Pugwash Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Because if we start mentioning other dealers we will find many many disturbing things that a group of us may not like ... for ALL of them. Besides, there's a whole other thread for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddhead Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Don't get me wrong Pug, I'm not condoning this practice, I'm just throwing out an explanation as to why things are the way they are. This whole rep industry is rife with scammers and liars. I don't think that Andrew and Josh are either of those things. I just don't see how the crystal or lume issues can be guaranteed without testing each watch? Well, it wasn't Pug it was me... but i guess I would answer by saying that if you cannot guarantee something, than don't.... i.e. don't say the watch has superlume if you are not sure it does. At length, these guys need to have the same confidence in their suppliers that they expect us to have with them, or alternatively not up-market the questionable features. BTW, the explanation provided in the first post, which positioned superlume in almost esoteric terms was odd... i mean saying "what is super lume?"...sounded a bit disingenuous to me. That statement taken by itself would lead me to believe they too may have at least suspected super luminova was not have been applied to the final product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Besides, there's a whole other thread for that. I agree but the 'Liitle white lies' one from a general discussion thread became a personal attack to Josh and Andrew.. and basically people are judging them without even having bought from them in the past. Is what TTK said once: - Have you bought from me and you can judge me? If not then shut up (not his words but something like that in his flamboyant way of saying things) I agree for Finepics and Namor and others who were misleaded from the B&R description to write their opinion in the Delear review section for everyone who is interested to see... I think that after some point when this post became personal, it should have been moved to the Dealer Review than having it in the general discussion with everyone with an opinion coming inside and judge them. I haven't bought from Andrew so I cannot speak about him. But I will defend Joshua because at least in my eyes he has been a great dealer to my eyes. And this comes from a person who does not intend to buy any more reps in the future to lick his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiker01 Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 The fact that they dropship does not mean they are not responsible for accuratly representing their products and it does not mean they are not accountable for the quality of the merchandise. In the business world, this is known as re-selling... it is just not accurate to suggest that a reseller is not accountable for the merchandise he/she markets when he dropships. Dealers need to make sure they carefully choose their suppliers,knowing full well that their business reputations are at stake when they do so. Bottom line is, the dealers choose the suppliers they do business with.. we do not, and we should not. My job is to pay for the product, the dealer's job is to deliver the product I paid for. Period. It is up to them, and not me, to figure out how to do that. Dropshipping may present a problem, but quite frankly it is not MY problem it is the DEALERS' problem. I completely agree! No matter how the dealer source and ship their products, they ultimately are accountable to their buyer/customers. And as being suggested by Pug; "Truth in advertising" should be the creed of our dealers. I'm a newbie at this hobby and I made the assumption that I could trust what the dealers that are on this Forum, advertise or sell on their Web site. Now that trust is in question.... Ex. I ordered six watches from 1 of the dealers mentioned here....5 of those were ordered with service and waterproofing......as a newbie with no tools or equipment to test for these service, I trust that the dealer did it......now I'm not sure???? One of the watches, a Daytona have this as part of the advertisement: Crystal: - Sapphire crystal with laser etched crown at 6.00 but when I receive it, that part was missing.....so the question is, who's fault was that; dealer or his supplier? The problem I see with this scenario is Quality Control - its non-existent if its Dropped Shipped....and I'm starting to notice that with the batch I ordered. Two have been sent back already and two more are under observation with chrono function problems. That's 4 out of six that had problems....where's quality control????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) Sorry to say it guys......but I think the most telling aspect of this whole scenario is the fact that the dealers in question...haven't seen fit to post a response on the board where they are regarded as 5 star dealers......could it be because they felt that the "EXPERTS' here needed an explanation but the non-experts and blind followers at RWI didn't......or could it be that the Admin here told them in no uncertain terms that if they didn't post an explanation their ass was grass......I wonder.....SWISS ETA ..means SWISS ETA.......it doesn't mean you go wandering around Guangzhou looking for an alternative...finidng it...then presenting it as SWISS ETA....and advising everyone AFTER THE FACT....AND AFTER YOU'VE TAKEN MONEY FOR SWISS ETA....BUT STILL...IT WAS GOOD THAT THEY WERE LOOKING OUT FOR EVERYONE'S INTEREST AND MADE SURE THEY WERE GETTING A slim ETA SUBSTITUTE...! Edited February 1, 2007 by TTK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goochenbrau Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 This is a small point but I am right... Semantics is "The relationships of characters or groups of characters to their meanings." I think "ETA," "Superlume," and "sapphire" all have very specific meanings attached. They are being used (incorrectly) as adverbs here. It is a semantics issue - should dealers be using ETA in this new way? I think not. Yea, I understand your point, but semantics implies that the distinction between the two is trivial. Like many of the examples given (buying a suit, going to the grocery store, etc), the distinction between the two is not trivial. If you bought a product thinking it was one thing (Swiss ETA), and it turns out to be completely different (Asia Copy), would you say it was just semantics? I contend that the descriptions are not just a different interpretations of meanings; rather, the descriptions are intended to misled to increase sales. They know what they are doing; it is deliberate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I was considering a poll as it allows anonymity, but it seemed to trivialise the whole thing. I certainly agree with that. Anyone who has something to say they are too gutless to sign their name to has nothing to say that I want to hear. I wouldn't even consider giving voice to those who really wanna stab somebody, but only if they can do it from th back. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekhunter Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 The problem with A&J's response is that it was a "Bill Clinton under investigation response." I do not intend to be political. I like Bill Clinton. I like Josh (I have never bought a watch from Andrew). But, I lot a lot of respect for Clinton the day he started playing semantic games about the definition of "is." I feel the same way here when copyrighted terms & nouns are being adjectives. Much respect was lost. Everyone knows it was a bad description. The best response would be to put the shovel down and say "guys, sorry, I goofed and it won't happen again - thanks for keeping me straight." We will think more, not less, of you for doing so! I think this hits the nail on the head. Say you goofed, it won't happen again, and move on. Despite the lame explanation, these two (Andrew and Josh) are great guys. Come on now. Do we want to beat these horses until they are dead? We all obviously want to get what we think we are paying for. In a collecting field where we all want to get the most accurate Reps that we can find, then YES, descriptions and words are everything. I think they've gotten the point by now, or at least I hope so. Pug was right, Truth in Advertising! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namor Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 As for superlume... as far as I know, there is no measure for luminosity....How super is super ? how not super is consider a lie ? Whew - how Dollarious is a Dollar ? I sent you Dollars ! Currently they're 4 different versions of Dollar here in Rep-Buyers-World. The real Dollars are quite expensive and for the members of EU hard to find ! You have to order them from your Bank and wait a few days... So we sent you "Copy-Dollars" ! They're the same size, have the same color and in a shady bar given to a drunk they even function like the real Dollar !!! (In fact that's more similarities than this Copy-Movement has with a 2892..!) So if you're disappointed now - we will tell you that these are Copy-Dollars, but will continue to pay you with them... Hey - how valuable is a Dollar ? How not valuable is consider a lie ? I agree for Finepics and Namor and others who were misleaded from the B&R description to write their opinion in the Delear review section for everyone who is interested to see... Just to make this clear again, I don't want to people think I've not done my homework if they just read this statement and not my original Post. I asked per mail - and was told something that clearly was not the fact ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisik Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Josh- Andrew, please, post the followin watch as described in your web sites. I think it is a comparable stuff: Movement: ETA 2892 Glass: zapphire with AR coating Material: 316 stainless steel 18k white gold plated. Water Resistant: yes remarks: high quality deployant clasp Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddhead Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Whew - how Dollarious is a Dollar ? II asked per mail - and was told something that clearly was not the fact ! ... so dollar is an adjetive...? ok, just kidding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreww Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 or could it be that the Admin here told them in no uncertain terms that if they didn't post an explanation their ass was grass......I wonder The Admins here have talked with Andrew about this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r11co Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 i for one, think this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. I don't. The whole raison d'etre of this forum (and its predecessor) was to reveal the truth behind scams and misrepresentation of products in the selling of replica watches. If you don't agree with that then what is your reason for being here?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 They have to go by the descriptions provided by their manufacturer and likely cannot be held accountable for most inaccuracies. Interesting point . . . especially since everyone is likely to disagree with it, notwithstanding the fact that, taken literally, it is the absolute truth. LITERALLY speaking, one can never hold anyone accountable with regard to a contract where the underlying activity isn't legal. You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer for delivering three ki's of 60% coke when you contracted for five at 90+%. If you contracted with a watch dealer to supply 1000 fake Rollies with gen ETA movements, there is no court anywhere that would offer you any recourse no matter what you got. Now, fair warning, if some twit wit reads this and wants to argue that I am saying fraud is OK, I shall flame you unmercifully. Just mentioning a point that I think is interesting, otherwise having no relevance to the subject at hand at all. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r11co Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 I have bought a couple of watches and parts (straps, movements) from Andrew and one night, after I had ordered a watch, we had a very interesting and nice email exchange about our views on business ethics and business behavior... we both agreed that long-term thinking was the key to building a successful business and that the quick buck, made on the back of your customer, does not really lead to that same goal... I did then and still trust Andrew that this was truly his opinion, because he had just made me an offer to solve an issue we had with a watch, which was generous and very much in line with the opinion he had voiced in that conversation. Some people have the patience and tolerance to take time to build your trust before stabbing you in the back. Others can be two-faced! My experiences were brief and to the point. I didn't seem to matter enough so was treated accordingly.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4fun Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 In this case, black is balck, white is white. If some guys want to make it grey, these guys have some agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreww Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 TJG, I brought that up to provide a possible excuse for some inaccuracies, and I believe it is likely true. However, Andrew and Josh were in their opinions, the leaders in the B&R project. They obviously were aware of the product. I'm really stumped on that issue. Aside from that one instance I do not see major transgressions, so this is totally out of the blue. My only explanation is that for some reason they decided to push the envelope with regards to their marketing speak. I really believe that they have learned a lesson, and I doubt that we will see something of this magnitude from them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddhead Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Interesting point . . . especially since everyone is likely to disagree with it, notwithstanding the fact that, taken literally, it is the absolute truth. LITERALLY speaking, one can never hold anyone accountable with regard to a contract where the underlying activity isn't legal. You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer for delivering three ki's of 60% coke when you contracted for five at 90+%. If you contracted with a watch dealer to supply 1000 fake Rollies with gen ETA movements, there is no court anywhere that would offer you any recourse no matter what you got. Now, fair warning, if some twit wit reads this and wants to argue that I am saying fraud is OK, I shall flame you unmercifully. Just mentioning a point that I think is interesting, otherwise having no relevance to the subject at hand at all. Bill Bill, A court of law is not the only recourse for a dealer who obtains misrepresented goods. Dealers have a choice with respect to which suppliers they choose to do business with. If they find the products they source are misrepresented, source elsewhere. If the entire wholesale market is misrepresented, be more carefull about how you market the products. Either way, if you are not confident about the make-up of a product, don't up-market it. No one ever here is expecting perfection, but I think most of the members thought at least the dealers were at least confident that the products they sold were in line with what their clients thought they were buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermanx Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 No my friend.. here we are judging Josh and Andrew.. don't mention other dealers.. Because if we start mentioning other dealers we will find many many disturbing things that a group of us may not like ... for ALL of them. Actually V, my bringing another dealer into this equation was directly to your comment below... I wouldn't expect to pay over $200, maybe $220 dollars for the copy movement while watches with SWISS ETA REAL DEAL 2892 (FM, ect) have been available in the past at the $300 mark. Plus I want to see JUST ONE mail from the 'experienced' members who asked very normally Joshua (as i would do if i was interested for the B&R) : 'Hey Josh, how come you can supply a watch with a genuine ETA 2893 for 300$ ??? ' Like i said earlier, I didn't buy the watch but nothing I saw from the prototype threads to the actual sales thread lead me to believe there would be anything other then an ETA REAL DEAL NO COPY 2893. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Bill, A court of law is not the only recourse for a dealer who obtains misrepresented goods. Dealers have a choice with respect to which suppliers they choose to do business with. If they find the products they source are misrepresented, source elsewhere. If the entire wholesale market is misrepresented, be more carefull about how you market the products. Either way, if you are not confident about the make-up of a product, don't up-market it. No one ever here is expecting perfection, but I think most of the members thought at least the dealers were at least confident that the products they sold were in line with what their clients thought they were buying. I'm confused. WTF does any of that have to do with the very narrowly defined point that I was extremely careful to specifically articulate? Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FxrAndy Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Can I just mention one thing that bothers me about nearly all the dealers, the pictures do not always marry up to the description. This is a perfect example posted by Andrew yesterday. Cartier Santos 100 chrono with swiss 7753 movemet but none of the pictures actually show one. The movement pics are crappy asia7750 and the watch dial has got a sunken date and not representitive of the swiss at all. Why on earth would I spend that much not knowing what I would really be getting!! http://www.ttwristwatch.com/index.php?main...roducts_id=1233 Here is the link and see for yourselves. That said I have always had good service from all the dealers and always suspected the B&R did not have a swiss movement as they did not brag about it with movement pics as they usually do! Should a 7753 have the seconds at 3 and not at 9 as well!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pabra Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Interesting point . . . especially since everyone is likely to disagree with it, notwithstanding the fact that, taken literally, it is the absolute truth. LITERALLY speaking, one can never hold anyone accountable with regard to a contract where the underlying activity isn't legal. You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer for delivering three ki's of 60% coke when you contracted for five at 90+%. If you contracted with a watch dealer to supply 1000 fake Rollies with gen ETA movements, there is no court anywhere that would offer you any recourse no matter what you got. Now, fair warning, if some twit wit reads this and wants to argue that I am saying fraud is OK, I shall flame you unmercifully. Just mentioning a point that I think is interesting, otherwise having no relevance to the subject at hand at all. Bill Not that interested in the flame And of course there isn't, you are completely right about that. However, if the coke pusher wants to survive in business, making such 'mistakes' could be fatal - and perhaps not only for business. It is up to the buyer to decide what to do. So what can the buyer do in this case, or in a case where perfectly good Pot is actually Oregano. Well, stop buying perhaps, and inform other people why they don't buy anymore. The last part isn't really necessary, but then again, that could perhaps be said to be the essence of these boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Plus I want to see JUST ONE mail from the 'experienced' members who asked very normally Joshua (as i would do if i was interested for the B&R) : 'Hey Josh, how come you can supply a watch with a genuine ETA 2893 for 300$ ??? ' http://watchwindersworld.com/fmco10004-con...8922-p-401.html $308 for Swiss ETA 2892. It's not outside the realms of possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 (edited) There's an easy way to sort this problem.....and one that should please everyone.....( well maybe not everyone)...! 1. The dealers in question....do a recall on the item concerned.....! 2. They then fit what was PERCEIVED as being fitted by means of their advert. 3. They offer a refund to ALL who bought the item believing it was ...what it wasn't....! 4. They alter the description of the advert....for future customers...! 5. They lower the price of the product.....( not that anyone NOW will pay the price for what they AREN"T getting ). 6. Apologise to all the EXPERTS here......for misleading them. Easy peasy ...lemon squeezy.....! If not.......everything you've read from post #1 is a ........ Edited February 1, 2007 by TTK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermanx Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 http://watchwindersworld.com/fmco10004-con...8922-p-401.html $308 for Swiss ETA 2892. It's not outside the realms of possibility. That was my point pug mentioning the "other dealer"... The current $228 of the b&r price is higher then I personally would pay, but its also a price where I would have said hmm no way that can be Real Deal Swiss ETA 2892... Over $300 doesn't raise a flag with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now