Hduck
·Breitling solves this problem with their electronic warranty cards. The day you purchase the card is put in a machine and the date and purchase location are permanently displayed on the card.
That’s a valid (no pun intended) question. I’ve returned the Breitlings for service and they have always required the cards. Even though the watch was being returned for service from the place of purchase
Interesting, I wasn't being facetious, I have never owned a Breitling so was curious. I believe Rolex operate a similar procedure now with a warranty card with a mag strip which stores the details in a slightly more old fashioned way. Clearly the real answer is to keep hold of the box and papers/cards.
Just to update on this, the watch in the original post has now been serviced by omega, they have replaced several parts and confirmed a new pressure test pass. This work has been provided with a warranty for two years.
This was done without the owner possessing a warranty card or proof of purchase.
If nothing more an interesting point regarding value of the provision of warranty cards for resale on pieces where the watch is clearly within manufacturer warranty timescales.
Thanks and agree that I personally wouldn't rely on this being standard practice or assume it to be. However, this watch was bought via grey channels and Omega could only trace that it was delivered to the UK in 2017. It has been "round the houses" at omega (from what I gather) and was always stipulated that was sans warranty card. Perhaps goodwill prevailed or perhaps not honouring the manufacturing warranty was not an option... all a bit moot in this instance as Omega have honoured it and now the owner has some evidence of warranty cover.
In regard to using the OB as a trading post... well, that was what happened, or rather it was used to verify the watch and its functionality; which the owner has the discretion to request. Zero hooks were asked to be slung 😉.
In my position, the potential of upsetting the staff at an OB versus the potential of buying a "wrong un" was an easy decision. The staff were polite and all was above board; they carried out the verification, testing and subsequent remedial work in full awareness of the situation.
Just to update on this, the watch in the original post has now been serviced by omega, they have replaced several parts and confirmed a new pressure test pass. This work has been provided with a warranty for two years.
This was done without the owner possessing a warranty card or proof of purchase.
If nothing more an interesting point regarding value of the provision of warranty cards for resale on pieces where the watch is clearly within manufacturer warranty timescales.
I can only comment on my (albeit very limited) experience with this OB and in this particular situation.
I have seen screenshots of the works carried out, the cost of the work (£0.00), and that the work is covered by a two year warranty which would be provided in document form upon collection of the watch.
I guess the owner could have doctored the screenshots which I think unlikely, but anything is possible these days I guess!
Not much more I can add and not asking for anything to be added. Just an interesting case I thought.
This is where some confusion may have been caused. Warrenty does not generally cover servicing. They are separate interventions. The warranty is to cover for latent (and sometimes patent) defects. That is to say, to make good on aspects of the watch that are not in conformance with factory specs during the period of the warranty.
Servicing is to ensure that as far as possible, a watch that was supplied originally to factory specs and has not displayed any defects that would give rise to a warranty claim continues to functions to those specs. Think of it as preventative maintenance (or sometimes breakdown maintenance 😉).
A warranty repair can often include a full service.
ps @rainking, the idea of using a UK boutique as a trading post, to have them verify a watch then stand idly by as 2 individuals conduct a sale is laughable, here at least. It most certainly would not be allowed for the reasons stated by others regarding inferred liability. They would ask you both, politley, to sling your hook! It may of course be different elsewhere.