Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
User avatar
Robotaz
Senior Expert
Senior Expert
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:56 pm
CW-watches: 3
Location: Lexington, KY
Contact:

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by Robotaz » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:28 pm

This is news to me. I figured the “nearly new” watches were the worn returns.

I have to admit I’m disappointed to hear this.


@robotazky

Rebnats
Senior
Senior
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 12:25 pm

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by Rebnats » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:11 pm

According to CW nearly new description on their clearance sales section { nearly new watches are usually items that have been used for advertising and press demonstrations and are mint condition}
C60 Trident Bronze Pro 600
C65 Trident GMT.

Tag Heuer McLaren .
Tissot Classic T Touch.
Seiko Starfish.

Bounce
Expert
Expert
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:29 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: Maidstone, Kent.

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by Bounce » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:23 pm

Thermexman wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:56 pm
Bounce wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:52 pm
Bounce wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:32 pm

I was always under the impression that if the fault was within a certain time you could demand a replacement or refund as it was classed as not fit for purpose.
Following on from my previous post I have just spoken to my son who is at University training to be a Lawyer & he directed me towards the Consumer Rights Act 2015 & it does state on there that you have 30 days from date of purchase or delivery to reject a faulty item for a full refund or replacement.
Yes I see but, if you’ve damaged it, surely that changes things?
I agree if you have wilfully damaged it, but a scratch would not really make it lose 5 mins so in that case it is not fit for purpose.
We need a fully qualified solicitor to clarify this one. :lol:
Rolex Submariner date.
Omega Speedmaster Professional.
Tudor Pepsi GMT.
Tag Heuer Aquaracer 500m Auto
Seiko Kinetic Diver
C60 Trident Vintage.

User avatar
mvlow
Guru
Guru
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:29 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by mvlow » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:24 pm

Robotaz wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:28 pm
This is news to me. I figured the “nearly new” watches were the worn returns.

I have to admit I’m disappointed to hear this.


@robotazky
I asked that question of Mike France last year and he told me that most 60/60 returns go back into regular stock after inspection as they have be in mint condition to be accepted. Here is his email regarding 60/60 returns.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.21.22 PM.png
Malcolm

CW C60 Vintage CW Joint Force Harrier C7 MkII Seiko SKX007 Hamilton Khaki Field Citizen Nighthawk Sinn 104 CW C65 Vintage GMT CW C65 Trident Diver Monta Oceanking

User avatar
Robotaz
Senior Expert
Senior Expert
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:56 pm
CW-watches: 3
Location: Lexington, KY
Contact:

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by Robotaz » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:23 am

mvlow wrote:
Robotaz wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:28 pm
This is news to me. I figured the “nearly new” watches were the worn returns.

I have to admit I’m disappointed to hear this.


@robotazky
I asked that question of Mike France last year and he told me that most 60/60 returns go back into regular stock after inspection as they have be in mint condition to be accepted. Here is his email regarding 60/60 returns.
So they refund partially, recover lost profit on the next guy, and upset and lose a customer in the process.

Very disappointing.


@robotazky

User avatar
mvlow
Guru
Guru
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:29 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by mvlow » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:47 am

Robotaz wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:23 am
mvlow wrote:
Robotaz wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:28 pm
This is news to me. I figured the “nearly new” watches were the worn returns.

I have to admit I’m disappointed to hear this.


@robotazky
I asked that question of Mike France last year and he told me that most 60/60 returns go back into regular stock after inspection as they have be in mint condition to be accepted. Here is his email regarding 60/60 returns.
So they refund partially, recover lost profit on the next guy, and upset and lose a customer in the process.

Very disappointing.


@robotazky
Actually CW will lose money because if it is returned in the unworn condition it is supposed to be under 60/60 they refund 100% of the price and refund return shipping, in my case from the USA, then resell it having lost shipping costs both ways. In the OP's case they could not sell it as new because it was scratched, so again they would not make up the profit from the next guy as it would be sold at a discount under nearly new. Try doing that with other online watch companies. As an example if I buy a Sinn watch from Watchbuys, I have just a few days to return it, I can't wear it at all, and I have to pay return shipping if I want a refund. CW has the best return policy in the watch industry but people still have reason to complain about it.
Malcolm

CW C60 Vintage CW Joint Force Harrier C7 MkII Seiko SKX007 Hamilton Khaki Field Citizen Nighthawk Sinn 104 CW C65 Vintage GMT CW C65 Trident Diver Monta Oceanking

User avatar
Thermexman
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 4822
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 6:40 am
CW-watches: 4
Location: South West UK

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by Thermexman » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:36 am

Bounce wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:23 pm


I agree if you have wilfully damaged it, but a scratch would not really make it lose 5 mins so in that case it is not fit for purpose.
We need a fully qualified solicitor to clarify this one. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :problem:

Obviously! A scratch won’t make it lose 5mins and the time loss does render it unfit for purpose. However, I’d say that, as it’s being returned in “sullied” condition, the rights to a full refund are now downgraded to a repair!

Seems totally reasonable to me and anyone who says different, is being unreasonable.
So bite me! Whatever that actually means? :silent:
Steve.

User avatar
neilj568
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1073
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:08 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by neilj568 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:04 am

Seems like there are two different things here that are being conflated - any legal rights conferred by Consumer Legislation (i.e. whether it is fit for purpose or not) and the 60/60 CW policy.
_________________________________________
Wrist Size 210mm/8.2"

dsb18
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:51 pm

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by dsb18 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:40 am

mvlow wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:23 pm
I just noticed that you said in your initial post that you purchased this watch in the Christmas sale. I'm curious as to why you have waited until April 2nd to make your first post on this group a complaint about Christopher Ward. We've seen a lot of people join this group recently only to complain in their first post, then disappear. This is a great group to discuss CW and other brand watches, and the members are always welcoming to people who want to join to interact with the community.
The correspondents back and forth have been going on for weeks.

User avatar
H0rati0
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 649
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2018 7:49 am
CW-watches: 3
Location: Bayern

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by H0rati0 » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:41 am

In all of the back and forth of legal rights and obligations, I don't understand how one can wear a watch to an event for 4 hours before discovering that one can't read it - surely that is obvious from the moment it comes out of the box?
"There is no beginning to enlightenment and no end to training" - Dogen Zenji (1200-1253)

User avatar
PaulJS
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:31 am
CW-watches: 7
Location: North Devon

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by PaulJS » Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:23 am

Seems to me that, like most things, this is a two way street - for the 60/60 to work for the customer and be viable for the supplier both parties need to play with a straight bat.

Based upon the info provided the customer has not read or fully understood the terms of the 60/60 warranty as it is pretty clear that one cannot wear the watch. I would make the distinction between trying it on for size / appeal / legibility etc. as you would do in an AD and wearing it out for an evening.

It appears that CWs only mistake was to erroneously try to be too accommodating by offering a partial refund and subsequently withdrawing this offer which seems to have muddied the waters.

The losing time aspect is a separate unconnected issue. Had this been alerted to CW within 30 days of receipt then a refund could have been demanded under consumer law. Beyond this time it is replace or repair at the supplier's discretion.

If there is one failed attempt to repair the watch it changes things but I don't believe that's where things are.

I have successfully implemented the 60 day return option having seen a watch in the flesh, tried it on for size, put it back in the box and gone through several iterations of this process over a week or two before deciding it wasn't for me.

For what it's worth this is how I see the 60 day return option being intended to work equitably for both parties.

There is now pretty good consumer protection in statute for on line purchases and CW'S policy really just puts the icing on the cake by giving a bigger window for an unquestioned return if you change your mind because you had to buy without handling a physical product.

I am no CW sycophant but this whole episode appears to me to be a non issue and I think that CW are being unfairly criticised in the original post.
Trident Pro White / Blue
C20
C4
Omega Speedmaster II LE
Omega Speedmaster II original-ish
Trident Pro Black/Blue
C70 VW4
C65 LE
C7 MK 1
Scurfa Diver One

albionphoto
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:07 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by albionphoto » Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:08 pm

^^^^PaulJS - Excellent points made.
Mark
Muehle Glashutte, Omega, Oris and Christopher Ward.

albionphoto
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:07 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by albionphoto » Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:19 pm

[/quote]

Actually CW will lose money because if it is returned in the unworn condition it is supposed to be under 60/60 they refund 100% of the price and refund return shipping, in my case from the USA, then resell it having lost shipping costs both ways. In the OP's case they could not sell it as new because it was scratched, so again they would not make up the profit from the next guy as it would be sold at a discount under nearly new. Try doing that with other online watch companies. As an example if I buy a Sinn watch from Watchbuys, I have just a few days to return it, I can't wear it at all, and I have to pay return shipping if I want a refund. CW has the best return policy in the watch industry but people still have reason to complain about it.
[/quote]

And much as I might like to buy a Sinn, this is the reason I won't. Watches at this price point should be seen before buying. I'm old or old school I guess. And with Watchbuys return conditions I'd take a hit on the return shipping. So no Sinn watches for me unless I can sneak a trip from the US to Germany into my schedule. This is also the reason I only have one Muehle Glashutte. I can't see them in a shop or AD and the return policy for the dealer in Florida is pretty poor too. The CW 60/60 policy is great but like any policy the terms and conditions need to be read carefully.
Mark
Muehle Glashutte, Omega, Oris and Christopher Ward.

User avatar
Caller
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1710
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:44 pm
CW-watches: 1
Location: Hua Hin, Thailand

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by Caller » Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:52 pm

mvlow wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:14 pm
It is quite clear on their website that the watch must be in perfect, unworn condition to be returned under 60/60. I returned one watch to them last year under 60/60 and clarified with them via phone that you are able to try the watch on your wrist for a Short period of time so long as it is still in "unworn condition."
I think some of you are being a bit unfair to the OP. His post was made by way of a warning. He's 'lost out' because of his honesty. He also denied that he was responsible for any scratch.

But the above quote is interesting and I would suggest CW need to get their act together, as apart from the fact they have no way of knowing how the watch has really been used before someone decides to return it, how about defining what 'unworn condition' means? To me, it means never worn, which is contradicted by the phone advice given above, that say's, you are able to 'try the watch on your wrist for a short period of time'. So what does that mean? Put it on the wrist then immediately removed? Wearing it around the house for a bit to get a feel for it? Wearing it down the pub for the evening or even for a 4-hour dinner? In Mike Frances email reply, posted on this thread, he just say's it has to be in 'mint condition' which makes far more sense to me.

Interesting that in his reply, he talks about removing the good bits from a returned watch to be recycled into a new watch, so, albeit a pedants view, it means that when you buy your new watch, it ain't necessarily so!

Call for a lawyer! :D
'Tis me

KevinB
Junior
Junior
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:41 pm

Re: Disappointed with Christopher Ward

Post by KevinB » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:15 pm

Bahnstormer_vRS wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:15 pm
Seems strange to lose exactly 5 minutes in a day; not 4 mins 30 secs or 6 mins.

I've had watches that have been 5 minutes out; purely because I set them wrongly to start with.

Guy

Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk
I've done this 3x in the last month!!!

I'm just baffled by this initial post. Going over 3 months before giving it a spin is just crazy. I can't get a new watch on my wrist fast enough.

It is really akin to buying a suit, leaving the tags on, wearing for an evening out, spilling soup on the pants and not noticing, and then returning it "unworn" and pretending to be surprised when the maker catches that you've spilled soup on the "unworn" suit. Or buying shoes that you might return and instead of wearing them around the house on clean floors, going for a run, and trying to return them "unworn".

As soon as the watch left the house on the wrist it was no longer unworn. 70% was plenty fair in this case.

Kevin

Post Reply