Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
This a picture I took of the watch before I send it It's the watch on the topWith theblue bezelAs you can see there is no broken crown All it has a scratch on the bezelAll I am demanding that the provide documentation from Oris at the time I purchase the watch was NewThe sold me a defective watch They are typing to blame on me that the crown was broken That is disturbing to me bc as it's impossible to break a crown and I wear it on my right handSecond I just recieved an email confirming the got the wAtch and there is no mention that the watch crown was damaged .see attachment
Regards,
G*** ***
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:Regardless of the the disagreement about the item I received, the response does not acknowledge that I received written confirmation from an employee of the company stating I would not be charged the restocking fee when the item was returned. Otherwise, provide me the other options provided in your return policy and issue me a creditI have not been given any options, just had my money taken after the return and been given the run around.
Regards,
D*** ***
We have received, and have already mailed out the manual and warranty cardWe understand the client has repeatedly asserted there is a blemish, however, we do require a photograph to be emailed of said blemish prior to being able to take any actionThe client has emailed us completely blurry and out of focus photographs (to the point where absolutely nothing can be discerned)The client has spent several days emailing us and the Revdex.comIf the client can simply spend a few seconds to take in focus photographs of the blemish, this would not be an ongoing issue, and could have easily been resolved a week agoWe really are sorry to see how enraged this client isHowever, we feel compelled to say that if 1% of the time spent communicating to us, levying threats, communicating with the Revdex.com, etc had been spent on simply taking an in focus photograph, a new replacement watch would already be in his possessionWe are sorry, however, we are not able to accommodate the client's request until an in focus photograph can be emailedIn the age of smart phones and tablets, this request should take a matter of secondsWhile we don't wish to make anything (in any capacity) difficult for our clients, we do not see a simple request for an in focus photograph to be overburdening to the point of resulting in a week of repeated communications.We ask the client to please email an in focus photograph and we will be happy to assist himThank you
This client did indeed special order a timepiece, and the timepiece was indeed defectiveThese facts are indeed accurateThe 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
everywhereWe 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 braceletThe bracelet had been scratched throughout, and could not be exchangedAlso, there was no defect with the braceletThe 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), etcShe 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
Complaint: 11012634
I am rejecting this response because:Point 1: AW request payments are made by money order for a reason and I suspect that reason is to rightly protect their business interests. I have included a direct lift (and the link) from one of a number of responses I obtained when I Googled "Can a bank money order bounce." The view that a money order cannot bounce was supported by Wells Fargo bank when I contacted them, having received the e mail from AW, informing me my money order had bounced. This email demanded the $50 shipping fee plus $45 for bank fees!! My bank told me that not only could my money order not have bounced, they informed me that it had already been cashed by AW. I cannot comment on AW's assertion that they coincidently had another customer from the UK at the same time. although I doubt the authenticity of this claim. What I can say is the geographical element is somewhat irrelevant as all of my dealings with AW have been conducted from my home in Florida. The only material fact concerning the UK is that is where the watch has been shipped to. I hope that this information helps the author to provide a logical argument which he /she concedes they have failed to do.A money order is a document that tells a bank, credit union, building society or post office to pay you money. Unlike cheques, money orders are prepaid. Money orders can't bounce due to insufficient funds since they are prepaid, but they can bounce due to others problem, such as suspected fraud.Money order payments | business.gov.auwww.business.gov.au/business-topics/.../money-order-payments.aspx...⇄ 2: I would like to explain why the words "it doesn't matter" were key tow how my interactions with AW have been so disappointing. The reason why this was so important to me was that at that, time the service and responses I had received from AW had already given rise to doubts about the credibility of the company. This response compounded my doubts although I have never claimed these words were "Piercing," " Profane," or "Offensive." They are however poignant and insightful about the importance AW place on customer service I find it incredible that the author even uses the word "assert." When I raised this particular point with General Manager PG during one of my many calls, he apologised. I do not believe that I need any guidance on my use of English language. The authors' view that the words have no impact on anything probably gives me an insight as to how AW value their customers. At that point AW had my $2290, my watch and were trying to get me to pay a further $95. The author refers to my numerous calls to AW, most of which were as a result of missed deadlines and promises of return calls that never materialised. I refer to the closing comment from one of AW's agents in an email dated May 1st 2015, inviting me to contact AW should I have any questions or concerns. Its fair to say I had many concerns about AW business practices, concerns that I only felt comfortable committing to paper once my watch was safely back in my possession. And let us not forget AW's GM has partially accepted that the delays and service I have received were unacceptable and merited them reducing my fees by $200. In his e mail dated 22nd September 2015 he confirmed this reduction and closed stating "sorry again for all of the previous delays."Point 3: In response to point 3 the author indicates that AW provided me, in writing, a report that the services rendered were a crown replacement, middle case replacement and a maintenance service. On September 21st 2015 I received an e mail from GM PG, documenting that my watch required " a new case and crown." Nothing was mentioned about a maintenance service being carried out. The e mail contained a request for $932 which I refused to pay. As stated above I eventually paid $732. I cannot think that any reputable business would consider that this would be the only paperwork a customer would expect following such a transaction. No formal invoice, no receipt for my payment and not even a compliments slip from AW in the box. And despite his pointed reference to 19 calls I have had to make to AW, PG concluded his e mail "Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns." I think I have made my point.Point 4: It is wrong to say that I assert that there was a shipping error made by AW. This allegation was made by Fedex I suggest AW take a look at the tracking comments by Fedex which read:Clearance delay - ImportSTANSTED GBDescription provided is insufficient to classify commodity.Fedex have informed me that that the £21 fee is an administrative fee. The author states that AW have already absorbed $200 " for no other reason than to please this client." This is a blatant falsehood as, as stated earlier, I have an email from GM, PG, dated 22nd September 2015 where he confirmed this reduction and closed stating "sorry again for all of the previous delays." The assertion that this was in the interest of good customer service is laughable after 7 months, at least 19 phone calls, numerous e mails and over $3000. At no point was I informed of any additional charges that I would be liable for in relation to returning the repaired watch. AW made it clear about the duties to be levied on the original purchase in an e mail dated November 4th 2015.I am amazed that AW think there is a possibility of them ever being given the opportunity to provide me with any further products. I can only hope that I do not have to return my timepiece during the remain 2 years of the watch warranty. Interestingly the information provided to Fedex, and Customs and Excise, states that AW are" returning a warranty repaired instrument at no cost." The declaration at the bottom of the invoice states that shipper confirms all information confirmed in the invoice to be true and correct. it is signed by Peter. Does that mean I can expect refund of the full $732.00?
Regards,
K[redacted]
This client has repeatedly contacted our office asking that his item be returned with no services rendered. This process can take a few weeks, contingent on which dealer, and which manufacturer we are dealing with. We have advised this client of this on numerous occasions, and he has...
repeatedly replied with threats of Revdex.com complaints, lawsuits, etc. His timepiece will be returned to him within one week, and that is not in any way due to his repeated calls, threats, emails, etc. We understand that delays are frustrating, however, they are an inherent part of the process, and we do not possess the means to expedite shipments of other parties. Thank you.
There is no gentler way to say this; this client is not being truthful. We will be happy to address each falsehood individually:Falsehood #1 - Client contends: "I placed an order for a watch from these guys over the phone as I live in Washington State. "Facts: He did not place the...
order on the phone. He placed it through the Amazon checkout system on Tue Jan 27 08:02:17 PST 2015. (Amazon screenshot, order #, and IP address from which online order was placed available upon request by Revdex.com). Falsehood #2 - Client contends: "I calle back short after to cancel the order as I decided it would be better for me to pay a little more to get it locally. I did not think it would be an issues as there web page states free returns."Facts: Client called back approximately 5 hours after having placed the order. The timing is important, as is the fact he placed it through Amazon Checkout. When placing an order through Amazon checkout, it comes through to us automatically verified, and is simply shipped. All we do is create a label, package, and ship. We do not take any part in the processing of the order (which will be addressed in falsehood #3). The assertion that there are "Free returns" is not accurate, as our policies clearly state that there is a 10% fee for the cancellation or return of any item over $5,000. Here's a link to our return policy: http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-return-policy.htmlFalsehood #3 - Client contends: "When I called back they lady told me the order had not been completed and processed yet but that they were going to process it anyway so that they could charge me a shipping and restocking fee. "Facts: The client placed the order on Amazon. We don't take any part in processing it. It already comes through as processed. The processed order was already shipped via FedEx. Here is a direct copy/paste from our system: " > 2015 Jan 27 12:58: Marked Cancelled; reason given: other: tried to cancel already shipped." We aren't able to provide full tracking numbers in a public forum (just like I can't provide the Amazon screenshot here, because it contains private information). However, we have included a copy of the screenshot from the FedEx website with portions of the tracking number redacted.Once an order is placed and processed for any item over $5000, there is indeed a 10% cancellation or restocking fee as outlined in our policies. The client's assertion that we intentionally processed the order just so we can charge him is ludicrous. It's automatically done. It takes less than 3 minutes for Amazon orders, because they already come through processed, and all we have to do is copy/paste the client's name and address onto a label, and have the shipping department ship. The entire process takes only a few minutes. This client waited 5 hours to cancel the order. We are not able to issue a full refund on items over $5000 which have been processed and shipped. We apologize for any inconvenience.
This client shipped us their timepiece for service, citing moisture infiltration. Moisture infiltration is not covered under warranty as outlined in our warranty policies and procedures posted online:http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.htmlThe applicable text, verbatim:"Damages...
caused to a timepiece arising from water or moisture are not covered under the warranty."This is also outlined on they physical warranty card that came with the timepiece.The client claims in the complaint that the timepiece has never been near moisture. The laws of physics do not permit water to spontaneously appear inside a watch. The timepiece mechanism does not have the means to manufacture water. The only way water entered the timepiece is from an exterior exposure to such moisture. As cited in the foregoing, moisture damage is not covered under warranty. If the client would like to proceed with service, payment must be submitted in order for us to approve said service. If the client wishes not to remit payment, we can recall the timepiece and return to the client with no services rendered. Thank you.
This client purchased a Breitling watch and returned it for service.The client was indeed accidentally sent an email indicating that his money order had bounced. Coincidentally, another client from the UK had a money order bounce on the same day, and the accounting department sent this client an...
email accidentally. This did not cause any delays.The client's timepiece was damaged. The crown was stripped. This model of Breitling does not have a separate case tube, and it's simply integrated with the case. According to Breitling, the timepiece required a new "middle case".The client did indeed call to voice his concerns, and he received a $200 discount off the cost of service.He complains that he fears he may never received his watch back, however, acknowledges he has received it within the same paragraph.This was indeed delayed. The holidays, including Thanksgiving, do indeed slow things down somewhat. This is entirely beyond out control.We would like to make clear that we do not service the timepieces; this client's timepiece was serviced by Breitling. We provide estimated lead times based on our experience, however, it is the manufacturer, nor Authentic Watches, which services the timepiece. We ship the item once it is returned by Breitling. We cannot ship the item before it gets returned to us by the manufacturer.We are not able to "compensate" the client for his "inconvenience" beyond the $200 we have already paid out of pocket simply for customer satisfaction purposes; due to delays completely beyond our control.
Complaint: 11137271
I am rejecting this response because:The seller kept inform me that they would send my watch to the omega service center, and made me to think that my watch should be repaired by authorized omega center.If I knew they will open my watch privately, I would not send my watch to them. I am pretty sure that I would ask to omega service center and replace it at that time.The point is not a returned, the point is scratch, crack, any relevant, devalue the watch - this is a point. The seller sent my watch to the private repair shop and they open my watch, and made a scratch- or crack whatever kind of sources that devalue my watch on my back case, they need to pay cost for new part of back case. Now, I am asking to seller to refund - shipping fee + warranty cost that I paid at final sale, And repair shop should pay me about cost for new part of back case + labor fee. Thank you.
Regards,
H[redacted]
We are sorry the customer is upset. USPS Registered mail is actually the least expensive means of shipping high value items. It is also the most secure. This is why it is recommended. In regards to the assertion that we are "lying" about our policies, we do indeed require all buyers to agree to our policies prior to checkout. This client did indeed agree to the policies prior to purchase. A link to our policies can be found on every page of the website, including search pages. Here is a link to all of our policies: https://www.authenticwatches.com/info.html Under the heading "Extended Return Policies", the first 4 lines read:"All domestic purchases received within the allotted return period on items showing as "In Stock" under $5,000 paid fully by Amazon Payments, PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, or Discover for the advertised price will receive a full refund less shipping fees (calculated on www.fedex.com); or a full value one time exchange for a similarly priced item plus shipping fees." "Full refund less shipping fees" is the key phrase. Further down it states: "All returned items must be shipped to us via USPS REGISTERED MAIL along with a completed RMA form." We are sorry the client is upset, however, contrary to the client's claim, all policies are clearly posted for all to see, and no one can check out without agreeing to them (the system will not allow it). We will be happy to provide the Revdex.com with the client's IP address from which the policies were agreed to, as well as the digital time stamp of said agreement. We are sorry, however, we are not able to refund the client further. Thank you.
Complaint: 12456462
I am rejecting this response because: Authenticwatches.com claims that I had been in possession of the watch for several months before having had the water damage. This is not accurate - please see the attached note from the vendor that states the Fedex tracking number of the timepiece being shipped to me after the maintenance was complete. Fedex delivered the watch on Friday, 6/23/2017 at 1:10pm, as per 7252 9911 5797, which is less than a week and a half before I went to the beach with my family for the 4th of July weekend - which is when I raised the issue.
Regards,
J[redacted]
All information contained in our forgoing communication is accurate. The client received exactly what was ordered. The model numbers are correct, the photographs are correct, and this has been verified by our quality control team, as well as our general manager. The client received exactly what the client ordered. There was no discrepancy whatsoever in what was advertised to what was shipped (and subsequently returned.) Accordingly, we are not able to issue any further refund. Thank you.
Complaint: 12669123
I am rejecting this response because: My first Rolex I bought in 2010 did come with stickers. And I did not have to ask them if the Rolex would come with stickers it just did when it was labeled factory fresh.My order in 2017 the Rolex did not have stickers even though it said factory fresh. Now they’re admitting that you have to ask for stickers on the watch if you want it with stickers now.I was not told this when I bought my recent Rolex. They also failed to mention that if you want stickers on it they will raise the price. They did not do that in 2010 when I bought my first Rolex from them it came with stickers and the price that was on the website was the price.Now the price that is on there does not reflect the price with stickers like I said in my comment I had to pay $750 more to get it with stickers. They’re telling you to call them and ask them that why can’t they just put it on their site that some of their watches or really none of their watches have stickers and if you want stickers you must pay extra. If it’s your first time buying a Rolex from them that says factory fresh you’re not going to know to ask does this come with stickers.It should be put on their website that the watches will not come with stickers and if you want stickers this an additional $750.
Regards,
C[redacted]
AuthenticWatches.com does indeed reserve the right to cancel any order, at any time, for any reason, at it's sole discretion. The policies citing this were agreed to by the client on Sun Oct 4 08:35:27 PDT 2015 No charge was ever made on this client's credit card. This order has been...
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
To facilitate understanding perhaps I should keep this
simple
-Read your reviews; conspiracy theories are not required
when dealing with Authentic Watches.
Unscrupulous business practices are your modus operandi
-You advertised, represented and sold as new a
malfunctioning watch then shipped it across state lines. This constitutes interstate wire fraud
-You promised to complete the repair in less than
weeks. Instead, of honoring your
guarantee, instead you held the watch in your office for weeks
-I offered a simple solution, recharge my credit card in the
amount you refunded, $2540, then return my watch. Had you abided by this elegant solution to
this dispute I would have paid the original cost $3,175. This offer was fair, equitable and reasonable
for all parties involved
-But, in an effort to continue to profit at your customer's
expense, you countered with this outlandish offer that is in violation of the
very policies you espouse to uphold.
I'll remind you that your policies – the same polices you claim we BOTH
agreed to – indicate you accept all major credit cards, you now insist I once
again pay the full amount, $3175. But,
now you insist I pay via either direct wire transfer, cash or check. Thus, despite your clearly having a policy in
place to the contrary you now insist on a form of payment that does not offer any
consumer protections. But worse, after I
receive the watch you ask me to trust you will then refund 20% of the purchase
price or $635. Do the math. Via this accounting, you will have received $
the watch, a premium of $above the original purchase price. Only a disreputable company and its
representatives would even suggest such an arrangement so heavily biased in
your favor.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: 11480509
I am rejecting this response because: For the first time in this response the business now claims that the watch had issues due to an impact. This was not mentioned previously, and is likely a self-serving fabrication. The watch never worked. The request for $500 million in compensation for wasted time was - as the huge sum "demanded" makes quite clear - was an expression of frustration with this business and its failures to provide a merchantable product, or to repair a unmerchantable product such that it operates as it was advertised - as a timepiece. As the original complaint makes clear, the request is for a refund of $1,374.00 related to the amounts paid to the business in relation to this watch. The watch has never functioned as it was advertised to, and making up reasons for why the watch required a repair in response to this complaint is unacceptable but sadly in keeping with the business' conduct to date.
Regards,
[redacted]
We are unable to ship an item which no longer exists. We have offered the client alternative models which the client refused. The client has not been charged, and the order has been cancelled. The client repeatedly asserts that we have to ship him the watch. The watch does not exist; it is not obtainable. The client repeatedly asserts we have to ship him the watch in accordance with our "contractual obligations", even after we have repeatedly pointed out that he agreed to policies which clearly articulate that an order can be cancelled at our discretion. This order has been cancelled, and the client has not been charged any sum of money. This case is now closed.
This client returned her timepiece for service. All items being returned must be accompanied by a check or money order in the amount of $30 for return shipping. This client included a $30 check as instructed, which subsequently bounced. The client asserts that our policies do not have a clause...
indicating that there will be a $25 fee assessed. The client is being dishonest, as I myself, over the phone, directly assisted her. I stayed on the phone with her, pointed out where it states that in our policies, and stayed on the phone while she verbally read back the part listed on our policies. Here is a link to our policies:http://www.authenticwatches.com/info.htmlHere is the applicable text, verbatim:"Buyer will be responsible for any bank fees resulting from returned checks or bank wire transfers, as well as fees incurred from collections."H The client is aware that we cannot accept a credit or debit card for return shipping fees. Our policies on this are clear, and have been in place since the inception of our organization. We are frankly a bit surprised to hear that the client has levied the blame on our organization for having written us a bad check. She at first accused us of being dishonest in her reply, asking us to email her a copy of the bounced check and bank notice. Upon accommodating her request, she has spent days calling and complaining to us, attempting to shift the blame for the fact she wrote us a check for $30 which bounced.It is unreasonable to expect that writing a bad check will not result in any fees. The client is now upset that it would take too long to obtain a money order to remit payment. The time spent on attempting to evade fees and circumvent the instructions provided is far greater than the time it would take to mail in a new payment. Money orders can be purchased at Supermarkets, convenience stores, and all post offices within minutes. We certainly understand that the client wishes to find a more expeditious method. The best way to have avoided any delays was to have not submitted a bad check.Technically, under California law, the writing of a bad check results in the following which can be assessed: CA Civil Code § 1719(a)(2) Amount due, damages of the amount so owing, but in no case less than $100 or more than $1, 500. CA Penal Code 476a also lays out criminal penalties for writing of a bad check.This client must remit payment in the form of a money order in the amount of $55 ($30 for the original amount, plus $25 for our bank fees.) As a general courtesy, we only charge the bank fees, although we are legally entitled to damages of no less than $100.Once payment is received, the RMA suspension will be lifted. We will not accept payment via any means other than a money order. Thank you.
This client returned a timepiece for service. The timepiece was shipped to the service center. It was determined by the service center that the timepiece required a movement maintenance service, and the client was subsequently emailed an estimate for said service, as a movement maintenance procedure...
is not covered under warranty. The client has independently come to the conclusion that the timepiece had a bad mainspring.The client demanded that we have the mainspring repaired without a movement maintenance service. This is not (physically) possible. Further, had it been physically possible (which it is not), we do not have the ability to pick and choose which mandatory service should be done. Omega (nor any manufacturer) would ever perform any intervention on a timepiece unless the end result would be that it left the service center fully functional. In order to make the timepiece fully functional, the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service.The client refused, and requested the timepiece be returned with no services rendered. The timepiece has been recalled and will be returned to the client once back from the manufacturer, which can typically take a couple of weeks.In the interim, the client has emailed us repeatedly threatening "Legal Action" if he doesn't receive his timepiece by [arbitrary date]. There are no stipulations under the law mandating we return the timepiece to the client by whichever date he deems appropriate. We have no interest whatsoever in retaining a timepiece for any period of time (in fact, it's a liability, and we ship out timepieces as soon as possible.) Once the timepiece is received, it will be shipped to the client via FedEx, and he will be emailed his tracking number. No further action can be taken. Thank you.
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
This a picture I took of the watch before I send it It's the watch on the topWith theblue bezelAs you can see there is no broken crown All it has a scratch on the bezelAll I am demanding that the provide documentation from Oris at the time I purchase the watch was NewThe sold me a defective watch They are typing to blame on me that the crown was broken That is disturbing to me bc as it's impossible to break a crown and I wear it on my right handSecond I just recieved an email confirming the got the wAtch and there is no mention that the watch crown was damaged .see attachment
Regards,
G*** ***
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:Regardless of the the disagreement about the item I received, the response does not acknowledge that I received written confirmation from an employee of the company stating I would not be charged the restocking fee when the item was returned. Otherwise, provide me the other options provided in your return policy and issue me a creditI have not been given any options, just had my money taken after the return and been given the run around.
Regards,
D*** ***
We have received, and have already mailed out the manual and warranty cardWe understand the client has repeatedly asserted there is a blemish, however, we do require a photograph to be emailed of said blemish prior to being able to take any actionThe client has emailed us completely blurry and out of focus photographs (to the point where absolutely nothing can be discerned)The client has spent several days emailing us and the Revdex.comIf the client can simply spend a few seconds to take in focus photographs of the blemish, this would not be an ongoing issue, and could have easily been resolved a week agoWe really are sorry to see how enraged this client isHowever, we feel compelled to say that if 1% of the time spent communicating to us, levying threats, communicating with the Revdex.com, etc had been spent on simply taking an in focus photograph, a new replacement watch would already be in his possessionWe are sorry, however, we are not able to accommodate the client's request until an in focus photograph can be emailedIn the age of smart phones and tablets, this request should take a matter of secondsWhile we don't wish to make anything (in any capacity) difficult for our clients, we do not see a simple request for an in focus photograph to be overburdening to the point of resulting in a week of repeated communications.We ask the client to please email an in focus photograph and we will be happy to assist himThank you
This client did indeed special order a timepiece, and the timepiece was indeed defectiveThese facts are indeed accurateThe 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
everywhereWe 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 braceletThe bracelet had been scratched throughout, and could not be exchangedAlso, there was no defect with the braceletThe 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), etcShe 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
Complaint: 11012634
I am rejecting this response because:Point 1: AW request payments are made by money order for a reason and I suspect that reason is to rightly protect their business interests. I have included a direct lift (and the link) from one of a number of responses I obtained when I Googled "Can a bank money order bounce." The view that a money order cannot bounce was supported by Wells Fargo bank when I contacted them, having received the e mail from AW, informing me my money order had bounced. This email demanded the $50 shipping fee plus $45 for bank fees!! My bank told me that not only could my money order not have bounced, they informed me that it had already been cashed by AW. I cannot comment on AW's assertion that they coincidently had another customer from the UK at the same time. although I doubt the authenticity of this claim. What I can say is the geographical element is somewhat irrelevant as all of my dealings with AW have been conducted from my home in Florida. The only material fact concerning the UK is that is where the watch has been shipped to. I hope that this information helps the author to provide a logical argument which he /she concedes they have failed to do.A money order is a document that tells a bank, credit union, building society or post office to pay you money. Unlike cheques, money orders are prepaid. Money orders can't bounce due to insufficient funds since they are prepaid, but they can bounce due to others problem, such as suspected fraud.Money order payments | business.gov.auwww.business.gov.au/business-topics/.../money-order-payments.aspx...⇄ 2: I would like to explain why the words "it doesn't matter" were key tow how my interactions with AW have been so disappointing. The reason why this was so important to me was that at that, time the service and responses I had received from AW had already given rise to doubts about the credibility of the company. This response compounded my doubts although I have never claimed these words were "Piercing," " Profane," or "Offensive." They are however poignant and insightful about the importance AW place on customer service I find it incredible that the author even uses the word "assert." When I raised this particular point with General Manager PG during one of my many calls, he apologised. I do not believe that I need any guidance on my use of English language. The authors' view that the words have no impact on anything probably gives me an insight as to how AW value their customers. At that point AW had my $2290, my watch and were trying to get me to pay a further $95. The author refers to my numerous calls to AW, most of which were as a result of missed deadlines and promises of return calls that never materialised. I refer to the closing comment from one of AW's agents in an email dated May 1st 2015, inviting me to contact AW should I have any questions or concerns. Its fair to say I had many concerns about AW business practices, concerns that I only felt comfortable committing to paper once my watch was safely back in my possession. And let us not forget AW's GM has partially accepted that the delays and service I have received were unacceptable and merited them reducing my fees by $200. In his e mail dated 22nd September 2015 he confirmed this reduction and closed stating "sorry again for all of the previous delays."Point 3: In response to point 3 the author indicates that AW provided me, in writing, a report that the services rendered were a crown replacement, middle case replacement and a maintenance service. On September 21st 2015 I received an e mail from GM PG, documenting that my watch required " a new case and crown." Nothing was mentioned about a maintenance service being carried out. The e mail contained a request for $932 which I refused to pay. As stated above I eventually paid $732. I cannot think that any reputable business would consider that this would be the only paperwork a customer would expect following such a transaction. No formal invoice, no receipt for my payment and not even a compliments slip from AW in the box. And despite his pointed reference to 19 calls I have had to make to AW, PG concluded his e mail "Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns." I think I have made my point.Point 4: It is wrong to say that I assert that there was a shipping error made by AW. This allegation was made by Fedex I suggest AW take a look at the tracking comments by Fedex which read:Clearance delay - ImportSTANSTED GBDescription provided is insufficient to classify commodity.Fedex have informed me that that the £21 fee is an administrative fee. The author states that AW have already absorbed $200 " for no other reason than to please this client." This is a blatant falsehood as, as stated earlier, I have an email from GM, PG, dated 22nd September 2015 where he confirmed this reduction and closed stating "sorry again for all of the previous delays." The assertion that this was in the interest of good customer service is laughable after 7 months, at least 19 phone calls, numerous e mails and over $3000. At no point was I informed of any additional charges that I would be liable for in relation to returning the repaired watch. AW made it clear about the duties to be levied on the original purchase in an e mail dated November 4th 2015.I am amazed that AW think there is a possibility of them ever being given the opportunity to provide me with any further products. I can only hope that I do not have to return my timepiece during the remain 2 years of the watch warranty. Interestingly the information provided to Fedex, and Customs and Excise, states that AW are" returning a warranty repaired instrument at no cost." The declaration at the bottom of the invoice states that shipper confirms all information confirmed in the invoice to be true and correct. it is signed by Peter. Does that mean I can expect refund of the full $732.00?
Regards,
K[redacted]
This client has repeatedly contacted our office asking that his item be returned with no services rendered. This process can take a few weeks, contingent on which dealer, and which manufacturer we are dealing with. We have advised this client of this on numerous occasions, and he has...
repeatedly replied with threats of Revdex.com complaints, lawsuits, etc. His timepiece will be returned to him within one week, and that is not in any way due to his repeated calls, threats, emails, etc. We understand that delays are frustrating, however, they are an inherent part of the process, and we do not possess the means to expedite shipments of other parties. Thank you.
There is no gentler way to say this; this client is not being truthful. We will be happy to address each falsehood individually:Falsehood #1 - Client contends: "I placed an order for a watch from these guys over the phone as I live in Washington State. "Facts: He did not place the...
order on the phone. He placed it through the Amazon checkout system on Tue Jan 27 08:02:17 PST 2015. (Amazon screenshot, order #, and IP address from which online order was placed available upon request by Revdex.com). Falsehood #2 - Client contends: "I calle back short after to cancel the order as I decided it would be better for me to pay a little more to get it locally. I did not think it would be an issues as there web page states free returns."Facts: Client called back approximately 5 hours after having placed the order. The timing is important, as is the fact he placed it through Amazon Checkout. When placing an order through Amazon checkout, it comes through to us automatically verified, and is simply shipped. All we do is create a label, package, and ship. We do not take any part in the processing of the order (which will be addressed in falsehood #3). The assertion that there are "Free returns" is not accurate, as our policies clearly state that there is a 10% fee for the cancellation or return of any item over $5,000. Here's a link to our return policy: http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-return-policy.htmlFalsehood #3 - Client contends: "When I called back they lady told me the order had not been completed and processed yet but that they were going to process it anyway so that they could charge me a shipping and restocking fee. "Facts: The client placed the order on Amazon. We don't take any part in processing it. It already comes through as processed. The processed order was already shipped via FedEx. Here is a direct copy/paste from our system: " > 2015 Jan 27 12:58: Marked Cancelled; reason given: other: tried to cancel already shipped." We aren't able to provide full tracking numbers in a public forum (just like I can't provide the Amazon screenshot here, because it contains private information). However, we have included a copy of the screenshot from the FedEx website with portions of the tracking number redacted.Once an order is placed and processed for any item over $5000, there is indeed a 10% cancellation or restocking fee as outlined in our policies. The client's assertion that we intentionally processed the order just so we can charge him is ludicrous. It's automatically done. It takes less than 3 minutes for Amazon orders, because they already come through processed, and all we have to do is copy/paste the client's name and address onto a label, and have the shipping department ship. The entire process takes only a few minutes. This client waited 5 hours to cancel the order. We are not able to issue a full refund on items over $5000 which have been processed and shipped. We apologize for any inconvenience.
This client shipped us their timepiece for service, citing moisture infiltration. Moisture infiltration is not covered under warranty as outlined in our warranty policies and procedures posted online:http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.htmlThe applicable text, verbatim:"Damages...
caused to a timepiece arising from water or moisture are not covered under the warranty."This is also outlined on they physical warranty card that came with the timepiece.The client claims in the complaint that the timepiece has never been near moisture. The laws of physics do not permit water to spontaneously appear inside a watch. The timepiece mechanism does not have the means to manufacture water. The only way water entered the timepiece is from an exterior exposure to such moisture. As cited in the foregoing, moisture damage is not covered under warranty. If the client would like to proceed with service, payment must be submitted in order for us to approve said service. If the client wishes not to remit payment, we can recall the timepiece and return to the client with no services rendered. Thank you.
This client purchased a Breitling watch and returned it for service.The client was indeed accidentally sent an email indicating that his money order had bounced. Coincidentally, another client from the UK had a money order bounce on the same day, and the accounting department sent this client an...
email accidentally. This did not cause any delays.The client's timepiece was damaged. The crown was stripped. This model of Breitling does not have a separate case tube, and it's simply integrated with the case. According to Breitling, the timepiece required a new "middle case".The client did indeed call to voice his concerns, and he received a $200 discount off the cost of service.He complains that he fears he may never received his watch back, however, acknowledges he has received it within the same paragraph.This was indeed delayed. The holidays, including Thanksgiving, do indeed slow things down somewhat. This is entirely beyond out control.We would like to make clear that we do not service the timepieces; this client's timepiece was serviced by Breitling. We provide estimated lead times based on our experience, however, it is the manufacturer, nor Authentic Watches, which services the timepiece. We ship the item once it is returned by Breitling. We cannot ship the item before it gets returned to us by the manufacturer.We are not able to "compensate" the client for his "inconvenience" beyond the $200 we have already paid out of pocket simply for customer satisfaction purposes; due to delays completely beyond our control.
Complaint: 11137271
I am rejecting this response because:The seller kept inform me that they would send my watch to the omega service center, and made me to think that my watch should be repaired by authorized omega center.If I knew they will open my watch privately, I would not send my watch to them. I am pretty sure that I would ask to omega service center and replace it at that time.The point is not a returned, the point is scratch, crack, any relevant, devalue the watch - this is a point. The seller sent my watch to the private repair shop and they open my watch, and made a scratch- or crack whatever kind of sources that devalue my watch on my back case, they need to pay cost for new part of back case. Now, I am asking to seller to refund - shipping fee + warranty cost that I paid at final sale, And repair shop should pay me about cost for new part of back case + labor fee. Thank you.
Regards,
H[redacted]
We are sorry the customer is upset. USPS Registered mail is actually the least expensive means of shipping high value items. It is also the most secure. This is why it is recommended. In regards to the assertion that we are "lying" about our policies, we do indeed require all buyers to agree to our policies prior to checkout. This client did indeed agree to the policies prior to purchase. A link to our policies can be found on every page of the website, including search pages. Here is a link to all of our policies: https://www.authenticwatches.com/info.html Under the heading "Extended Return Policies", the first 4 lines read:"All domestic purchases received within the allotted return period on items showing as "In Stock" under $5,000 paid fully by Amazon Payments, PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, or Discover for the advertised price will receive a full refund less shipping fees (calculated on www.fedex.com); or a full value one time exchange for a similarly priced item plus shipping fees." "Full refund less shipping fees" is the key phrase. Further down it states: "All returned items must be shipped to us via USPS REGISTERED MAIL along with a completed RMA form." We are sorry the client is upset, however, contrary to the client's claim, all policies are clearly posted for all to see, and no one can check out without agreeing to them (the system will not allow it). We will be happy to provide the Revdex.com with the client's IP address from which the policies were agreed to, as well as the digital time stamp of said agreement. We are sorry, however, we are not able to refund the client further. Thank you.
Complaint: 12456462
I am rejecting this response because: Authenticwatches.com claims that I had been in possession of the watch for several months before having had the water damage. This is not accurate - please see the attached note from the vendor that states the Fedex tracking number of the timepiece being shipped to me after the maintenance was complete. Fedex delivered the watch on Friday, 6/23/2017 at 1:10pm, as per 7252 9911 5797, which is less than a week and a half before I went to the beach with my family for the 4th of July weekend - which is when I raised the issue.
Regards,
J[redacted]
All information contained in our forgoing communication is accurate. The client received exactly what was ordered. The model numbers are correct, the photographs are correct, and this has been verified by our quality control team, as well as our general manager. The client received exactly what the client ordered. There was no discrepancy whatsoever in what was advertised to what was shipped (and subsequently returned.) Accordingly, we are not able to issue any further refund. Thank you.
Complaint: 12669123
I am rejecting this response because: My first Rolex I bought in 2010 did come with stickers. And I did not have to ask them if the Rolex would come with stickers it just did when it was labeled factory fresh.My order in 2017 the Rolex did not have stickers even though it said factory fresh. Now they’re admitting that you have to ask for stickers on the watch if you want it with stickers now.I was not told this when I bought my recent Rolex. They also failed to mention that if you want stickers on it they will raise the price. They did not do that in 2010 when I bought my first Rolex from them it came with stickers and the price that was on the website was the price.Now the price that is on there does not reflect the price with stickers like I said in my comment I had to pay $750 more to get it with stickers. They’re telling you to call them and ask them that why can’t they just put it on their site that some of their watches or really none of their watches have stickers and if you want stickers you must pay extra. If it’s your first time buying a Rolex from them that says factory fresh you’re not going to know to ask does this come with stickers.It should be put on their website that the watches will not come with stickers and if you want stickers this an additional $750.
Regards,
C[redacted]
AuthenticWatches.com does indeed reserve the right to cancel any order, at any time, for any reason, at it's sole discretion. The policies citing this were agreed to by the client on Sun Oct 4 08:35:27 PDT 2015 No charge was ever made on this client's credit card. This order has been...
cancelled and cannot be reinstated.
Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:
To facilitate understanding perhaps I should keep this
simple
-Read your reviews; conspiracy theories are not required
when dealing with Authentic Watches.
Unscrupulous business practices are your modus operandi
-You advertised, represented and sold as new a
malfunctioning watch then shipped it across state lines. This constitutes interstate wire fraud
-You promised to complete the repair in less than
weeks. Instead, of honoring your
guarantee, instead you held the watch in your office for weeks
-I offered a simple solution, recharge my credit card in the
amount you refunded, $2540, then return my watch. Had you abided by this elegant solution to
this dispute I would have paid the original cost $3,175. This offer was fair, equitable and reasonable
for all parties involved
-But, in an effort to continue to profit at your customer's
expense, you countered with this outlandish offer that is in violation of the
very policies you espouse to uphold.
I'll remind you that your policies – the same polices you claim we BOTH
agreed to – indicate you accept all major credit cards, you now insist I once
again pay the full amount, $3175. But,
now you insist I pay via either direct wire transfer, cash or check. Thus, despite your clearly having a policy in
place to the contrary you now insist on a form of payment that does not offer any
consumer protections. But worse, after I
receive the watch you ask me to trust you will then refund 20% of the purchase
price or $635. Do the math. Via this accounting, you will have received $
the watch, a premium of $above the original purchase price. Only a disreputable company and its
representatives would even suggest such an arrangement so heavily biased in
your favor.
Regards,
[redacted]
Complaint: 11480509
I am rejecting this response because: For the first time in this response the business now claims that the watch had issues due to an impact. This was not mentioned previously, and is likely a self-serving fabrication. The watch never worked. The request for $500 million in compensation for wasted time was - as the huge sum "demanded" makes quite clear - was an expression of frustration with this business and its failures to provide a merchantable product, or to repair a unmerchantable product such that it operates as it was advertised - as a timepiece. As the original complaint makes clear, the request is for a refund of $1,374.00 related to the amounts paid to the business in relation to this watch. The watch has never functioned as it was advertised to, and making up reasons for why the watch required a repair in response to this complaint is unacceptable but sadly in keeping with the business' conduct to date.
Regards,
[redacted]
We are unable to ship an item which no longer exists. We have offered the client alternative models which the client refused. The client has not been charged, and the order has been cancelled. The client repeatedly asserts that we have to ship him the watch. The watch does not exist; it is not obtainable. The client repeatedly asserts we have to ship him the watch in accordance with our "contractual obligations", even after we have repeatedly pointed out that he agreed to policies which clearly articulate that an order can be cancelled at our discretion. This order has been cancelled, and the client has not been charged any sum of money. This case is now closed.
This client returned her timepiece for service. All items being returned must be accompanied by a check or money order in the amount of $30 for return shipping. This client included a $30 check as instructed, which subsequently bounced. The client asserts that our policies do not have a clause...
indicating that there will be a $25 fee assessed. The client is being dishonest, as I myself, over the phone, directly assisted her. I stayed on the phone with her, pointed out where it states that in our policies, and stayed on the phone while she verbally read back the part listed on our policies. Here is a link to our policies:http://www.authenticwatches.com/info.htmlHere is the applicable text, verbatim:"Buyer will be responsible for any bank fees resulting from returned checks or bank wire transfers, as well as fees incurred from collections."H The client is aware that we cannot accept a credit or debit card for return shipping fees. Our policies on this are clear, and have been in place since the inception of our organization. We are frankly a bit surprised to hear that the client has levied the blame on our organization for having written us a bad check. She at first accused us of being dishonest in her reply, asking us to email her a copy of the bounced check and bank notice. Upon accommodating her request, she has spent days calling and complaining to us, attempting to shift the blame for the fact she wrote us a check for $30 which bounced.It is unreasonable to expect that writing a bad check will not result in any fees. The client is now upset that it would take too long to obtain a money order to remit payment. The time spent on attempting to evade fees and circumvent the instructions provided is far greater than the time it would take to mail in a new payment. Money orders can be purchased at Supermarkets, convenience stores, and all post offices within minutes. We certainly understand that the client wishes to find a more expeditious method. The best way to have avoided any delays was to have not submitted a bad check.Technically, under California law, the writing of a bad check results in the following which can be assessed: CA Civil Code § 1719(a)(2) Amount due, damages of the amount so owing, but in no case less than $100 or more than $1, 500. CA Penal Code 476a also lays out criminal penalties for writing of a bad check.This client must remit payment in the form of a money order in the amount of $55 ($30 for the original amount, plus $25 for our bank fees.) As a general courtesy, we only charge the bank fees, although we are legally entitled to damages of no less than $100.Once payment is received, the RMA suspension will be lifted. We will not accept payment via any means other than a money order. Thank you.
This client returned a timepiece for service. The timepiece was shipped to the service center. It was determined by the service center that the timepiece required a movement maintenance service, and the client was subsequently emailed an estimate for said service, as a movement maintenance procedure...
is not covered under warranty. The client has independently come to the conclusion that the timepiece had a bad mainspring.The client demanded that we have the mainspring repaired without a movement maintenance service. This is not (physically) possible. Further, had it been physically possible (which it is not), we do not have the ability to pick and choose which mandatory service should be done. Omega (nor any manufacturer) would ever perform any intervention on a timepiece unless the end result would be that it left the service center fully functional. In order to make the timepiece fully functional, the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service.The client refused, and requested the timepiece be returned with no services rendered. The timepiece has been recalled and will be returned to the client once back from the manufacturer, which can typically take a couple of weeks.In the interim, the client has emailed us repeatedly threatening "Legal Action" if he doesn't receive his timepiece by [arbitrary date]. There are no stipulations under the law mandating we return the timepiece to the client by whichever date he deems appropriate. We have no interest whatsoever in retaining a timepiece for any period of time (in fact, it's a liability, and we ship out timepieces as soon as possible.) Once the timepiece is received, it will be shipped to the client via FedEx, and he will be emailed his tracking number. No further action can be taken. Thank you.