Community Stories

eBay Authenticators Can Do No Wrong

wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
sgrossma sgrossma
Before the red security tag is removed from the back of the watch, I video the watch up close and test all functions.
That's what I did--left the security tag on and attempted to set the watch. That's when the stem came out.
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Bill Sohne Bill Sohne
Unless the tab , on the caseback was broken off and then when you tighten the caseback ring... it can cause the entire movement to twist
That's partly the point I was trying to make: there is no tab, no movement clamps, nothing except the stem to stop the movement rotating when torque is applied from above via the movement spacer.
 
Archer
Posts
27,647
Likes
70,281
wsfarrell wsfarrell
Your description is accurate. I'll add photos when I get it back from the watchmaker. He seemed to think the design was a problem, as the center cap moves when one turns the threaded ring. As the center cap rotates, it takes the movement spacer (and thus the movement) with it, trying to rotate the movement and putting pressure on the stem. I understand how this is NOT a problem in Speedmasters, say, since the center cap (i.e. caseback) only touches the movement spacer in a small nipple in the center, and thus cannot transmit much torque. In the Squale, the center cap and movement spacer are touching over their entire area, so if you try to rotate the (tight) center cap, the movement rotates with it. It would be nice if turning the threaded ring did NOT turn the center cap, but when things get tight (near closed), they move together.

Is there any connection between the movement and the movement spacer? I know you have said that there's no provision in the case for case clamps, but realize this is a different question.

Do you know for a fact that the case back was removed? Not referring to an assumption, but do you actually know for certain (have been told by someone or have evidence such as the case back ring orientation being different than when it was shipped) that it was removed?

Cheers, Al
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Archer Archer
Is there any connection between the movement and the movement spacer? I know you have said that there's no provision in the case for case clamps, but realize this is a different question.

Do you know for a fact that the case back was removed? Not referring to an assumption, but do you actually know for certain (have been told by someone or have evidence such as the case back ring orientation being different than when it was shipped) that it was removed?

Cheers, Al
eBay mentioned "notes" from the authenticator, but did not share them with me. I doubt they will. There is no "connection" per se between movement and movement spacer. They touch over their entire surface, however, and friction is what causes one to move when the other is rotated. By analogy, let's say you have a smooth disk sitting on top of a coin. You then press down hard on the disk and rotate it. The coin will try to rotate too, "connected" by friction.
 
Archer
Posts
27,647
Likes
70,281
wsfarrell wsfarrell
eBay mentioned "notes" from the authenticator, but did not share them with me. I doubt they will. There is no "connection" per se between movement and movement spacer. They touch over their entire surface, however, and friction is what causes one to move when the other is rotated. By analogy, let's say you have a smooth disk sitting on top of a coin. You then press down hard on the disk and rotate it. The coin will try to rotate too, "connected" by friction.

Trust me, I understand how this works. I'm just trying to get a full picture of how this watch goes together. There are many instances where watches do not have case clamps (which by definition attach to the case), but still have a connection from the movement to the movement spacer.

My next question is, do you have a photo of the inside of one of these watches? I would like to see how the movement spacer interacts with the case tube, if it all.
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
P.S. I may be mis-characterizing the movement spacer a little. I know it's smooth on top, but it may be a (very short) cylinder, with a rim on the bottom that contacts the movement (like the Speedmaster anti-magnetic cap). The point is, I and my watchmaker noted a distinct tendency for the movement to rotate when tightening a loose (or loosening a tight) threaded ring.
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Archer Archer
Trust me, I understand how this works. I'm just trying to get a full picture of how this watch goes together. There are many instances where watches do not have case clamps (which by definition attach to the case), but still have a connection from the movement to the movement spacer.

My next question is, do you have a photo of the inside of one of these watches? I would like to see how the movement spacer interacts with the case tube, if it all.
I've never seen a photo of the inside of these cases. The movement is quite small with respect to the diameter of the case. The movement spacer has zero interaction with the stem tube. In fact, my watchmaker suggested the possibility of installing a longer stem tube that would (perhaps, I'm not totally clear) better resist torque when opening/closing. He hasn't gotten back to me yet with specifics on that.
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Let's suspend watchmaking issues for a bit. I'll visit my watchmaker today and get photos of everything.

And please note: I'm not playing "blame the watchmaker." I'm trying to get some clarity on what seems to be an utterly opaque authentication process, where no one can question the results.
 
Archer
Posts
27,647
Likes
70,281
wsfarrell wsfarrell
I've never seen a photo of the inside of these cases. The movement is quite small with respect to the diameter of the case. The movement spacer has zero interaction with the stem tube. In fact, my watchmaker suggested the possibility of installing a longer stem tube that would (perhaps, I'm not totally clear) better resist torque when opening/closing. He hasn't gotten back to me yet with specifics on that.

Thanks - yes this uses an ETA 2671 based on what I can find - a small movement and this leads to a larger spacer and longer stem than would be "normal" for a watch this size.

I haven't had the benefit of seeing the inside of this case, but it appears your watchmaker and I were thinking along similar lines.

So here's an example of a watch that illustrates a few things in one photo:



This is a Doxa shipped this way right from the factory. The stem was broken, and I'll get to that part later. But as you can see it has a movement spacer, and the movement is secured to that spacer using screws. The spacer is not connected by movement clamps to the case, but that isn't needed here, because the spacer has a gap in it that goes around the case tube that extends inside the case. This is why I asked, because if the Squale had a case tube that extended inside the case and contacted the spacer in this manner, then the theory of how this happened goes right out the window, because the spacer simply can't turn.

The other thing this illustrates is the even when you do have solid connections inside the watch, and no chance of anything turning when the case back screws down, stems can still break off. In this case at the factory (confirmed by the marks that those screws left in the spacer, which were the only marks) the movement wasn't properly aligned. This means that every time the watch is wound or set, the stem is being flexed, will work harden, and snap off. I've seen this happen on several watches, so it isn't a rare thing.

So we don't know for certain that the case was opened by the authenticator. We don't know if the watch had, from the factory, some misalignment like I've shown above. So what I'm going to suggest is that even if the watch left the seller intact, and arrived with you broken, this doesn't necessarily "prove" that the authenticator had anything to do with it.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not looking to blame or absolve anyone here. To me this is a puzzle that I'm solving, and just giving my thoughts. If people want to believe this is the fault of the authenticator, that it's due to untrained or uncaring people, that eBay is evil, or whatever, have at it. All I'm saying is that in my mind, there is definitely doubt that this was the fault of the authenticator.

Cheers, Al
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Archer Archer
Thanks - yes this uses an ETA 2671 based on what I can find - a small movement and this leads to a larger spacer and longer stem than would be "normal" for a watch this size.

I haven't had the benefit of seeing the inside of this case, but it appears your watchmaker and I were thinking along similar lines.

So here's an example of a watch that illustrates a few things in one photo:



This is a Doxa shipped this way right from the factory. The stem was broken, and I'll get to that part later. But as you can see it has a movement spacer, and the movement is secured to that spacer using screws. The spacer is not connected by movement clamps to the case, but that isn't needed here, because the spacer has a gap in it that goes around the case tube that extends inside the case. This is why I asked, because if the Squale had a case tube that extended inside the case and contacted the spacer in this manner, then the theory of how this happened goes right out the window, because the spacer simply can't turn.

The other thing this illustrates is the even when you do have solid connections inside the watch, and no chance of anything turning when the case back screws down, stems can still break off. In this case at the factory (confirmed by the marks that those screws left in the spacer, which were the only marks) the movement wasn't properly aligned. This means that every time the watch is wound or set, the stem is being flexed, will work harden, and snap off. I've seen this happen on several watches, so it isn't a rare thing.

So we don't know for certain that the case was opened by the authenticator. We don't know if the watch had, from the factory, some misalignment like I've shown above. So what I'm going to suggest is that even if the watch left the seller intact, and arrived with you broken, this doesn't necessarily "prove" that the authenticator had anything to do with it.

Now before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not looking to blame or absolve anyone here. To me this is a puzzle that I'm solving, and just giving my thoughts. If people want to believe this is the fault of the authenticator, that it's due to untrained or uncaring people, that eBay is evil, or whatever, have at it. All I'm saying is that in my mind, there is definitely doubt that this was the fault of the authenticator.

Cheers, Al
Thanks for clearing that up; it makes sense.

As mentioned, I'm not trying to blame the authenticator. I'm blaming the authentication program. In times past, when I received a broken watch I could return it--even if the seller said "no returns." I've done that twice in 23 years on eBay. With the authentication program that is no longer possible. If the authenticator says it's authentic, that's the end of it. No recourse, no appeal, no nothing.
 
JwRosenthal
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,913
wsfarrell wsfarrell
Thanks for clearing that up; it makes sense.

As mentioned, I'm not trying to blame the authenticator. I'm blaming the authentication program. In times past, when I received a broken watch I could return it--even if the seller said "no returns." I've done that twice in 23 years on eBay. With the authentication program that is no longer possible. If the authenticator says it's authentic, that's the end of it. No recourse, no appeal, no nothing.
And that’s my issue with the program. Sure it may be authentic, but you bought a functional watch and it arrived non-functional. Historically that’s grounds for a return. It doesn’t matter who is at fault or what inspectors may or may not have done, it’s the very foundation for confidence in buying on eBay. They are doing damage to themselves by negating this part of the seller/eBay/buyer contract.
 
Archer
Posts
27,647
Likes
70,281
JwRosenthal JwRosenthal
And that’s my issue with the program. Sure it may be authentic, but you bought a functional watch and it arrived non-functional. Historically that’s grounds for a return. It doesn’t matter who is at fault or what inspectors may or may not have done, it’s the very foundation for confidence in buying on eBay. They are doing damage to themselves by negating this part of the seller/eBay/buyer contract.

I understand this view. However you would have to be privy to what eBay is saving in having to deal with claims of fakes being sold to fully understand if real "damage" is being done.

As I've stated before, this program isn't for the benefit of most people on this forum. It's for people who don't want to spend countless hours learning how to tell fakes from real, who want to buy a watch and be confident they aren't getting ripped off. Clearly eBay saw that as a greater threat than they do concerns like this, because they didn't do this just for fun - it was done to address a real problem. Not defending the program and how it's executed, just acknowledging it's there for a reason, and again it won't often align with what people want here by default.

I'll say this - for the length of time this program has been going, and the number of watches that have gone through it, I'm generally not seeing a huge number of complaints. The people doing this are human, things are going to go wrong, no differently than when you send a watch to a service center and it doesn't come back right. There are cases where things have been rectified, so as much as there's a doom attitude here, I'm not sure it reflects reality. Yes, it sucks when you order something that was working and it isn't now. I have no idea why they aren't letting the watch be returned. We'll never know all the details, and for some that will be enough to convict. I'm not there yet personally.
 
sgrossma
Posts
1,426
Likes
1,430
I'm certainly not trying to defend the program, but protection on returns is a big private seller benefit and it just depends what side of the transaction you are on when there is an issue.
I have personally failed at fighting off a few unwarranted returns in the past where the buyer unrightfully claimed the watch wasn't keeping time, etc. when it was really just buyer's remorse (or you get a guy that says my watch is reading out at +3 seconds when it is rated for +2).
Now when a watch is shipped out I do feel a mild sign of relief when it says that my watch was authenticated and on it's way to the buyer.
Why? I don't even have to worry about the buyer receiving it since it is completely in eBay's hands at that point. And if a watch breaks 6 weeks later, it is finally not my problem. I don't want to be the bad guy, but a lot of these preowned watches have no warranties and it can be completely random when they break down.
It will never be perfect until eBay, the buyer, and the seller all sit down in a room together at the same time, but until then, I think they make overall fair improvements, all while reducing their fees with managed payments. An opt out option could be nice though for certain items.
 
Dan S
Posts
20,967
Likes
47,974
I can't find the thread at the moment, and maybe it was on another forum, but I recall a thread where someone was able to return a watch after authentication because it was substantially not as described (event though authentic). So I'm not sure it's correct to say that returns are simply impossible after authentication. However, I do think that valid reasons for returns are more limited than previously.
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Dan S Dan S
I can't find the thread at the moment, and maybe it was on another forum, but I recall a thread where someone was able to return a watch after authentication because it was substantially not as described (event though authentic). So I'm not sure it's correct to say that returns are simply impossible after authentication. However, I do think that valid reasons for returns are more limited than previously.
It would be great if you could find that. The last word I got from eBay staff was "My name is xxxxxxx, and I'll be happy to assist you today. Sorry to hear about the watch not being up to par. I understand that we're all human and can make mistakes however, here once the watch was authenticated it was unable to be returned."
 
sgrossma
Posts
1,426
Likes
1,430
Dan S Dan S
I can't find the thread at the moment, and maybe it was on another forum, but I recall a thread where someone was able to return a watch after authentication because it was substantially not as described (event though authentic). So I'm not sure it's correct to say that returns are simply impossible after authentication. However, I do think that valid reasons for returns are more limited than previously.
Correct, you can still open for significantly not as described. But we are talking like 'wrong model' or you wrote it is 'complete' in the listing and in fact it was not.
The process is a bit more involved and you can only do it by calling up customer service, I believe.
 
wsfarrell
Posts
2,443
Likes
4,229
Follow-up:

Thanks to OF member @TDBK I was able to get in touch with the eBay authentication team. I spoke with a couple of them on the phone today. They apologized for how the issue was handled and said that my return request had been rejected too quickly, such that team members higher in the chain never got to see it. After I explained the situation, they looked at the authenticator's notes and said that the authenticator had indeed opened the caseback and found no issues, so it was possible that the stem had broken as the case was being closed. It was also possible (they said) that the stem had broken while the watch was in transit to me. In any event, they are going to send me a refund of the entire purchase price--and I can keep the watch.

Moral: eBay customer service can be very good--if you get hold of the right people.
 
JwRosenthal
Posts
16,307
Likes
44,913
wsfarrell wsfarrell
Follow-up:

Thanks to OF member @TDBK I was able to get in touch with the eBay authentication team. I spoke with a couple of them on the phone today. They apologized for how the issue was handled and said that my return request had been rejected too quickly, such that team members higher in the chain never got to see it. After I explained the situation, they looked at the authenticator's notes and said that the authenticator had indeed opened the caseback and found no issues, so it was possible that the stem had broken as the case was being closed. It was also possible (they said) that the stem had broken while the watch was in transit to me. In any event, they are going to send me a refund of the entire purchase price--and I can keep the watch.

Moral: eBay customer service can be very good--if you get hold of the right people.
This is a great outcome- and yes, persistence paid off!
And kudos to the shop admitting that it “could” have been their fault- that’s very impressive in these days of limited accountability.
Now that you are whole again, you can send me the watch and I’ll pay the $40 for the repair. 😉
 
sgrossma
Posts
1,426
Likes
1,430
Yeah - persistence usually pays off when dealing with eBay and I knew you would be able to get something if you kept trying - but this was even better than expected! That's great!

Right now eBay has a big goal in mind - they want to corner the luxury watch market for secondary watch sales.

They are doing everything in their power to do this... credits, discounts, coupon codes, lower final value fees, refunds, etc. I even recently received a customer satisfaction survey and a 'how can we improve the watch market place' survey.
 
34 More Posts...
Sign up or log in to reply...

Similar threads

Tom Dick

OMG I need to rant (watch related) bloody eBay authenticators

Tom Dick Vintage Omega Watches Help, Discussion and Advice
iamvr
iamvr
Posts
45
Views
6K