AuthenticWatches.com

I don't usually shop online for items this expensive. However after reading the positive reviews and calling the company I thought I would give it a try. The watch is beautiful! It fit my arm perfectly. The only concern I have is the clasp is thick so it won't come off. If you have a small wrist, it might be slightly uncomfortable. I received a follow-up email from Authentic Watches. I would definitely purchase from them again.

Complaint: 10563284
I am rejecting this response because:
I am writing in reference to the above referenced complaint. I received your letter, which contained the response of Authentic Watches.Com, to my complaint today. I am immediately responding to ask that you keep this complaint open.
As I noted in my March 30, 2015 letter to you with attachments, I purchased an alleged Cartier Roadster XL W6206019 from AuthenticWatches.com on or about March 19, 2015 for the price of $6,275.00. On the AuthenticWatches.com website, the company represented that it was an authentic, BRAND NEW" Cartier Roadster watch. After receipt of the watch, my husband went into the C.D. Peacock store in Oak Brook, Illinois to have a link taken out of the watch. The Watchmaker at C.D. Peacock, [redacted], indicated to my husband that he did not believe the watch was authentic. As a result, the watchmaker would not modify or alter the watch in any way.
On March 30, 2015, I called Authentic Watches to obtain a return authorization number and to confirm that, when I returned the watch, I would receive the full purchase price credited to my credit card. The company indicated to me that, unless I had something in writing from C.. Peacock saying that the watch was not authentic, they would not refund the full purchase price of the watch. Although I disagreed, I immediately went to C.. Peacock and obtained the documentation requested from C.D. Peacock. The Watchmaker, [redacted], confirmed that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective because of the big gap between the case and the bezel at 1012. I included a C.D. Peacock document setting forth Mr. [redacted] views that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective and his business card with my complaint to the Revdex.com and the materials that I submitted in connection with my watch return to Authentic Watches.com.
According to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) confirmation, Authentic Watches received the watch back from me on April, 2015, the same day as the Revdex.coms letter was sent to me containing Authentic Watches’ response to my complaint. Accordingly, Authentic Watches could not have reviewed the documentation that I submitted with the watch, nor examined the watch prior to responding to the Revdex.com complaint.
In any event, I have reviewed Authentic Watches’ response to my complaint and concerns (which I received from the Revdex.com today), and it is not valid for a variety of reasons. First, the response indicates that I have not submitted documentation from an authorized dealer saying the watch that I received is not authentic. That is false. I did submit a statement from C.D. Peacock, which is an authorized Cartier dealer, stating that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective. Accordingly, Authentic Watches’ statement is not accurate.
Second, Authentic Watches states that I can ship the watch to Cartier to get it authenticated. That claim is not true. I had only a limited number of days, per Authentic Watchess return policies, to return the watch to Authentic Watches or I would risk full forfeiture of my $6,275.00 payment. As a result, I had no meaningful choice but to ship the alleged Cartier Roadster back to Authentic Watches as soon as possible. Authentic Watches, who is now in possession of the alleged Cartier Roadster and has been since April, 2015 according to the attached USPS record of receipt, should be required to ship the watch that they sent to me to Cartier to get it authenticated. If that occurs and Cartier confirms it is authentic, I am happy to forfeit the 10% restocking” fee. In the alternative, Authentic Watches.com claims that they receive designer watches from Authorized Dealers. If Authentic Watches received the watch that they sold to me from an authorized dealer, they should be more than willing to share with me copies of the transaction documents from that transaction to prove to me that the watch is authentic and that it came from an authorized dealer. They have not done so. Authentic Watches.com cannot have it both ways. They must prove the watch is authentic (since they represent it is authentic on their website and such a claim is actually in their name). That is what I paid for. They should not be allowed to shift the burden to me, the consumer, to prove that the watch is a fake (which I did do through C.D. Peacock) but then insist that I need to send back the watch very quickly to insure that I get at least 90% of my purchase price. Nevertheless, even under their unconscionable standard, I have already proven that the watch is not authentic or it is defective. It is not what I paid for. The burden should now be on Authentic Watches to show to the Revdex.com (and a court if necessary) that the watch is authentic. This is their business, and they should have no problem doing so if the watch is actually authentic.
Third, Authentic Watches’ response to the Revdex.com claims that my contractual remedies purportedly are limited to 90% of the purchase price of the watch pursuant to UCC 2-719. That is also incorrect. I do not agree that this purported limitation applies in this situation because the watch is not authentic, according to a professional watchmaker at an authorized
Cartier dealer. Nevertheless, even if you assume for the purposes of this complaint that Authentic Watches’ argument under the UCC should be entertained, there is no contractual limitation where such a limitation is unconscionable. UCC 2-7193), or Californias equivalent (Wests Ann. Cal. Com. Code 2719(3)), provides that “[c]onsequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.” Here, such a limitation is unconscionable. As courts have found, “[u]nconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of a meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” See, e.g., Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Here, Authentic Watches drafted their policies and the contract at issue. The parties do not have equal bargaining power, and there was no negotiation over the contract terms.
This situation is strikingly similar to the AM Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. case in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment involving an unconscionable and unenforceable disclaimer of warranty:
“Since a products performance forms the fundamental basis for a sales contract, it is patently unreasonable to assume that a buyer would purchase a standardized mass produced product from an industry seller without any enforceable performance standards. From a social perspective, the risk of loss is most appropriately borne by the party best able to prevent its occurrence....Rarely would the buyer be in a better position than the manufacturer-seller to evaluate the performance characteristics of a machine.... Especially where an inexperienced buyer is concerned, the sellers performance representations are absolutely necessary to allow the buyer to make an intelligent choice among the competitive options available. A sellers attempt, through the use of a disclaimer, to prevent the buyer from reasonably relying on such representations calls into question the commercial reasonableness of the agreement and may well be substantively unconscionable.”
135 Cal.App.3d 473, 491-92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). Just as in the FMC case, it is unreasonable to assume that I would buy a high end watch from a purportedly reputable company without any enforceable performance standards. I have a document from a reputable Cartier authorized dealer saying that the watch is not authentic or it is defective. I did not receive from Authentic Watches what I paid them for — which was a new, authentic Cartier Roadster watch. Moreover, there is ample other authority across the country which would support unconscionability in this instance. It is time for Authentic Watches to step up and refund my full $6,275 purchase price. I am happy to provide whatever other documentation or information that you need from me.
On a final note, I consent to the text of this note being publicly posted on the Revdex.com Website. However, I ask that my last name and address not be posted with the complaint.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
[redacted]

Purchased a Taq Heuer Link for my wife's 50th Birthday.
I live in Singapore so I was not very sure if Authentic Watches was credible but their website was very detailed, informative and assuring.
The prices were also very attractive.
I purchase the Tag Heuer Link and it was processed almost immediately and shipped immediately too - next day. Very Impressive
I received the watch yesterday and its exactly what I ordered and just perfect.
Will definitely buy again and have already recommended friends.
Very Happy

Complaint: 11407761
I am rejecting this response because:Tag Heuer did not provide this company the watch they sold into me without the guarantee card. I would like the card so that I can have the faulty watch repaired by Tag Heuer. Why the constant desperate clutching at how other companies do things? This is starting to sound as though I have been sold a fake Tag by them. It is of no benefit to this company that I spend £200 sending my watch from the UK to the US for repair when I have a Tag Heuer shop near to me and it will not cost a penny to have it repaired. 
The policies of the store do not override consumer law and fairness. Tag give an international warranty with every single watch that comes from them. I would simply like my warranty if this watch is indeed not a fake. 
Regards,
C[redacted]

Complaint: 10045946
I am rejecting this response because:
It should be noted that AuthenticWatches.com does not
contest the fact that they knowingly sold a timepiece without the proper
identification marks.  The reply received
from AuthenticWatches.com instead cites that I am too late to complain about it.
I will again state that I have completed what
AuthenticWatches.com suggests and have taken it to certified master
watchmakers.  They have inspected the
watch and identified that the serial numbers are missing as well as key
features – both requirements for confirmed authenticity of an Omega watch.  In order to preserve any warranty in place
direct from Omega watches and ensure proper reseal of the watch, I allowed only
an Omega-authorized service center to open the watch.   Again, as presented in the provided invoice
from my previous communication, the serial number is missing.
Finally, and again stated, I am not seeking refund due to
loss of resale value.  It is illegal for
me to sell this watch. It is illegal for me to insure this watch. It is illegal
for me to claim this watch as authentic. Just as it was and is illegal for
AuthenticWatches.com to do the same. 
This is why I am seeking a refund.
Regards,
[redacted]

I recently bought a Tag Heuer watch from Authenticwatches.com and had an exceptional experience. We are in Canada and so the price was excellent and this was matched by the customer service.
It is hard to purchase something this expensive when there are so many disreputable companies selling fake products but fear not.
The watch is authentic, the CS and communication was smooth, freindly and knowledgable. S&H was free and very quick with FedEx.
All in all I would highly recommend dealing with this company to family, friends and anyone reading this review. A+++

We are sorry to hear the client is upset.  However, the entire complaint is predicated on the incorrect assumption that the timepiece is not authentic.  If you tell the store you're going to that you purchased the timepiece online, they will not be pleased to hear that they lost a...

multi-thousand dollar sale to an online competitor, and will not help you.
As the entire complaint is predicated on the incorrect assumption that the timepiece is not authentic, we can give no gravity to the consumer protection law cited by the client, as it would not be applicable, given that the timepiece sold was indeed authentic..  The client assumes it's not authentic, and that assumption is incorrect. Contrary to the client's claim, she has not submitted any documentation from an authorized dealer's letterhead citing that the model she received, with the serial number she received, is not authentic. The client is free to ship the timepiece directly to Cartier for verification of authenticity, or can simply go to any other authorized Cartier dealer, say they just got this watch as a gift, and ask them to size it. 
As the client has cited laws she feels pertain to her grievance, we would like to point out that one of the attached documents she has submitted is the RMA form. The bottom paragraph stipulates that the client will agree to and abide by our policies, and she has indeed signed said document. Our policies outline that there is a 10% restocking fee on any item over $5,000.  (The policies are clear, and are posted on our website, which the client is obligated to agree to prior to purchase.)   Having agreed to said policies, the client is limited in remedy she may seek pursuant to UCC § 2-719. 
To summarize, the timepiece this client received is 100% authentic. There are several options the client has to prove this, all of which she summarily dismisses (ship it to Cartier, go to any other authorized dealer, etc.) The client wishes to return the item for a full refund, which cannot be done in accordance with our policies.  If the timepiece arrives back to us brand new, with all tags attached, then the client will be refunded less a 10% restocking fee, in accordance with our policies. Alternatively, the client may take the timepiece to any other authorized dealer, or ship it to Cartier, and she will easily be able to have the timepiece authenticated (as it is an authentic timepiece.) Thank you.

We are very sorry this client feels as he does. Timepieces are indeed rated water resistant. However, the warranty does not cover moisture damage as outlined in our policies and warranty card, as outlined in our previous reply. In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases, moisture enters the case because clients do not securely tighten the screw down crown when changing the time or date, leaving a timepiece vulnerable to moisture infiltration and subsequent damage. 
We have explained this to the client via telephone, however, the client simply responded with threats of negative reviews, demanding we cover it free of charge. We are unable to alter our policies due to threats of retribution.
This client has again stated that the timepiece was not exposed to water. This is simply not possible. As outlined in our previous communication, water cannot spontaneously appear inside a watch, and the mechanism of the timepiece does not have the ability to manufacture water from scratch. The assertion that this timepiece has not been exposed to water is simply not correct.
A link to our warranty policies is clearly posted on every page of our website. Further, our system does not allow a client to checkout until they have read and agreed to said policies. 
We are sorry, however, we will not be able to service this client's timepiece under warranty. The client may remit payment as outlined in the estimate, or can opt to recall the timepiece and have it assessed and serviced on his own accord. Thank you.

I placed and cancelled this order within a span of five minutes, since it wasn't until I got the confirmation email that it would take three months to receive it. I was ensured by email (from "Lauren") and phone calls that I would receive a full refund (minus $25 for "restocking") within one to three days. Nothing has been done! I have all emails to proved they acknowledged I cancelled this order the same day I ordered it (12/20/16)

My wife purchased an Omega Seamaster from Authentic Watches for a gift. After the first month, the watch stopped working. After having it sent in, the company claimed there was nothing wrong with it and sent it back and implied that it had not been wound properly. A few months later, the same problem again and again the company could not find any problem. Fed up, I took the watch to an Omega retail dealer to have them look at it. They at least acknowledged there was a problem and sent it in to their repair facility. They replaced the parts (at a cost of $500) and warrantied the parts. It has been several months since then and the watch has had no problems since then.
It's clear that Authentic Watches uses substandard parts in these watches. Buyer beware and I would recommend not conducting any business with this company.

This client purchased his timepiece on 10/13/14, and he did indeed return it approximately 2 months later with an issue. The issue was that he impacted the timepiece, causing a screw inside the movement to come loose and obstruct the rotor. Although this is not covered under warranty, we had it...

quickly serviced as a one time courtesy.He sent the timepiece back one year and seven months after purchase, citing it was gaining 5 minutes per day. Upon evaluation, it was determined that the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service, which is not covered under warranty, and the client was forwarded an estimate. Movement maintenance services are not covered under warranty, as outlined in our policies, as well as on our warranty card. It is not customary to dissect the "Movement Maintenance", as the causes for why it is necessary can vary. However, in this client's case, given his litany of responses and demands, as well as his repeated prevarication regarding merchantability of the timepiece, we will be happy to provide the cause for the movement maintenance service requirement:
The timepiece has been impacted (yet again).
The timepiece has been subjected to an impact, causing damage to the hairspring, necessitating a movement maintenance service to rectify.
With regards to the client's demands, we have copy/pasted a portion of his email:
"I'd like to receive a merchantable watch that functions as intended or a refund in the amount of $500 million - approximately $1280 of which would be for the watch, and the remainder for time wasted."
We cannot repair the timepiece free of charge every time the client damages the timepiece, as our warranties also clearly outline that damages are not covered under warranty. We cannot issue this client a refund, as he has worn the timepiece in excess of one year, and has damaged the timepiece. Our policies clearly outline that a timepiece cannot be returned once worn. Finally, we cannot refund the client $500 Million as he has previously demanded, as we cannot see any reason why the client would be entitled to $500 million for damaging his timepiece. 
The timepiece has been returned to the client with no services rendered due to his refusal to remit payment for the services required. Thank you.

We are not able to accept the client's claim as valid. All businesses use an asterisk after an advertised claim indicating there are terms and conditions. The client is asking that all policies be posted on the home page. This is not feasible, as there are 7 pages of policies, and these cannot be posted on every page of the website.  The business model is to put an asterisk to denote there are terms and conditions which apply. There is no company in the world that posts all of their policies on every page, and there is nothing covert or nefarious about having the link, the the asterisk, link to our full policies. It is the client's responsibility to know the policies of the company the client purchases from. Our system will not allow you to checkout unless all of the policies have been agreed to. We are sorry, however we are not able to waive our policies for this client.

Complaint: 11440103
I am rejecting this response because:
Again, after over THREE MONTHS they have not fixed a defective product or offered a solution other than paying them $375 for a "complete overhaul" of a luxury watch less than a year old--they are able to send a lengthy retort to my complaint within ONE HOUR...truly impressive. If they had this same level of dedication to their customers' issues, there were be no complaints whatsoever.  In the words of Shakespeare: "Methinks thou doth protest too much."  THESE GUYS ARE CRIMINALS, SWINDLERS, YOU NAME IT--UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
I will take their points in order:
#1: True, I am NOT a certified watchmaker nor repair specialist.  That said—I have never owned a watch—or any item—that needed a “complete overhaul” after less than a year of pampered usage.  If I have ever had an issue—especially with a item of this price point—the company has taken care of it accordingly.  In addition, Authenticwatches.com will neither divulge who these so-called “authorized” repair specialists are, nor will the allow a customer to actually speak to the technician.  I was told this was not possible.  This leads me to question whether or not these are indeed authorized, or even qualified.
#2: Again—glib response, kicking up questions. The reality is this: this watch has been pampered since I received it; has never been so much as dropped, gotten wet, etc…furthermore, it doesn’t matter what the item is—a watch, a car, or a lawn mower—the expectation is that the product work under normal conditions for AT LEAST A YEAR…this didn’t even make it 9 months before I had to return it.  True, things happens in the product world…when they do, the seller should take care of it—especially with their warranty…which clearly is bogus.
#3: Again, calling me a liar…the fact that someone told me they were the “owner” wasn’t asserted to help my case or make a difference whatsoever…it was incidental…and it was TRUE.  Of course, you can say “call us and ask for the owner” and you won’t get him…however, I originally asked to speak to a manager…when I did and the guy was belligerent and unhelpful, I asked to speak to someone at an even higher level.  At that point, he said, “It doesn’t get any higher…I’m the owner.”  So, whether he was lying or not is not for  me to say, but it is emblematic of how this company operates that they would paint a consumer trying to get his watch fixed as “fabricating” a story.  Pathetic.
#4: It’s simple; an A+ rating for anyone who treats their customers in this fashion is misleading at best.  Granted their rating algorithm is based on a multitude of factors—ANY company that behaves in the way AUTHENTICWATCHES.COM does should not receive such a high and vaunted rating. it’s misleading and lowers the value of the good work that Revdex.com does, as well as those companies truly deserving of a strong grade.  These criminals (and yes, they are behaving in such a manner) don’t deserve that.
#5: Let me be clear—I did not say the “warranty was criminal”—(THERE THEY GO—TWISTING WORDS…)—I asserted (and stand by it), their BUSINESS PRACTICES ARE CRIMINAL.  At this point, I’m not even sure that the watch they sent is nothing more than a replica.  I have attached the letter from Longines who (of course) cannot control the sales over the internet.  They have, however, provided me the name of a local specialist for them who will verify the merchandise and fix it.  
In the end, they still have my watch; sold me a piece of defective merchandise that stopped working; found loopholes in the warranty; and will not divulge who their so-called “authorized dealers/repairers” are…Really—is that an A+ rated company??? If so, it’s time to change your system.  
Regards,
[redacted]

This client did indeed special order a timepiece, and the timepiece was indeed defective. These facts are indeed accurate. The client did, however, wear the timepiece, and get several scratches all over the case and bracelet of the timepiece.
The client repeatedly threatened disputes and...

bad reviews everywhere. We assured the client that we would have the mechanism replaced, however, the client was very anxious to get the timepiece back, and would call us several times a day, even though this was a process.As the client was extraordinarily distressed, I wanted to expedite this for her, so I approved that a brand new watch be installed on her existing bracelet. The bracelet had been scratched throughout, and could not be exchanged. Also, there was no defect with the bracelet. The client seemed happy with this solution.
Upon receiving a brand new timepiece installed on her bracelet, the client informed us she didn't think it was replaced (though you can easily tell the serial number is of a different timepiece), accused us of lying to her (citing we merely repaired, not replaced it), etc. She demanded a refund.
The timepiece was received, and was refunded less 20% for the damage and wear to the watch, which must be sold as a used timepiece.
We are unable to issue any further refunds or credits for the client's returned, used, timepiece.

"My experiences with Authentic Watches, and they are numerous, have all demonstrated excellent customer care from a company that clearly is concerned not only with selling product, but with providing a positive experience for their clients as well. The items they offer are great--I have never had the least problem on that account, and pricing is extremely competitive.
A very satisfied customer!"

I have purchased at least 5 time pieces from AuthenticWatches going back to 2009 (they've only been Revdex.com accredited since 2014). My purchases ranged in prices from $2000 up to $20,000+. Aside from a minor issue of them not accepting paypal or credit card payments for amounts in excess of $5,000 (understandable, given their prices and high credit card fees), my experience with the company has generally been very good. Items arrive very fast and in great condition, all as described. You need to know what it is you are purchasing (can be either new, old stock, or grey market watches, depending on the item), but since watch company warranties are crap anyway, there is nothing wrong with a good grey item watch - especially when you're getting it thousands of dollars below MSRP. For an educated buyer, this is a very credible and respectable company to be dealing with.

This client has sent in a timepiece for service under warranty. The client's timepiece arrived on 3/27/2014 (not in January as claimed). The service has indeed been delayed, and this does happen from time to time, regrettably. However, the item is being serviced under warranty and we anticipate...

receipt of the item within the next 1/2 weeks. We will ship the item back to the client once service has been completed. We apologize, however we are not able to either refund, nor exchange, an item which has been used.  We apologize for any inconvenience this delay may have caused.

This client received an brand new, completely factory fresh, intact timepiece. The client contacted us because the outer packaging of the outer box was "taped" and "seemed torn". We offered to simply ship him a brand new outer box. He refused, sighting that Steve Jobs was highly acclaimed for the...

outer box of the iPhone, making it an "overall experience".  He wanted to return the timepiece instead, and opted to spend $3000 more in a brick and mortar store. We are happy to issue him a refund. however, we are unable to generate a return label. We apologize for any inconvenience, however, a return label will not be issued. Once the timepiece is received, the client will be issued a refund.
We do not have the ability to generate a return label in this case.  The only concern the client had was the thin outer packaging of the outer box, which we were more than happy to replace, free of charge. The client believed that it would be more prudent to return this item, and spend several thousand more dollars in a store, citing in his complaint we should be "AVOID[ed] AT ALL COST".  We were more than happy to address the actual issue at hand, and correct the experience immediately (we offered to overnight him a brand new outer packaging, which he refused.)  
To address the client's concerns regarding the expediency of the original shipment, the client had two choices at the time of checkout:
#1:  Standard Shipping (free)
#2: Expedited Shipping ($20 charge)
The client selected standard shipping, opting not to pay for expedited shipping. Despite that, the package arrived the very day after his order had been placed. The client then contacted FedEx and requested that the delivery be held at the local FedEx station for pickup, and he picked it up the following day. To summarize:12/12/15 - (Saturday) - Order placed by client.12/13/15 - (Sunday) - Order Processed by Amazon. 
12/14/15 - (Monday) - Order shipped (this is the first available business day).
12/15/15 - (Tuesday) - Item arrived at client location; client requested a hold for pick up.
12/16/15 - (Wednesday) - Client picked up item.
Because this client opted for "Standard Delivery", the date range Amazon outlined for the arrival of the package was 12/17 - 12/22. It was ready for the client on 12/15.
As a side note, no inquiries nor grievances regarding the expediency of shipping were ever made, until the client learned that we were unable to provide a return shipping label for the return. 
Thank you.

The watch I purchased form AW has mechanical problems. I found out by having to send the watch directly to the manufacturer myself because AW could not and/or would not diagnose the problem correctly. They simply lack the competence to diagnose properly and have to rely on their retail contact, they simply act as a middle man. In any case, they did not stand behind their product and avoiding all responsibility for the mechanical issue. Even after purchasing their "additional service" they avoid any responsibility. Now I have to spend hundreds of dollars to fix it on my own. Purchase with caution, if anything goes wrong, you may not get the best resolution to your problem. I do NOT recommend AW, too risky and costly if anything goes wrong.

The client has stated that we are misleading him by informing him the timepiece requires a maintenance service. We have provided a link to TAG Heuer's website in response, and the client simply disregarded, citing his personal feeling that it was unlikely that the watch would require an overhaul. This is simply not correct. He further cites that the timing is not likely. That is not accurate. The timepiece is 3 years old, and maintenance services, in reality, are required after 2-4 years.
As previously stated, the client is more than welcome to send the timepiece directly to TAG Heuer. The client asserts that he will receive much more detail from them. TAG Heuer will simply provide the line item that the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service, and explain what that entails. Here is the exact text the client will receive as the "charge" line item at the bottom of his estimate from TAG Heuer:
Maintenance II - complete service on quartz chronograph watch consists of the following steps: ultrasonic cleaning of case and bracelet, replacement of case spring bars, battery, back gaskets, crystal gaskets, crown gasket & pusher gaskets if applicable, replacement or repair of movement, time keeping test, water resistance test, one (1) year service warranty on all chargeable work performed.
All information contained in our previous response is accurate. We are sorry, however, we are neither able to service free of charge, nor offer any refund. Thank you.