Thanks for the clarification.UNIONmagazine wrote: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.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.
Guy
Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk