response (if true or not misunderstood by CW or the OP). Maybe even a photo of the damaged watch prior to returning it to CW as a "warning" to other purchasers of a potential range problem?

This would give some insight into what people consider this Forum to be.

If there is anybody working in CW stupid enough to give such a response to a customer then they should not be working for CW any longer. If the CW staff member "misunderstood" the problem or thought this was being returned for a refund then they require some additional training and direction from the owners. If this post if true then I feel very sorry for the OP and suggest as others have that the next communication is verbal by phone and then follow it up by an email giving a rough transcript of both sides of the conversation and ask CW to provide their invoice and reasons for not repairing this under warranty in writing on Company headed paper.

To UNIONmagazine - I'm sure we'd all like to hear more from you and your response to the posts so far.
Hi, I have been responding to people as they respond to my original post. I think, as a new member, my responses have to be moderated so they are taking a short while to appear. Understandable.

I suppose, in response to your point about first time posters sharing problems rather than user experiences, may well be because had the watch performed as expected I wouldn't have been trawling the internet looking for other CW owners to (hopefully) garbner some useful advice from. Apologies if I have continued a trend of first time negative posts.
User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine »

Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:49 pm
UNIONmagazine wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:10 pm
welshlad wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:47 am Something doesn't add up here or, perhaps, has been misunderstood.

I wonder if the OP could post a picture of the communication from CW about the reason for the charge and marks on the bracelet etc.
"We have received the C65 vintage GMT you sent back to us for an exchange.

Unfortunately, we cannot authorize an exchange for the watch as it is showing obvious signs of wear as it has heavy scratching on the bracelet and light scratching on the case back, the plastic covers for the dial, case back and bracelet were not attached either.

The 60 day return policy for either a refund or replacement states that the watch must be returned in box new condition as well as being returned within the 60-day purchase period. Because it does not meet our requirements we cannot authorize the exchange.

My colleague will be in touch with an update in regards to a quote for your repair as soon as possible."
UNIONmagazine wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:14 pm Hi, I received two emails. One informing that that that watch had two many scratches to be fixed under warranty and a second email informing of the cost of repairs.
Welcome to the forum. Hope you stick around and have some fun, once you have the situation with your C65 GMT resolv

I didn't mean to give the impression I was after a repair. I expected to be offered one but as soon as the watch became water damaged I did not want it back repaired. It was a replacement I was after from the start.


Its difficult to know what to advise you as I am confused, by the two contradictory statements highlighted in bold from your quoted posts.

In the second, you appear to be expecting a repair under warranty, but in the first CW appear to be suggesting you are simply asking for an exchange under the 60/60.

You have added a useful photo of the watch in its 'contaminated' condition. Did you send it to CW in this condition?

Guy
DavecUK
Expert
Expert
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:10 pm

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by DavecUK »

I think expecting an exchange after a few months and wearing in the sea is not reasonable. Had you had a problem with the watch, identified it, not worn it, then yes. e.g. if it was a wet day and the watch arrived with condensation in it.
User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine »

DavecUK wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:29 pm I think expecting an exchange after a few months and wearing in the sea is not reasonable. Had you had a problem with the watch, identified it, not worn it, then yes. e.g. if it was a wet day and the watch arrived with condensation in it.
With respect I completely disagree. A £1000 diver's watch advertised to be water resisitant up to 150metres leaking water the first time it touches water is unacceptable.
User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine »

jtc wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:13 pm Sounds like poor (or none at all) QC. I'd return for a refund; you're entitled under UK consumer law.
Hopefully you are correct about being protected under UK/EU consumer laws. I might have a few days off next week so will investigate further.
Mikkei4
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:20 pm
CW-watches: 0

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by Mikkei4 »

Thanks to the OP and A1soknownas for their comments and perspective of when and how they became aware of and then posted on the Forum.

I could be wrong here (as I am a bit confused) but it looks to me that there's some misunderstanding between CW CS staff and the OP on what each are expecting to be done.

What did UNIONmagazine originally ask for ? a replacement/exchange due to the short length of time (how many months prior was it actually purchased?) he had the watch when the fault happened? Or a repair under warranty?

If a replacement/exchange was requested then seems the CW staff member has gone into "can't do that as it's obvious it's been worn as can be seen from the numerous scratches" but has then not considered or seen that there is an actual quality and specification fault to be fixed under warranty and so has quoted for a repair outside of warranty cover.

If I was sitting in a managerial position in CW CS I'd take a view of retaining the customer rather than playing hardball and send a new watch unit on the original bracelet back to UNIONmagazine with an appropriately worded letter stating why they've done this, e.g. goodwill or whatever they want to say, as obviously there has been water ingress into a watch that has a stated sufficient WR to cope with the depth of water where it was used.

As I've said before better to speak to (not email) somebody to confirm what has been understood as the fault and take it on from there.
Mikkei4
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:20 pm
CW-watches: 0

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by Mikkei4 »

UNIONmagazine wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:42 pm
DavecUK wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:29 pm I think expecting an exchange after a few months and wearing in the sea is not reasonable. Had you had a problem with the watch, identified it, not worn it, then yes. e.g. if it was a wet day and the watch arrived with condensation in it.
With respect I completely disagree. A £1000 diver's watch advertised to be water resisitant up to 150metres leaking water the first time it touches water is unacceptable.
How many months is "as few months"? How old was the watch when the water ingress occurred? A few months to me is 3months and if this is so then at CW I would have done as I have said in my previous post. Longer than 3 months it should be fixed under warranty.
Mikkei4
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:20 pm
CW-watches: 0

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by Mikkei4 »

DavecUK wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:29 pm I think expecting an exchange after a few months and wearing in the sea is not reasonable. Had you had a problem with the watch, identified it, not worn it, then yes. e.g. if it was a wet day and the watch arrived with condensation in it.
So should we all dip our new CW divers watches into a bucket of water before we wear them to prove the WR ?
Doesn't condensation sometimes occur then clear without it meaning the WR is not working?
User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine »

Mikkei4 wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:03 pm
UNIONmagazine wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:42 pm
DavecUK wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:29 pm I think expecting an exchange after a few months and wearing in the sea is not reasonable. Had you had a problem with the watch, identified it, not worn it, then yes. e.g. if it was a wet day and the watch arrived with condensation in it.
With respect I completely disagree. A £1000 diver's watch advertised to be water resisitant up to 150metres leaking water the first time it touches water is unacceptable.
How many months is "as few months"? How old was the watch when the water ingress occurred? A few months to me is 3months and if this is so then at CW I would have done as I have said in my previous post. Longer than 3 months it should be fixed under warranty.
The watch was 7 months old when the water damage occured.
User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine »

Mikkei4 wrote: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:54 pm Thanks to the OP and A1soknownas for their comments and perspective of when and how they became aware of and then posted on the Forum.

I could be wrong here (as I am a bit confused) but it looks to me that there's some misunderstanding between CW CS staff and the OP on what each are expecting to be done.

What did UNIONmagazine originally ask for ? a replacement/exchange due to the short length of time (how many months prior was it actually purchased?) he had the watch when the fault happened? Or a repair under warranty?

If a replacement/exchange was requested then seems the CW staff member has gone into "can't do that as it's obvious it's been worn as can be seen from the numerous scratches" but has then not considered or seen that there is an actual quality and specification fault to be fixed under warranty and so has quoted for a repair outside of warranty cover.

If I was sitting in a managerial position in CW CS I'd take a view of retaining the customer rather than playing hardball and send a new watch unit on the original bracelet back to UNIONmagazine with an appropriately worded letter stating why they've done this, e.g. goodwill or whatever they want to say, as obviously there has been water ingress into a watch that has a stated sufficient WR to cope with the depth of water where it was used.

As I've said before better to speak to (not email) somebody to confirm what has been understood as the fault and take it on from there.
Hi, I originally asked for a replacement. I can genuinely say that given the same budget again, I would (have) bought the same watch. It's a beautiful thing. However, my view of the company has taken a tumble over the past week and I'm not so sure my adoration for their brand has persevered.
User avatar
peterh
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:46 am
CW-watches: 7
Location: The Netherlands

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by peterh »

Aaaaand there is the source of the misunderstanding.

Ask them to solve the problem under warranty, rather than for a replacement.
Man with one watch, always know time. Man with many watches, never sure.
(unidentified Chinese philosopher)
Post Reply