- Posts
- 30,773
- Likes
- 36,219
dsio
··Ash @ ΩFThis is quoted verbatim from an email written by an Australian watchmaker and dealer, Nick Hacko ([email protected]), I'm posting it here because frankly it should be relevant to everyone with an interest in watches and collecting:
Richemont owns several of the world's leading companies in the field of luxury goods,
including some of the most prestigious watch brands, namely
Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Piaget, Vacheron Constantin, Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC, Panerai and Montblanc.
In other words, Richemont are good guys who sell fine watches,
which we buy because we appreciate fine Swiss stuff.
Yes, we are happy to pay top dollar for top workmanship,
design, brand reputation and the quality associated with luxury products.
So there is nothing wrong with that. If you look after your watch,
you have nothing to worry about for 5 or 6 years
when the watch is due for an overhaul.
Let's suppose that you are not so fortunate or not so careful and
so you incidentally scratch the crystal on your JLC or Panerai.
A minor repair, really. You take the watch to your local watchmaker
who you've known for years - the guy who 'fixed' all your watches
since you've been able to tell the time.
Unfortunately you're told that your poor watchmaker
no longer has access to brands which are part of the Richemont group.
"Take it to Richemont, they will fix it".
And there is nothing wrong with that either -
after all, who can take better care of your watch than its manufacturer?
Obviously, your local watchmaker is not really happy -
thanks to Richemont's monopoly on supply of spare parts,
he lost the opportunity to provide you with service
and make a few dollars.
But most watchmakers are grumpy and old, and at the end of the day,
if they go out of business, it would not matter to you anyway.
So there is nothing wrong with the monopoly on supply of spare parts and dying watchmakers.
As long as Richemont provides repair services to watch owners,
we have nothing to worry about.
However, there is one small problem with the monopoly: it only works great
for monopolists. Once it kills competition (independent watchmakers)
monopolists start to raise repair prices way above marginal costs
and lower its customer service. If you are not happy - tough luck!
Monopoly leaves you without a second option, second opinion, second quote and robs you off ability
to inquire and ask questions.
Can you imagine living in a world with one bank, a single freight company and
one internet provider? We have learnt that demand and supply - basic laws of capitalism -
do not work unless there is a sufficient number of players on the field.
And this is precisely why we have regulators like ACCC who
do their best to keep the monopolists on their leash.
A couple of week ago, I've sent a fine lady's JLC to Richemont Australia
for glass replacement. No, I had no choice - I knew so well that
Richemont would not supply glass alone.
I had no choice but to have that watch repaired under their terms
and for the amount of money they find fit and appropriate to charge.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Except for one detail:
while I was "happy" to pay $195 for a new glass,
I was less than happy to pay an additional $790 for a complete overhaul.
And quite frankly I was blue in the face when I found that
my watch needed a "balance" for extra $520 and a "complete barrel" for another $270.
The total (mandatory) repair cost: $1,775.00.
I've picked the phone and rang Richemont Australia.
Service manager Anne Marie was equally unhappy to hear my voice:
"Oh, it's you. Listen, I have no time to waste on you."
"Anne Marie, I would like to ask a couple of questions -
have you actually disassembled the watch before providing a quote?
Both balance (balance wheel) and barrel are perfect and
I don't understand why am I required to pay for parts which do not need replacement?"
"I am going to hang up on you right now. We don't want to deal with you.
The watch was submitted to us under different name.
Don't call us ever again".
For the record, the watch was *not* submitted under a 'different'
name. And just because I am a watchmaker by trade who
knows what 'balance' and 'barrel' means, I at least deserve to be treated
as any ordinary customer, not worse.
While I do "appreciate" monopoly, I cannot stand arrogance
and ignorance. $270 for a main spring barrel is not a rip-off,
but criminal rip-off for a part which only costs $5.
Description "balance" means nothing! Are you going to replace the balance wheel,
balance assembly or just to balance my watch for time keeping?
$520 would indicate component replacement, but then again,
who knows?
-5s/day and 278 degrees amplitude indicate to me that
my watch does not need a new balance wheel,
and $520 charge can only be interpreted as completely unnecessary.
Unfortunately 'friendly' Anne-Marie refused to discuss my options.
As she promised, she hung up on me with a final curse:
"Do publish or quote online, we don't care".
Make no mistake - small, independent, grumpy, old watchmakers
have no time to waste either. They are struggling to survive
doing repair jobs which are way below their skills like battery replacement,
bracelet adjustments and case polishing.
But watchmakers are not fools. You can't take them for a ride,
you can't lie to them, you can't hang up on them
and threaten them with a lawyer.
And yes, watchmakers DO CARE.
For further reading:
BRUSSELS/ZURICH (Reuters) - European Union antitrust regulators are to investigate an allegation that several luxury watchmakers breached EU rules by refusing to supply spare parts to independent repairers.
...The CEAHR complains that owners of expensive watches are increasingly forced to send their timepiece for repair to the manufacturer or through an official agent who, in turn, may charge for work which was not requested or charge very high prices.
"Either the work is carried out under terms over which you have no control or choice, or the watch becomes irreparable," the CEAHR says on its website.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/05/us-eu-watches-probe-idUSTRE77441J20110805
Have your say: should Swiss manufactures allow supply of spare parts to
independent, trained and experienced watchmakers?
Do you feel that in-house repair costs are fair?
Are you happy with customer service provided by big brands?
Richemont owns several of the world's leading companies in the field of luxury goods,
including some of the most prestigious watch brands, namely
Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, Piaget, Vacheron Constantin, Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC, Panerai and Montblanc.
In other words, Richemont are good guys who sell fine watches,
which we buy because we appreciate fine Swiss stuff.
Yes, we are happy to pay top dollar for top workmanship,
design, brand reputation and the quality associated with luxury products.
So there is nothing wrong with that. If you look after your watch,
you have nothing to worry about for 5 or 6 years
when the watch is due for an overhaul.
Let's suppose that you are not so fortunate or not so careful and
so you incidentally scratch the crystal on your JLC or Panerai.
A minor repair, really. You take the watch to your local watchmaker
who you've known for years - the guy who 'fixed' all your watches
since you've been able to tell the time.
Unfortunately you're told that your poor watchmaker
no longer has access to brands which are part of the Richemont group.
"Take it to Richemont, they will fix it".
And there is nothing wrong with that either -
after all, who can take better care of your watch than its manufacturer?
Obviously, your local watchmaker is not really happy -
thanks to Richemont's monopoly on supply of spare parts,
he lost the opportunity to provide you with service
and make a few dollars.
But most watchmakers are grumpy and old, and at the end of the day,
if they go out of business, it would not matter to you anyway.
So there is nothing wrong with the monopoly on supply of spare parts and dying watchmakers.
As long as Richemont provides repair services to watch owners,
we have nothing to worry about.
However, there is one small problem with the monopoly: it only works great
for monopolists. Once it kills competition (independent watchmakers)
monopolists start to raise repair prices way above marginal costs
and lower its customer service. If you are not happy - tough luck!
Monopoly leaves you without a second option, second opinion, second quote and robs you off ability
to inquire and ask questions.
Can you imagine living in a world with one bank, a single freight company and
one internet provider? We have learnt that demand and supply - basic laws of capitalism -
do not work unless there is a sufficient number of players on the field.
And this is precisely why we have regulators like ACCC who
do their best to keep the monopolists on their leash.
A couple of week ago, I've sent a fine lady's JLC to Richemont Australia
for glass replacement. No, I had no choice - I knew so well that
Richemont would not supply glass alone.
I had no choice but to have that watch repaired under their terms
and for the amount of money they find fit and appropriate to charge.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
Except for one detail:
while I was "happy" to pay $195 for a new glass,
I was less than happy to pay an additional $790 for a complete overhaul.
And quite frankly I was blue in the face when I found that
my watch needed a "balance" for extra $520 and a "complete barrel" for another $270.
The total (mandatory) repair cost: $1,775.00.
I've picked the phone and rang Richemont Australia.
Service manager Anne Marie was equally unhappy to hear my voice:
"Oh, it's you. Listen, I have no time to waste on you."
"Anne Marie, I would like to ask a couple of questions -
have you actually disassembled the watch before providing a quote?
Both balance (balance wheel) and barrel are perfect and
I don't understand why am I required to pay for parts which do not need replacement?"
"I am going to hang up on you right now. We don't want to deal with you.
The watch was submitted to us under different name.
Don't call us ever again".
For the record, the watch was *not* submitted under a 'different'
name. And just because I am a watchmaker by trade who
knows what 'balance' and 'barrel' means, I at least deserve to be treated
as any ordinary customer, not worse.
While I do "appreciate" monopoly, I cannot stand arrogance
and ignorance. $270 for a main spring barrel is not a rip-off,
but criminal rip-off for a part which only costs $5.
Description "balance" means nothing! Are you going to replace the balance wheel,
balance assembly or just to balance my watch for time keeping?
$520 would indicate component replacement, but then again,
who knows?
-5s/day and 278 degrees amplitude indicate to me that
my watch does not need a new balance wheel,
and $520 charge can only be interpreted as completely unnecessary.
Unfortunately 'friendly' Anne-Marie refused to discuss my options.
As she promised, she hung up on me with a final curse:
"Do publish or quote online, we don't care".
Make no mistake - small, independent, grumpy, old watchmakers
have no time to waste either. They are struggling to survive
doing repair jobs which are way below their skills like battery replacement,
bracelet adjustments and case polishing.
But watchmakers are not fools. You can't take them for a ride,
you can't lie to them, you can't hang up on them
and threaten them with a lawyer.
And yes, watchmakers DO CARE.
For further reading:
BRUSSELS/ZURICH (Reuters) - European Union antitrust regulators are to investigate an allegation that several luxury watchmakers breached EU rules by refusing to supply spare parts to independent repairers.
...The CEAHR complains that owners of expensive watches are increasingly forced to send their timepiece for repair to the manufacturer or through an official agent who, in turn, may charge for work which was not requested or charge very high prices.
"Either the work is carried out under terms over which you have no control or choice, or the watch becomes irreparable," the CEAHR says on its website.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/05/us-eu-watches-probe-idUSTRE77441J20110805
Have your say: should Swiss manufactures allow supply of spare parts to
independent, trained and experienced watchmakers?
Do you feel that in-house repair costs are fair?
Are you happy with customer service provided by big brands?
