Dear Revdex.com;
Thanks you for your letter dated September 8, 2015. We understand that we have ten (10) days to provide a response the allegations provided by [redacted] and are submitting this in response. We are providing this as a true and faithful account of what occurred. If...
necessary these accounts can be corroborated by both our employees, our watchmaker, as well as customers who were in the store at the time and who witnesses the scenes even commenting to us about it after the [redacted] had left.
Ms. [redacted] did visit us on May 5, 2015 leaving us a ladies Hamilton gold tone square faced watch with a stretch band that had a small design on it. We were told the watch did not run and she requested an estimate to fix it. The watch was a wind style watch and required a cleaning, overhaul, and adjustments to the movement to restore it. The estimate was provided and agreed to; the work was subsequently completed. Ms. [redacted] picked up the watch on May 27, 2015. She indicated that she was pleased with the watch repair and how nice the watch looked. She noted that the watch repair was a "nice job" and left. There were no incidents or questions and each visit was pleasant. Just over to months latter on July 24, 2015 Ms. [redacted] brought a ladies Hamilton watch back to us telling us this was the watch we had repaired for her just 2 weeks earlier. The watch was missing its crystal; the face of the watch was exposed and dirty with what appeared to be black mold; the watch hands were bent; the case was damaged, and generally showed quite a bit of wear. The watch was dirty in appearance and did not have the same design on the band. It of course was not running. The employees were doing their best to understand why the watch was in the condition that it was and were asking her a few basic questions when Ms. [redacted] began arguing loudly with them. She again claimed very loudly that we had just replaced the crystal for her 2 weeks prior and it had fallen out after only being worn twice. We tried to explain to her that in fact it had been just over 2 months since she had picked up her watch and that as part of that repair we had only cleaned and adjusted her watch but we did not replace the crystal as it wasn't broken and didn't need it. Ms. [redacted] continued to argue that we had replaced the crystal even though we had showed her the work order. She continued to note that her mother had only worn it twice and accused us of not fixing it properly. We tried to explain to her as politely as we could that the watch she had brought in this second time was not the same watch she had brought to us for repair on May 5, 2015. At this point she would not listen to any reason and became extremely loud and very belligerent to myself and both my employees. In fact she disrupted the entire store to the
point that customers were commenting on it after she had left. But while she was there and because she was so loud and belligerent, we agreed to allow the watch to be returned to the bench just to bring the conversation to an end and to stop the disruption to the store. In hindsight this was likely a mistake as we were fairly certain this was not the same watch. The excessive wear and damage were not consistent with the short 2 month time frame she had had it. We also knew that any uncertainty about the watch would be resolved by the watchmaker as each watch is cataloged before any work is completed. In fact the Hamilton watch style 911 provided to us on May 5, 2015 had serial number #[redacted] stamped on the movement. The Hamilton watch style 911 brought to us on July 25, 2015 had serial number #[redacted] on its movement. Clearly these were not the same watches.The watchmaker further noted that the latter watch had a case that was slightly different than the first watch, the watch was extremely dirty inside indicating the crystal had been off the watch for a significant period of time (as in years) and upon closer inspection the movement in the latter watch had never been serviced. Once this had been determined by the watchmaker I called Ms. [redacted] to talk to her about the two watches. However she would not listen to me and was screaming so loud on the phone the employees could hear her. She was claiming we were trying to steal her mom's watch. I asked her to please listen to what I was saying. The watch had never been cleaned or repaired and the serial numbers did not match. But she continued screaming into the phone saying that her mom lived with her and she was 86 years and never went out by herself. She noted loudly that it couldn't be different it had the same band and it "fit her mom's wrist." I reminded her that the bands were in fact different. She also kept saying this is her mother's watch saying it had a white face. I told her it had a yellow face not white face. She went on to say she couldn't remember if it was white or yellow. I asked her if her mom could have had two Hamilton watches. Maybe years ago the crystal broke and her dad could have given her a new 2nd watch. She said no, she only had this watch and two other watches that she couldn't describe and that the 2 watches were not the same. Ms. [redacted] did not respond to any sense of reason. After ending the call I had a feeling that thiswas not going to en6 well. In an effort to head this off I just went ahead and had the watchmaker fix the second watch too hoping that this would appease her. When the second watch had been fixed I called Ms. [redacted] on September 1, 2015 and informed her that it was ready to be picked up. I explained again to her that the two watches were different eexplaining again the differences and that the serial numbersand cases were different. On September 2, 2015 Mr. [redacted] came in to pick up the watch. He also asked about the watches. We did or best to explain the differences between the two watches as well as noting the different serial numbers. However, Mr. [redacted] also became argumentative and belligerent to the employees to the point that he was finally asked to provide his claim check so the watch could be returned to him. In an effort to appease them and to stop yet anotherdisruption in the store; the repaired watch was given to him at no charge. Mr. [redacted] took the watchand was then asked politely by the employees to please leave. After this we received another visit from Ms. [redacted] noting again her displeasure accusing us of switching her watch saying that this 2ndwatch did not have the diamonds in the band as the first watch she brought in. I explained to her that the first watch had a small design on the band but that there were never any diamonds on either of the watches.
We are sorry that there was a misunderstanding with ** and [redacted] regarding her mother's watch. However, the watches were never the same. The serial numbers were different between then and the 2nd watch had clearly been damaged for some time. We did everything we could to explain this to ** and [redacted] but to no avail going as far as to provide the second repair for them free of charge in an effort to appease the situation and to bring the issue to a close. There is nothing more we could have reasonable done nor is there anything further we can do at this point. Both watches that were given to us have been repaired and returned to the [redacted].
As to [redacted] questions, we provided the repair on the second watch as a good faith gesture in an effort to bring this issue to a close. The "drop-off" receipt [redacted] is referring to is actually a claim check. For each watch she provided for repair she was given a claim check for tracking purposes and to be used so that the completed item could be returned to her once the repairs had been completed. We collect the claim checks with each item returned. We would not provide the claim check back. [redacted] was provided a receipt for her payment on the completed watch returned May 27, 2015. Since the second repair was given to them free of charge and because of the commotion in the store [redacted] was politely asked to leave once the claim check had been provided.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: the jewelry store is lying. When I brought back the watch the second time there was no argument or fighting. I simply said the crystal had fallen off. The staff made no comment about the condition of the watch or asked me any questions about it. I made no accusations and was not loud or belligerent. No staff member made a comment that it was not the watch I had originally brought in. No staff member asked me a "few basic questions" about the condition of the watch. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of MARIANOS response is a complete fabrication of what transpired. Again, I repeat, There was no comment or statement that this was not the original watch.Sincerely,[redacted]
Dear Revdex.com;
Thanks you for your letter dated September 8, 2015. We understand that we have ten (10) days to provide a response the allegations provided by [redacted] and are submitting this in response. We are providing this as a true and faithful account of what occurred. If...
necessary these accounts can be corroborated by both our employees, our watchmaker, as well as customers who were in the store at the time and who witnesses the scenes even commenting to us about it after the [redacted] had left.
Ms. [redacted] did visit us on May 5, 2015 leaving us a ladies Hamilton gold tone square faced watch with a stretch band that had a small design on it. We were told the watch did not run and she requested an estimate to fix it. The watch was a wind style watch and required a cleaning, overhaul, and adjustments to the movement to restore it. The estimate was provided and agreed to; the work was subsequently completed. Ms. [redacted] picked up the watch on May 27, 2015. She indicated that she was pleased with the watch repair and how nice the watch looked. She noted that the watch repair was a "nice job" and left. There were no incidents or questions and each visit was pleasant. Just over to months latter on July 24, 2015 Ms. [redacted] brought a ladies Hamilton watch back to us telling us this was the watch we had repaired for her just 2 weeks earlier. The watch was missing its crystal; the face of the watch was exposed and dirty with what appeared to be black mold; the watch hands were bent; the case was damaged, and generally showed quite a bit of wear. The watch was dirty in appearance and did not have the same design on the band. It of course was not running. The employees were doing their best to understand why the watch was in the condition that it was and were asking her a few basic questions when Ms. [redacted] began arguing loudly with them. She again claimed very loudly that we had just replaced the crystal for her 2 weeks prior and it had fallen out after only being worn twice. We tried to explain to her that in fact it had been just over 2 months since she had picked up her watch and that as part of that repair we had only cleaned and adjusted her watch but we did not replace the crystal as it wasn't broken and didn't need it. Ms. [redacted] continued to argue that we had replaced the crystal even though we had showed her the work order. She continued to note that her mother had only worn it twice and accused us of not fixing it properly. We tried to explain to her as politely as we could that the watch she had brought in this second time was not the same watch she had brought to us for repair on May 5, 2015. At this point she would not listen to any reason and became extremely loud and very belligerent to myself and both my employees. In fact she disrupted the entire store to the
point that customers were commenting on it after she had left. But while she was there and because she was so loud and belligerent, we agreed to allow the watch to be returned to the bench just to bring the conversation to an end and to stop the disruption to the store. In hindsight this was likely a mistake as we were fairly certain this was not the same watch. The excessive wear and damage were not consistent with the short 2 month time frame she had had it. We also knew that any uncertainty about the watch would be resolved by the watchmaker as each watch is cataloged before any work is completed. In fact the Hamilton watch style 911 provided to us on May 5, 2015 had serial number #[redacted] stamped on the movement. The Hamilton watch style 911 brought to us on July 25, 2015 had serial number #[redacted] on its movement. Clearly these were not the same watches.The watchmaker further noted that the latter watch had a case that was slightly different than the first watch, the watch was extremely dirty inside indicating the crystal had been off the watch for a significant period of time (as in years) and upon closer inspection the movement in the latter watch had never been serviced. Once this had been determined by the watchmaker I called Ms. [redacted] to talk to her about the two watches. However she would not listen to me and was screaming so loud on the phone the employees could hear her. She was claiming we were trying to steal her mom's watch. I asked her to please listen to what I was saying. The watch had never been cleaned or repaired and the serial numbers did not match. But she continued screaming into the phone saying that her mom lived with her and she was 86 years and never went out by herself. She noted loudly that it couldn't be different it had the same band and it "fit her mom's wrist." I reminded her that the bands were in fact different. She also kept saying this is her mother's watch saying it had a white face. I told her it had a yellow face not white face. She went on to say she couldn't remember if it was white or yellow. I asked her if her mom could have had two Hamilton watches. Maybe years ago the crystal broke and her dad could have given her a new 2nd watch. She said no, she only had this watch and two other watches that she couldn't describe and that the 2 watches were not the same. Ms. [redacted] did not respond to any sense of reason. After ending the call I had a feeling that thiswas not going to en6 well. In an effort to head this off I just went ahead and had the watchmaker fix the second watch too hoping that this would appease her. When the second watch had been fixed I called Ms. [redacted] on September 1, 2015 and informed her that it was ready to be picked up. I explained again to her that the two watches were different eexplaining again the differences and that the serial numbersand cases were different. On September 2, 2015 Mr. [redacted] came in to pick up the watch. He also asked about the watches. We did or best to explain the differences between the two watches as well as noting the different serial numbers. However, Mr. [redacted] also became argumentative and belligerent to the employees to the point that he was finally asked to provide his claim check so the watch could be returned to him. In an effort to appease them and to stop yet anotherdisruption in the store; the repaired watch was given to him at no charge. Mr. [redacted] took the watchand was then asked politely by the employees to please leave. After this we received another visit from Ms. [redacted] noting again her displeasure accusing us of switching her watch saying that this 2ndwatch did not have the diamonds in the band as the first watch she brought in. I explained to her that the first watch had a small design on the band but that there were never any diamonds on either of the watches.
We are sorry that there was a misunderstanding with ** and [redacted] regarding her mother's watch. However, the watches were never the same. The serial numbers were different between then and the 2nd watch had clearly been damaged for some time. We did everything we could to explain this to ** and [redacted] but to no avail going as far as to provide the second repair for them free of charge in an effort to appease the situation and to bring the issue to a close. There is nothing more we could have reasonable done nor is there anything further we can do at this point. Both watches that were given to us have been repaired and returned to the [redacted].
As to [redacted] questions, we provided the repair on the second watch as a good faith gesture in an effort to bring this issue to a close. The "drop-off" receipt [redacted] is referring to is actually a claim check. For each watch she provided for repair she was given a claim check for tracking purposes and to be used so that the completed item could be returned to her once the repairs had been completed. We collect the claim checks with each item returned. We would not provide the claim check back. [redacted] was provided a receipt for her payment on the completed watch returned May 27, 2015. Since the second repair was given to them free of charge and because of the commotion in the store [redacted] was politely asked to leave once the claim check had been provided.
Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: the jewelry store is lying. When I brought back the watch the second time there was no argument or fighting. I simply said the crystal had fallen off. The staff made no comment about the condition of the watch or asked me any questions about it. I made no accusations and was not loud or belligerent. No staff member made a comment that it was not the watch I had originally brought in. No staff member asked me a "few basic questions" about the condition of the watch. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of MARIANOS response is a complete fabrication of what transpired. Again, I repeat, There was no comment or statement that this was not the original watch.Sincerely,[redacted]