UPDATE UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year - A Happy Ending

A1soknownas · Post by **A1soknownas** » Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm

Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:12 pm I've been musing over this situation for the last 24 hours or so, indeed much longer since NeWard first raised the issue, and to me, regardless of, or perhaps as a consequence of, the reams that have been written it boils down to this;-

It is incumbent on NeWard to pay for a service, say £350 / $500 and

. .. incumbent on CW to fix whatever is broken.

End of, simples.

Guy

Sent from my XPERIA 5 III using Tapatalk

I struggle to understand how it is that simple. Is that conclusion disregarding any promise of a 60 month warranty? Or based upon not having the warranty card/paperwork?

Your opinion as a moderator will hold significance so it is good to know how you form the conclusion.

They cannot retrospectively change the terms of the original sale. They cannot decide later that a warranty is less than they first offered or caveat it.

If they want to play games about the date of the sale or having the paperwork fair enough, although I still think it reflects badly on them.

However, for someone key in customer service who should know what they are doing to state a rule which is not factually correct is a disgrace. It is why the lottery of how you may get treated by CW even when you have rights totally outweighs any half links they may send out free of charge and what puts people of trusting how they may operate on any given day.

There is a catalogue of such behaviour to try and get out of their responsibility, whether it be the wrong stated movement and accuracy, the wrong depth on a dial, misprinted dials, water ingress...it seems to be a battle for upfront honesty and a fair deal for the customer without a torturous ordeal.

If they had a physical presence, they would not have the audacity to treat customers in such a way.

A1soknownas · Post by **A1soknownas** » Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:55 pm

NeWard wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:24 pm Update:

Even after speaking with the head of the customer representative team my watch would not be covered under the 60/60 warranty due to not having the recommended service at 3-4 years interval by Christopher Ward, despite the fact that the watch came out in late 2016 which at the time according to my service manual directly from CW https://www.christopherward.com/on/dema ... manual.pdf , the service at the 3-4 yrs interval was recommended and not explicitly stated as needed per the May 2019 changes.

Sadly I will be getting my watch back to either keep it or sell it as a result, to be honest I was really hoping to get the movement resolved under the 60/60 warranty but because I did not have the service performed I'm unable to receive the last year's warranty claim. Please let this be a heads up to our fellow forum members as I did not know this rule was in effect until other members have mentioned it on my thread. If you want the remaining 5th year's 60/60 guarantee you have to send in your watch to CW for service at the 3-4 mark, otherwise your remaining warranty will be voided, even if you bought the watch before the May 2019 60/60 guarantee change, you still would be affected. My warranty claim for the movement service is explicitly denied because of the missing service between the 3-4 yrs interval.

Here is what stated on my manual Screen Shot 2021-11-18 at 10.06.03 PM.png

Here are the rules on the CW website Screen Shot 2021-11-19 at 11.30.24 AM.png

I thank you for everyone that's following my thread.

Sorry to hear you have had no further luck.

Your manual states the warranty conditions which was widely understood to support a 5 year warranty with no dependency upon a service taking place.

If they think the wording means something different i'd ask if they could kindly explain why it has changed to what it is now?

The reason is that before it was covered for 5 years or it was unclear - Now it is explicitly clear, and there is the difference.

Don't give up, they might see sense eventually

.

jkbarnes · Post by **jkbarnes** » Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:55 pm

A1soknownas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm
Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:12 pm I've been musing over this situation for the last 24 hours or so, indeed much longer since NeWard first raised the issue, and to me, regardless of, or perhaps as a consequence of, the reams that have been written it boils down to this;-

It is incumbent on NeWard to pay for a service, say £350 / $500 and

. .. incumbent on CW to fix whatever is broken.

End of, simples.

Guy

Sent from my XPERIA 5 III using Tapatalk
I struggle to understand how it is that simple. Is that conclusion disregarding any promise of a 60 month warranty? Or based upon not having the warranty card/paperwork?

Your opinion as a moderator will hold significance so it is good to know how you form the conclusion.

They cannot retrospectively change the terms of the original sale. They cannot decide later that a warranty is less than they first offered or caveat it.

If they want to play games about the date of the sale or having the paperwork fair enough, although I still think it reflects badly on them.

However, for someone key in customer service who should know what they are doing to state a rule which is not factually correct is a disgrace. It is why the lottery of how you may get treated by CW even when you have rights totally outweighs any half links they may send out free of charge and what puts people of trusting how they may operate on any given day.

There is a catalogue of such behaviour to try and get out of their responsibility, whether it be the wrong stated movement and accuracy, the wrong depth on a dial, misprinted dials, water ingress...it seems to be a battle for upfront honesty and a fair deal for the customer without a torturous ordeal.

If they had a physical presence, they would not have the audacity to treat customers in such a way.

I think you make some really solid points there. Hard to argue with.

stefs · Post by **stefs** » Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:02 pm

A1soknownas
I have to say I am fully aligned with your view on this. There has been too many occasions imho of cw looking to wriggle out of their obligations and of doing the right thing. Instead of taking the opportunity to enhance a reputation for customer service to match the steps forward they have made as innovative watchmakers they pennypinch and shuffle away from what they should be doing.
How much does this £500 fix cost them in the long term? Probably no repeat business from the op and possibly damage to other potential buyers that pick up on these things.

Mikkei4 · Post by **Mikkei4** » Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:40 pm

CW CS have checked and stated that the watch is still within the /60 warranty part of their 60/60 mandate.
They have stated this without the present owner having the original paperwork.
CW's revision of the terms of the warranty DOWN to 36-48 months happened, as far as we can tell, some time AFTER the sale of the watch to the original buyer.
CW need to fix this FOC under the original basis of their 60/60 contract when the watch was originally sold.
Additionally they need to amend or scrap their 60/60 advertising as this no longer exists. There is a 36-47 month warranty, after that the watch must be serviced to get a years warranty (which is about 50% of the length of time that other brands give after a service).
All of the above is now beyond the pay-grade of those in CW CS - MF now needs to be contacted by "signed for" letter and he needs to do the right thing and get this watch serviced within the original terms of the /60 warranty.
I don't want to tell the OP what to do but I would be like a pit-bull with this until MF told me face to face that CW will or will not service and repair this FOC.

What is the point of being able to create a watch like the C60 Concept if you can't make the correct choice on basic CS warranty issues ?

Post by **Bahnstormer_vRS** » Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:57 pm

A1soknownas wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:44 pm
Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:12 pm I've been musing over this situation for the last 24 hours or so, indeed much longer since NeWard first raised the issue, and to me, regardless of, or perhaps as a consequence of, the reams that have been written it boils down to this;-

It is incumbent on NeWard to pay for a service, say £350 / $500 and

. .. incumbent on CW to fix whatever is broken.

End of, simples.

Guy

Sent from my XPERIA 5 III using Tapatalk
I struggle to understand how it is that simple. Is that conclusion disregarding any promise of a 60 month warranty? Or based upon not having the warranty card/paperwork?

Your opinion as a moderator will hold significance so it is good to know how you form the conclusion.

They cannot retrospectively change the terms of the original sale. They cannot decide later that a warranty is less than they first offered or caveat it.

If they want to play games about the date of the sale or having the paperwork fair enough, although I still think it reflects badly on them.

However, for someone key in customer service who should know what they are doing to state a rule which is not factually correct is a disgrace. It is why the lottery of how you may get treated by CW even when you have rights totally outweighs any half links they may send out free of charge and what puts people of trusting how they may operate on any given day.

There is a catalogue of such behaviour to try and get out of their responsibility, whether it be the wrong stated movement and accuracy, the wrong depth on a dial, misprinted dials, water ingress...it seems to be a battle for upfront honesty and a fair deal for the customer without a torturous ordeal.

If they had a physical presence, they would not have the audacity to treat customers in such a way.

I'm sorry; like I said; I was trying to simplify the reams that have been written on this (and I'm not generally one to be writing reams on any given subject).

You have your view, I have mine. They appear to be different and I guess we ought to agree to disagree.

Guy

gaf1958 · Post by **gaf1958** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:47 am

Apart from the state of the OP’s unfortunate plight, my take on CWs current warranty is that it’s a only 4 year warranty.

My reasoning is that if you get a watch serviced by the manufacturer you will typically get 12 months warranty on the service anyway, if not 2 years in some cases. That’s regardless of whether it’s in warranty or not.

So with a service at 4 years the service warranty takes force, meaning that the original 60 month warranty was not in fact 60 months, but 48. I’m guessing that under the original model the highest number of warranty claims come in year 5 of the warranty.

There’s a whiff of false advertising there.

cwa · Post by **cwa** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:59 am

gaf1958 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:47 am So with a service at 4 years the service warranty takes force, meaning that the original 60 month warranty was not in fact 60 months, but 48. I’m guessing that under the original model the highest number of warranty claims come in year 5 of the warranty.

There’s a whiff of false advertising there.

Great point.

I had wondered how often a watch is likely to fail further in the warranty period. I kind of figured like most things of perceived quality they’d fail very early on due to some kind of fault, or many many years later.

That said I’m still utterly fascinated that lots of well known brands of mechanical watches (even relatively inexpensive ones) can go on seemingly forever without servicing and continue to maintain excellent time.

TigerChris · Post by **TigerChris** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:01 am

Very simple to me - the watch is within the 60 month guarantee period (don’t know why it keeps being referred to as a warranty as they are slightly different). The guarantee, at the time of manufacture/original sale, had no servicing conditions attached (these were added 3 years later), only a ‘recommendation’ of a service after 3 to 4 years. No claims court in the country will back CW on this. Every card is stacked in your favour so keep banging on the door to get it sorted and, if not, take it to trading standards as they are in breach of their written guarantee on the product.

Just for balance - those saying that the 60/60 should be removed from advertising now as it is only 3 to 4 years are being slightly unfair. Any guarantee/warranty can have conditions attached. Kia advertise a 7 year warranty on their vehicles but if something goes wrong 4 years in and the car has never been serviced, as per the manufacturers condition of warranty, then Kia ain’t paying for the repairs.

NeWard · Post by **NeWard** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:09 am

I'm trying to figure out how to phrase myself when replying back to the head of Christopher Ward's customer service department, since my emails to Mike France went nowhere in comparison.

I don't want to sound rude or like a Karen that demands nonsense, but at the same time I really wanted CW to upheld their statement in regarding to the 60/60 guarantee before all the changes after May 2019.

Lavaine · Post by **Lavaine** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:49 am

TigerChris wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:01 am Just for balance - those saying that the 60/60 should be removed from advertising now as it is only 3 to 4 years are being slightly unfair. Any guarantee/warranty can have conditions attached. Kia advertise a 7 year warranty on their vehicles but if something goes wrong 4 years in and the car has never been serviced, as per the manufacturers condition of warranty, then Kia ain’t paying for the repairs.

It's a 4 year guarantee. Period. If I send my CW back for service after 48 months, it will be sent back to me with an additional 12 months of guarantee. If I send it in for service after 49 months, it will be sent back with an additional 12 months guarantee. If I send it in after 60 months? Yup, 12 months guarantee. It's a 48 month guarantee, and nothing more. The consumer gains nothing additional by sending it back for service at 47 months and 30 days that he wouldn't get if the watch was sent in at any point after that.

If CW wanted to create goodwill with their customers (they very clearly don't) they would offer an extended warranty if the watch was serviced prior to the end of 48 months. A 12 month guarantee on all service, with an additional 12 or 24 months if the first service was performed within 48 months. They could call it a 48/72 month warranty.

As for the OP: If emails fail, a letter requesting that they honour the warranty with a threat of legal action if they refuse to do so should suffice. CW would not win in court if sued for failure to honour their guarantee. The wording is very clear, and was honoured under those conditions for 15 years without hesitation.

meinberg · Post by **meinberg** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:31 am

NeWard wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:09 am I'm trying to figure out how to phrase myself when replying back to the head of Christopher Ward's customer service department, since my emails to Mike France went nowhere in comparison.

Apart from the obvious poor form of trying to avoid their responsibility under what is a 5 year guarantee, you MAY* have some recourse under the UK consumer rights act 2015 as the watch has failed in less than 6 years, and it would be reasonable to expect a SH21 movement to last longer. This would only apply if the movement required replacement I would think.

*my opinion based on a very cursory search, YMMV.

I am surprised and disappointed that CW appear to be giving such poor support to a SH21 watch, hopefully a blip and not a trend.

MarkingTime · Post by **MarkingTime** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:34 am

cwa wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:40 am
NeWard wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:27 pm Or how about I put it this way, if you were the owner of this watch would you spend the $500 for CW to fix it?
Put simply - yes.

To be a little more detailed though, I’d absolutely push the point regarding the service being a recommendation at the time this watch was originally sold rather than a firm requirement - as others have suggested.

If you absolutely can’t get them to budge, I’d hold on to it until you can fund the repair without any financial stress.

A really out there idea that most will probably hate would be to see a local watchmaker and have a basic movement fitted to the case. That will absolutely devalue the watch, but it’ll get it on your wrist and is likely always reversible when funds allow the fixing the in-house movement.

Retrofitting an entirely different movement to a watch, other than that it was designed for is in no way straightforward and most likely beyond the average local watchmaker capability.

cwa · Post by **cwa** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:23 pm

MarkingTime wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:34 am
cwa wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:40 am
NeWard wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:27 pm Or how about I put it this way, if you were the owner of this watch would you spend the $500 for CW to fix it?
A really out there idea that most will probably hate would be to see a local watchmaker and have a basic movement fitted to the case. That will absolutely devalue the watch, but it’ll get it on your wrist and is likely always reversible when funds allow the fixing the in-house movement.
Retrofitting an entirely different movement to a watch, other than that it was designed for is in no way straightforward and most likely beyond the average local watchmaker capability.

My mistake - I made the suggestion as I had a very old automatic that belonged to my grandfather that was beyond reasonable repair.

My local watchmaker fitted a new non-brand movement making the watch function again for very little money. Perhaps I got lucky on fitment, or perhaps he saw the sentimental value and did a big job for a relatively low price?

I had assumed it must have been an easy and common approach.

Leon O · Post by **Leon O** » Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:02 pm

When a SH21 goes in for service or warranty work does the movement have to be tested again to retain its COSC certification? If so, I can see why the sevice is so expensive.

Christopher Ward Forum

Christopher Ward Forum

UPDATE UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year - A Happy Ending

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Re: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32

Re: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32

Re: UPDATE: Should I sell my stuck C60 600 Pro COSC SH21 Red Bezel 1 of 32 - 60/60 Guarantee denied at 5th Year

Independently Operated Forum for CW Enthusiasts