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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.