Oof. While I understand your line of thought, that's a rough thing to say.MarkingTime wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:13 amI was wondering from the off whether or not there is any link here to UNIONmag and perhaps an ulterior motive involved.Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:36 am@UNIONmagazine - curious as the how you got to speak with the Head of Product Development (presumably Adrian Buchmann).
Surely your issue is with customer service and, if you are not able to get a satisfactory response from them or their manager, then perhaps you ought to speak with the ultimate head of CS, who is Mike France.
Just a thought.
Sent from my Xperia XZ Premium using Tapatalk
Of course, you never really know what's going on behind the screens in a public forum.
Let's put it this way:
While we may not go as far as to trust anyone who uses their first post on a watch forum to voice his discontent, we also have no tangible reason to distrust them.
Ultimately, this is a matter between UnionWatch and CW, and the forum has no role in this rather than providing advice. The reason why I say so is because I have seen proven instances in the past of people starting threads on a public forum (be it Facebook, or Instagram, or Twitter, or a forum like this) with the sole intent to push an agenda, or harm a company's reputation, for whatever reason you can think of.
As a sidenote: having a handle that's pretty much anonymous doesn't help, of course, which is why I make it a habit of participating using my real name.
To get back on track:
In order to get this resolved, I think the OP should concentrate in the inconsistencies in the reasons given for not honouring the warranty (first the bracelet being damaged, then the pressure test), and the fact that the watch was reportedly modified (cleaned, dried and resealed) before doing the pressure test, as this would invalidate the successful pressure test as an argument.