My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Discuss Christopher Ward watches
DavecUK
Expert
Expert
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:10 pm

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by DavecUK » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:05 pm

nbg wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:01 pm
However if I understand correctly, from a previous comment by a well know forumite, there is at least one British brand whose 100m WR with push in crown models will pass the pressure test, even if the crown is not pushed in. :)

I think it’s one of your favourite brands! :wink:

Neil
Sounds like the queen to me....93 and still going strong.

User avatar
PaulJS
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:31 am
CW-watches: 6
Location: North Devon

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by PaulJS » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:25 pm

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.

However if it was me in the big corner office in Maidenhead.. replacement/manufacture cost for the entire watch is only $350. The OP's watch should be totaled/scrapped and a replacement new watch be sent with apologies from the CS Manager.
It is simply not true that the rest of the watch has no warranty. Under consumer legislation in the UK ( and the EU for as long as that's applicable here ) every item sold as new has a minimum 12 month warranty covering manufacturing / assembly defects. For a watch this covers everything from the movement to the spring bars. The only exception to this is failure through damage or misuse. If CW sell it as having 150m depth capability it has to be capable of achieving that for 12 months if not tampered with.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, the seller has to prove that failure / damage is a result of 'operator error' if that is their angle.

Why do people think that standard consumer protection does not apply to watches? Tell me other products that, when used as intended ( i.e. as per the manufacturers claimed performance criteria ) fails and you would say ' oh well, I wouldn't really expect it actually be able to do what is claimed'.

This mentality amounts to nothing more than small, tender spherical objects.

This has been repeated time and again on here by various people in various instances of fault / failure. For some reason some people seem unwilling to recognise and / or invoke their consumer rights.

If it were me CW would get one opportunity to correct FOC ( I would not specify the method, just the required outcome). Failure would result in a request for refund and if not forthcoming then it would be off to Trading Standards & small claims court if necessary.

I would be completely explicit in the above in my written correspondence. E mail is fine - its as good as pen to paper as long as it is directed to the appropriate person ( no prizes for who this should be in this instance ).

A grand is a grand and a waterproof watch should be a waterproof watch. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Cheers,

Paul
Trident Pro White / Blue
C4
Omega Speedmaster II LE
Omega Speedmaster II original-ish
Trident Pro Black/Blue
C70 VW4
C65 LE
C7 MK 1
Scurfa Diver One

User avatar
welshlad
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7099
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 12:33 am
CW-watches: 12
Location: Yorkshire, UK

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by welshlad » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:26 pm

nbg wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:01 pm
Seems a fair summary as far as use of a CW is concerned.

However if I understand correctly, from a previous comment by a well know forumite, there is at least one British brand whose 100m WR with push in crown models will pass the pressure test, even if the crown is not pushed in. :)

I think it’s one of your favourite brands! :wink:

Neil
That may be true of another brand, but let's keep this thread focused on CW, otherwise we risk going off on a tangent! :thumbup:
CWL C1R | C5A | C15 | C60 Mk2 x2 | C60 Mk3 GMT | C65SH21 | C70 x4 | C8
Omega Speedy | AT x2 | PO Ti Rolex Exp | Sub Zenith EP1969
Damasko DA44 GSeiko Snowflake Seiko 55Fthms
Ctzn Promaster Tissot V8 Vrat S6 DHenry 1968 Luch 1Hand

nauf
Senior
Senior
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:45 am
CW-watches: 7
Location: Kuala Lumpur

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by nauf » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:30 pm

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.
The same answer I received from Scott. And that CW will honour the warranty if the watch (still under warranty) failed in the pressure test. Otherwise, the owner will be quoted for repairing service.
My small CW collection:
|C20 Lido|C65 GMT|C7 Auto|C60 MKII Bronze|C65 Auto|C60 MKIII GMT|C65 SH21 LE

User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:48 pm

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.
For clarity the crown was not pushed out. In actual fact the watch is uncomfortable to wear with the crown pushed out as it digs into the back of my hand.

However, CW claim to have pressure tested the watch and cannot find a fault. They have the faulty water damaged watch and my money and are seemingly reluctant to offer a replacement, let alone the refund I am seeking. I happen to believe that the potential damage caused to their reputation as a "luxury" watch-maker would easily exceed the cost of issuing a refund.

The whole episode is one massive dissapointment to me. As I've stated, I loved the watch. If anyone can recommend a suitable replacement Divers Watch at the £1000 price point I'm all ears.

nordwulf
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:39 am

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by nordwulf » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:49 pm

PaulJS wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:25 pm
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.

However if it was me in the big corner office in Maidenhead.. replacement/manufacture cost for the entire watch is only $350. The OP's watch should be totaled/scrapped and a replacement new watch be sent with apologies from the CS Manager.
It is simply not true that the rest of the watch has no warranty. Under consumer legislation in the UK ( and the EU for as long as that's applicable here ) every item sold as new has a minimum 12 month warranty covering manufacturing / assembly defects. For a watch this covers everything from the movement to the spring bars. The only exception to this is failure through damage or misuse. If CW sell it as having 150m depth capability it has to be capable of achieving that for 12 months if not tampered with.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, the seller has to prove that failure / damage is a result of 'operator error' if that is their angle.

Why do people think that standard consumer protection does not apply to watches? Tell me other products that, when used as intended ( i.e. as per the manufacturers claimed performance criteria ) fails and you would say ' oh well, I wouldn't really expect it actually be able to do what is claimed'.

This mentality amounts to nothing more than small, tender spherical objects.

This has been repeated time and again on here by various people in various instances of fault / failure. For some reason some people seem unwilling to recognise and / or invoke their consumer rights.

If it were me CW would get one opportunity to correct FOC ( I would not specify the method, just the required outcome). Failure would result in a request for refund and if not forthcoming then it would be off to Trading Standards & small claims court if necessary.

I would be completely explicit in the above in my written correspondence. E mail is fine - its as good as pen to paper as long as it is directed to the appropriate person ( no prizes for who this should be in this instance ).

A grand is a grand and a waterproof watch should be a waterproof watch. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Cheers,

Paul
I was not familiar with this and I assume many outside Europe are not familiar with this either. I now remember this was mentioned on this forum before.

It is actually 2 years for the EU so also for the UK. It would be helpful when CW mentions this on their website.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/d ... dex_en.htm
EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees.

User avatar
EddieTheBeast
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 1132
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:31 am
CW-watches: 1
Location: Peak District

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by EddieTheBeast » Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:56 pm

DavecUK wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:53 pm
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.
I very very very carefully stated that it was my personal view that I didn't use luxury dive watches in water and it was no slur on what the other person did and that CW should sort it out. I absolutely did not crap on him or anyone else for using a divers watch in the sea. I don't and I know there are a lot of people like me. I personally see water resistance as insurance, because after a year or so, water resistance is not guaranteed. In fact after the pressure test it's not guaranteed, by this I mean it may pass the test, that does not mean it won't leak the next day. So I don't want to take an expensive watch and use it in the sea.

I would never crap on anyone else who wants to do that, it's a personal decision. One of the problems with forums and no face to face, is you can read into comments what you want to read regardless of the care someone takes to not have them misinterpreted. Divers style watches like a Rolex submariner are designed for the deep sea, but the majority of owners paying whatever super high price for them, probably don't do any diving at all. I suspect many wouldn't wear them in the sea...but I'm probably wrong. I know I wouldn't want to.

Water damage is one of the hardest things to claim for, especially after a year has elapsed.
Well said Dave! We don't all wear watches the same, and should respect how others do!
Dean

MarkingTime
Senior Expert
Senior Expert
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:19 pm
CW-watches: 6

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by MarkingTime » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:14 pm

Lots of people getting all bent out of shape, but the OP has stated that his watch was pressure tested and with no fault found. That would take the situation outside of a warranty repair or replacement and place the cost squarely on the OP. Those are the facts as stated. This is now one persons word against another, in effect.

Whether or not CW decide to offer any goodwill gesture is another matter entirely and the merits of doing so could be discussed endlessly, but if CW are right and the watch passes the pressure test, they are not wrong to refuse a replacement or repair to their cost.

Lavaine
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:45 pm
CW-watches: 5
Location: Alberta, Canada (The Great White North, eh!)

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by Lavaine » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:31 pm

welshlad wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:26 pm

That may be true of another brand, but let's keep this thread focused on CW, otherwise we risk going off on a tangent! :thumbup:
Too late. The thread went off course when people started sharing their personal opinions about whether dive watches should be worn in the water. Personal opinions are great, but completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
2017 CW Forum "Darwin Award" winner.

User avatar
Kip
The Administrator
The Administrator
Posts: 30070
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
CW-watches: 146
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
LE-three: yes
LE-foura: yes
LE-fourb: yes
LE-five: yes
LE-six: yes
LESeven: yes
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by Kip » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:58 pm

MarkingTime wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:14 pm
Lots of people getting all bent out of shape, but the OP has stated that his watch was pressure tested and with no fault found. That would take the situation outside of a warranty repair or replacement and place the cost squarely on the OP. Those are the facts as stated. This is now one persons word against another, in effect.

Whether or not CW decide to offer any goodwill gesture is another matter entirely and the merits of doing so could be discussed endlessly, but if CW are right and the watch passes the pressure test, they are not wrong to refuse a replacement or repair to their cost.
I agree. The pressure test question has now been answered.

The manual states that the crown needs to be pushed in to maintain water resistance and that is what matters. If the watch has passed the pressure test with the crown pushed in then it is not a manufacturing fault.

While I can empathize with the OP, it appears that somehow the crown was opened, at least for a long enough time to allow the ingress of water.

What CW decides to do is totally up to them.
Kip

"Asylum Administrator"


Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.

User avatar
stefs
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3811
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:40 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Sunny Tiptree, Essex

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by stefs » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 pm

Would it not be difficult to carry out a pressure test on a watch full of water?
Surely they wouldn’t have dried it out and resealed it prior to testing. If I had been the OP I would certainly have liked tohave seen the pressure test carried out for my own peace of mind.
Cheers now
Paul

User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:28 pm

stefs wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 pm
Would it not be difficult to carry out a pressure test on a watch full of water?
Surely they wouldn’t have dried it out and resealed it prior to testing. If I had been the OP I would certainly have liked tohave seen the pressure test carried out for my own peace of mind.
This was a point I was making to the CW Head of Product Design. The watch they pressure tested had been opened up, cleaned and dried out and I would assume re-sealed. How is a test at this point of any relevance to the watch that was on my wrist in the water three weeks earlier?

User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:30 pm

MarkingTime wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:14 pm
Lots of people getting all bent out of shape, but the OP has stated that his watch was pressure tested and with no fault found. That would take the situation outside of a warranty repair or replacement and place the cost squarely on the OP. Those are the facts as stated. This is now one persons word against another, in effect.

Whether or not CW decide to offer any goodwill gesture is another matter entirely and the merits of doing so could be discussed endlessly, but if CW are right and the watch passes the pressure test, they are not wrong to refuse a replacement or repair to their cost.
If I understood the French gentleman who spoke to me on the phone earlier today correctly they opened, dried, cleaned and re-sealed the watch before pressure testing.

Hardly scientific.

User avatar
UNIONmagazine
Junior
Junior
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:36 pm
CW-watches: 1

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by UNIONmagazine » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:32 pm

Kip wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:58 pm
MarkingTime wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:14 pm
Lots of people getting all bent out of shape, but the OP has stated that his watch was pressure tested and with no fault found. That would take the situation outside of a warranty repair or replacement and place the cost squarely on the OP. Those are the facts as stated. This is now one persons word against another, in effect.

Whether or not CW decide to offer any goodwill gesture is another matter entirely and the merits of doing so could be discussed endlessly, but if CW are right and the watch passes the pressure test, they are not wrong to refuse a replacement or repair to their cost.
I agree. The pressure test question has now been answered.

The manual states that the crown needs to be pushed in to maintain water resistance and that is what matters. If the watch has passed the pressure test with the crown pushed in then it is not a manufacturing fault.

While I can empathize with the OP, it appears that somehow the crown was opened, at least for a long enough time to allow the ingress of water.

What CW decides to do is totally up to them.
The pressure test, to my understanding, was carrying out after the watch was opened up, dried out, cleaned and then resealed. I can't see how, at this point, a pressure test proves anything about the watch that was on my wrist three weeks earlier.

User avatar
stefs
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3811
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:40 pm
CW-watches: 0
Location: Sunny Tiptree, Essex

Re: My C65 Trident GMT isn't waterproof!

Post by stefs » Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:41 pm

UNIONmagazine wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:28 pm
stefs wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:13 pm
Would it not be difficult to carry out a pressure test on a watch full of water?
Surely they wouldn’t have dried it out and resealed it prior to testing. If I had been the OP I would certainly have liked tohave seen the pressure test carried out for my own peace of mind.
This was a point I was making to the CW Head of Product Design. The watch they pressure tested had been opened up, cleaned and dried out and I would assume re-sealed. How is a test at this point of any relevance to the watch that was on my wrist in the water three weeks earlier?
I am completely with you on this one.
How can it possibly be a reliable assessment of the watch when you had it?
Feels to me you are forced into a corner where it is your word v cw. I do really sympathise with your position and I know how angry I would feel and I am sure most others would feel the same if they were brutally honest.

Chris if you see this do the right thing for this fella
Cheers now
Paul

Post Reply