- Posts
- 32
- Likes
- 278
Mreal75
·I am copying my recent post from the Sinn 103 thread on WUS below. Apologies in the advance for the lengthy/novel post...
My encounter with Watchbuys today stems from a May 2018 WUS post and picture. I picked up a Sinn 103 from WBs in May 2018. I had the watch in my hands for a few minutes before boxing it up and sending it back the same day. Although I understood the 103 had a friction fit bezel, the watch I was sent had a loose, free spinning bezel (it could be spun by lightly dragging one finger along edge). Not happy with the quality, I informed WBs about the issue and sent it back the same day. Matt, the WB rep I dealt with at the time, advised that I was on the hook for the return shipping because the watch was inspected by their "Sinn watchmaker" and deemed "within spec." The encounter left a bad taste in my mouth but at the end of the day it was my word against their's. I ate the return shipping and moved on with my life. About a week or so after sending the watch back, I posted about my experience (my post also contained a wrist shot I took during my few minutes with the watch).
Fast forward over two years, I wanted to try out another Sinn model and narrowed it down to the UX or U1 SDR. I called WBs a few times this week to discuss the different dive models with no issues (admittedly, everyone was helpful and courteous). However, just prior to placing an order today with their Sinn rep Jim for a U1 SDR, the call took an awkward turn. He mentioned that he noticed I created a new WB account today and that he ran my name/info in the system. Unbeknownst to me, it turns out I still "had an account with them" but the account "was flagged" back in May 2018 because of my post on the forums. Jim read the notes on file from 2018 and stated WBs had taken a significant loss on the 103 I sent back because it had to be "sold as used." A little taken back, I went on the defensive and justified trying on the watch over two years ago. Regardless of the now-known nuances in WBs return policy, I said it is unrealistic to expect consumers to refrain from trying on and inspecting expensive watches that are bought sight unseen. In fact, I would have never even noticed the loose bezel issue without taking off the plastic surrounding the case (or any other dial/case defect for that matter, if one had arose). Relying on their case notes, Jim persisted that the watch was "within spec" and the issue was that "I tried it on" as opposed to simply lying it across my wrist with the plastics still attached. Looking back, I think the real issue was that I posted wearing the watch and questioned/criticized its quality. Jim closed out the conversation by stating, "because your account is flagged, any future purchases have to be made via wire transfer" and that he was still "happy to answer any other remaining questions I have." In sum, I hung up without placing an order and a little more aggravated than when I got on the phone.
At this point, I regret posting critical impressions and a wrist shot of the watch, just as I regret not taking a video of the bezel to demonstrate what was deemed "within spec." Even if Sinn/WBs found issue with me posting about the watch, I have a hard time believing that it was "used" due to my handling. I opened the box, looked it over, tried it on, (took a picture), and put it back in the box exactly how I received it. I found an email chain from May 10, 2018 where I received the return authorization from WBs at 2:52 p.m. and I exchanged the return tracking info after dropping it off at UPS at 4:38 p.m. The wrist shot in my original post is timestamped, "May 10, 2018 at 2:38 p.m.," a few minutes after opening the box. As a dealer trying to sell higher end watches without a showroom, it is pretty inappropriate for WBs to claim, two years later, that the 103 I returned was "within spec." Further, the fact that WBs "took a loss" trying to resell a returned, defective watch...sounds more like their own cost of doing business? It's unfortunate that this is a "my word vs. your word" situation that blackballs me from buying a new Sinn in the future. If this is normal operating procedure...more power to 'em! With that being said, I never experienced something like this in my ten or so years on the forums and buying watches. I'm still interested to hear what OF thinks.
My encounter with Watchbuys today stems from a May 2018 WUS post and picture. I picked up a Sinn 103 from WBs in May 2018. I had the watch in my hands for a few minutes before boxing it up and sending it back the same day. Although I understood the 103 had a friction fit bezel, the watch I was sent had a loose, free spinning bezel (it could be spun by lightly dragging one finger along edge). Not happy with the quality, I informed WBs about the issue and sent it back the same day. Matt, the WB rep I dealt with at the time, advised that I was on the hook for the return shipping because the watch was inspected by their "Sinn watchmaker" and deemed "within spec." The encounter left a bad taste in my mouth but at the end of the day it was my word against their's. I ate the return shipping and moved on with my life. About a week or so after sending the watch back, I posted about my experience (my post also contained a wrist shot I took during my few minutes with the watch).
Fast forward over two years, I wanted to try out another Sinn model and narrowed it down to the UX or U1 SDR. I called WBs a few times this week to discuss the different dive models with no issues (admittedly, everyone was helpful and courteous). However, just prior to placing an order today with their Sinn rep Jim for a U1 SDR, the call took an awkward turn. He mentioned that he noticed I created a new WB account today and that he ran my name/info in the system. Unbeknownst to me, it turns out I still "had an account with them" but the account "was flagged" back in May 2018 because of my post on the forums. Jim read the notes on file from 2018 and stated WBs had taken a significant loss on the 103 I sent back because it had to be "sold as used." A little taken back, I went on the defensive and justified trying on the watch over two years ago. Regardless of the now-known nuances in WBs return policy, I said it is unrealistic to expect consumers to refrain from trying on and inspecting expensive watches that are bought sight unseen. In fact, I would have never even noticed the loose bezel issue without taking off the plastic surrounding the case (or any other dial/case defect for that matter, if one had arose). Relying on their case notes, Jim persisted that the watch was "within spec" and the issue was that "I tried it on" as opposed to simply lying it across my wrist with the plastics still attached. Looking back, I think the real issue was that I posted wearing the watch and questioned/criticized its quality. Jim closed out the conversation by stating, "because your account is flagged, any future purchases have to be made via wire transfer" and that he was still "happy to answer any other remaining questions I have." In sum, I hung up without placing an order and a little more aggravated than when I got on the phone.
At this point, I regret posting critical impressions and a wrist shot of the watch, just as I regret not taking a video of the bezel to demonstrate what was deemed "within spec." Even if Sinn/WBs found issue with me posting about the watch, I have a hard time believing that it was "used" due to my handling. I opened the box, looked it over, tried it on, (took a picture), and put it back in the box exactly how I received it. I found an email chain from May 10, 2018 where I received the return authorization from WBs at 2:52 p.m. and I exchanged the return tracking info after dropping it off at UPS at 4:38 p.m. The wrist shot in my original post is timestamped, "May 10, 2018 at 2:38 p.m.," a few minutes after opening the box. As a dealer trying to sell higher end watches without a showroom, it is pretty inappropriate for WBs to claim, two years later, that the 103 I returned was "within spec." Further, the fact that WBs "took a loss" trying to resell a returned, defective watch...sounds more like their own cost of doing business? It's unfortunate that this is a "my word vs. your word" situation that blackballs me from buying a new Sinn in the future. If this is normal operating procedure...more power to 'em! With that being said, I never experienced something like this in my ten or so years on the forums and buying watches. I'm still interested to hear what OF thinks.
Edited:
