nordwulf wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:26 pm CW doesn't have to so anything for free because the warranty is on the movement only. And clearly, this is not a movement issue and any other parts of the watch do not have a warranty at all.

TimB wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:03 pm From the CW website, quote,
"Although its appearance draws influence from the look of many iconic 1960's dive watches, the C65 Trident GMT's ability to track three separate time zones ensures it's as at home above the clouds as it is comfortable beneath the waves."

So simply put the watch isn't fit for purpose and should be repaired or replaced under guarantee unless there is some small print somewhere excluding usage in water.

I would be seeking trading standards advice if CW are being awkward.

Tim.

jimmbob wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:48 pm Ludicrous behaviour from the "Rolex of the internet". Get trading standards on the case, and if needs be put a public post on their social media.
A dive watch that you can't get wet after 6 months of ownership? Get your pennies back and spend them elsewhere.

DavecUK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm Luxury watch brand divers might well be fine, but why on earth would anyone want to use them in the sea.

DavecUK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm Luxury watch brand divers might well be fine, but why on earth would anyone want to use them in the sea.

Amor Vincit Omnia wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:24 pm

DavecUK wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 1:57 pm Luxury watch brand divers might well be fine, but why on earth would anyone want to use them in the sea.

Probably because that’s what they are designed for.

Lavaine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:36 pm What is going on in this thread? Between the members admonishing the OP for not knowing that he should soak his flooded watch in fresh water (apparently being a watch technician is now a requirement for ownership?), and the people crapping on him for using a divers watch (gasp!) in the ocean, I don't know what to think. Apparently this is the new CW forum attitude. Buy your watch, but never take it out of the house. Better yet, don't ever wear it. And for the love of god NEVER EVER use it for its intended purpose. If anything goes wrong with it, you'd better know how to fix it yourself before you call CW, as that is now the expectation, as apparently contacting CW for advice is not the right thing to do.
Disgusting responses to the OP in here. Shameful.

Lavaine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:36 pm What is going on in this thread? Between the members admonishing the OP for not knowing that he should soak his flooded watch in fresh water (apparently being a watch technician is now a requirement for ownership?), and the people crapping on him for using a divers watch (gasp!) in the ocean, I don't know what to think. Apparently this is the new CW forum attitude. Buy your watch, but never take it out of the house. Better yet, don't ever wear it. And for the love of god NEVER EVER use it for its intended purpose. If anything goes wrong with it, you'd better know how to fix it yourself before you call CW, as that is now the expectation, as apparently contacting CW for advice is not the right thing to do.
Disgusting responses to the OP in here. Shameful.

Lavaine wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:36 pm What is going on in this thread? Between the members admonishing the OP for not knowing that he should soak his flooded watch in fresh water (apparently being a watch technician is now a requirement for ownership?), and the people crapping on him for using a divers watch (gasp!) in the ocean, I don't know what to think. Apparently this is the new CW forum attitude. Buy your watch, but never take it out of the house. Better yet, don't ever wear it. And for the love of god NEVER EVER use it for its intended purpose. If anything goes wrong with it, you'd better know how to fix it yourself before you call CW, as that is now the expectation, as apparently contacting CW for advice is not the right thing to do.
Disgusting responses to the OP in here. Shameful.

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.