Andrew & Josh's Response To The Little White Lies Thread...

[TJGladeRaider]

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.

Agreed.

If I had not seen it for myself, I would never have believed it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I have made mistakes, I have exercised poor judgment, and I have, on more than one occasion, completely fked things up beyond all redemption . . . and to make things worse, whenever I have royally screwed the pooch, I have found myself dealing with perfect people who had never made a mistake in their lives.

Therefore, like you and many of our most rational brethren, I am hopeful that these threads will serve to define the line beyond which no dealer should cross, and I trust that better judgment will prevail in the future.

Now, could somebody please start a thread bashing TTK . . . I just love seeing him chew someone a new [censored]. Nobody does "[censored] slap 'em like you own 'em" with such eloquence.

LOLLLLLLLL

Bill

[Craytonic]

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.

I never said it was not deliberate; I actually implied the opposite if you read the entire thread. I see the problem here - you just don't like the word semantics. It is a semantics issue because they are claiming an copy of an ETA is an Asian ETA which goes to the meaning of... oh nevermind you can't please everyone. If you go by the dictionary it is the correct term to use.

[retep]

Not that i`m going to add anything new to the discussion but only want to state my opinion.

Although i can understand why they use these vague descriptions, i don`t like being lied too.

That`s it, nothing more to say.

[eddhead]

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

Your 'narrow quote' would seem to indicate that we cannot hold persons accountable where the underlyign activity isn't legal, because as a consumer you do not have viable recource.

[b]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

My narrow response is that you do have recourse even if not through the courts, in that you can shop elsewhere the next time. In this case your recourse is to take your business elsewhere. That recourse exists in illegal goods markets as well as in more conventional ones.

Secondarily, and as an aside, from the perspective of the wholesaler (dealer) if you truly do NOT have recourse to change suppliers, you can CHOOSE to be more carefull in how you market the product to your end-client

that is WTF it has to do with your narrowly defined point.

[hambone]

No my friend.. here we are judging Josh and Andrew.. don't mention other dealers..

"Judge no lest ye be judged"

[TJGladeRaider]

that is WTF it has to do with your narrowly defined point.

I fear that you have expanded upon my narrowly defined point . . . and it does seem to me that you are, thus far, alone in that which is quite understandable since I even went so far as to make it explicitly clear that I did not expect to see anyone with the intellect of the average houseplant misconstrue the very, very narrow scope of the point I made.

Nevertheless, perhaps I can help clarify your mind.

The point that I made was, illegal contracts cannot be LEGALLY enforced -- thus my repeated reference in a very short missive to the Courts. I also went on to qualify, in the interest of clarification, that this point as to legal enforceability was proffered solely as an aside, having no relevance to point we are discussing here.

Obviously, the Pope does indeed wear a tall hat, bears do [censored] in the woods, and those of us who buy counterfeit watches are perfectly free to bash, abuse, malign and shun any dealer we want to, for any reason we want to, or even for no earthly reason at all.

Bill

[Goochenbrau]

I never said it was not deliberate; I actually implied the opposite if you read the entire thread. I see the problem here - you just don't like the word semantics. It is a semantics issue because they are claiming an copy of an ETA is an Asian ETA which goes to the meaning of... oh nevermind you can't please everyone. If you go by the dictionary it is the correct term to use.

Its such a stupid arguement, but I couldnt help but ask my neighbor about this (he has a PhD in Lingustics), and he believes samantics to be the natural development and interpretation by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. If you DELIBERATELY classify something inaccurately, it is not a development in samantics. Rather, it is false rhetoric. Whereas, saying your are "drunk" vs. "[censored]" is a matter of samantics. They are both the same thing, but labeled differently.

And, I know you never said it was not deliberate, thats why I brought this up. I cant believe I spent this much time on this haha

[Craytonic]

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 ........

I think they are being roasted enough; you are not exactly a non-interested third party here (even if I may agree). I am sure coke would love to see pepsi fall as well.

[eddhead]

I fear that you have expanded upon my narrowly defined point . . . and it does seem to me that you are, thus far, alone in that which is quite understandable since I even went so far as to make it explicitly clear that I did not expect to see anyone with the intellect of the average houseplant misconstrue the very, very narrow scope of the point I made.

Nevertheless, perhaps I can help clarify your mind.

The point that I made was, illegal contracts cannot be LEGALLY enforced -- thus my repeated reference in a very short missive to the Courts. I also went on to qualify, in the interest of clarification, that this point as to legal enforceability was proffered solely as an aside, having no relevance to point we are discussing here.

Obviously, the Pope does indeed wear a tall hat, bears do [censored] in the woods, and those of us who buy counterfeit watches are perfectly free to bash, abuse, malign and shun any dealer we want to, for any reason we want to, or even for no earthly reason at all.

Bill

Thank you for clarifying my mind.. i am not quite sure what I would do if there were not people like you so willing to step up and clarify my mind especially given my houseplant like intellect and all..

silly me, all along, i thought your primary point was that "LITERALLY speaking, one can never hold anyone accountable with regard to a contract where the underlying activity isn't legal." and that the reason you felt that you believe that without legal recourse there can be no accountability, i.e. as a consumer because you have no legal recourse you cannot hold the other party accountable.. Not sure where I got that impression the legal analogy was used as an example not as the entire gist of your message. ... could be from the fact that you sited the legal recourse as an example you know... " You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer for delivering three ki's of 60% coke when you contracted for five at 90+%..."

I will stand by my post. Regardless of what LEGAL recourse may or may not exist, you can "LITERALLY speaking" hold the person accountable for delivering on a contract where the underlying activity is not legal. The fact that you cannot sue them does not mean they are not accountable. They may not be accountable in a court of law but they are accountable to their peers, and to the market. LITERALLY speaking

[Craytonic]

Its such a stupid arguement, but I couldnt help but ask my neighbor about this (he has a PhD in Lingustics), and he believes samantics to be the natural development and interpretation by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. If you DELIBERATELY classify something inaccurately, it is not a development in samantics. Rather, it is false rhetoric. Whereas, saying your are "drunk" vs. "[censored]" is a matter of samantics. They are both the same thing, but labeled differently.

And, I know you never said it was not deliberate, thats why I brought this up. I cant believe I spent this much time on this haha

Bah since we are going to have it out on this one.... J&A are claiming that the "natural development and interpretation" as you put it of the words "ETA" and "Superlume" have changed. I believe the "development and interpretation" of those words has not changed. That makes it a semantic argument

Classic examples that back my point here are the words "kleenex" and "q-tip". These are both copyrighted terms and are items mfg by a specific company (like an ETA movement). But, you don't ask for facial tissue. You ask for a kleenex when you sneeze - even though what you receive is not technically a "kleenex." The same thing is happening here, the dealers are saying when you buy an "ETA" labled movement it is ok to give you a movement not made by ETA (much like you would take a "fake" kleenex when you asked for one to whipe your snot). I don't belive the words have changed as they suggest - so it is a semantics issue.

[Goochenbrau]

Bah since we are going to have it out on this one.... J&A are claiming that the "natural development and interpretation" as you put it of the words "ETA" and "Superlume" have changed. I believe the "development and interpretation" of those words has not changed. That makes it a semantic argument

Yes, they are claiming that it was a natural development, but IT WAS NOT. It was deliberate.

I have a meeting in 2 minutes, so I have to let this be. Lets just agree to disagree

[Pugwash]

These are both copyrighted terms

Trademarked, but now we're arguing semantics, as in "the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text".

semantics |səˈmantiks| plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text : such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff.

[supermanx]

Bah since we are going to have it out on this one.... J&A are claiming that the "natural development and interpretation" as you put it of the words "ETA" and "Superlume" have changed. I believe the "development and interpretation" of those words has not changed. That makes it a semantic argument

Classic examples that back my point here are the words "kleenex" and "q-tip". These are both copyrighted terms and are items mfg by a specific company (like an ETA movement). But, you don't ask for facial tissue. You ask for a kleenex when you sneeze - even though what you receive is not technically a "kleenex." The same thing is happening here, the dealers are saying when you buy an "ETA" labled movement it is ok to give you a movement not made by ETA (much like you would take a "fake" kleenex when you asked for one to whipe your snot). I don't belive the words have changed as they suggest - so it is a semantics issue.

If you were paying for the kleenex at a "brand name" price, and got single ply toilet paper I would think you may not see them as the same... Same as if I order a coke and receive pepsi without prior warning. Those are two specific brands... Id be even more upset if it is advertised as coke and I receive no-name brand cola. Now multiple the cost by 100x and there should not even be a question of why this is an issue.

[TJGladeRaider]

Thank you for clarifying my mind.. i am not quite sure what I would do if there were not people like you so willing to step up and clarify my mind especially given my houseplant like intellect and all..

Not sure where I got that impression... could be from the fact that you sited the legal recourse as an example you know... " You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer for delivering three ki's of 60% coke when you contracted for five at 90+%..."

I will stand by my post.

Of course you will, and good for you . . . not just everyone has the strength of character necessary to stand by the obviously untenable - especially when driven to support that position with the very quote that undoes it.

Although I realize that I am brutalizing an already dead horse, let's look at, "You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer . . ."

You highlighted the word "example" so I can only conclude that you did in fact recognize the choice of words that followed was chosen to be illustrative of the point I chose to make.

Now, look closely at the very next word.

Consistent with my previous, and indeed repetitive, references to the Courts, I specifically say, "sue," a word that once again defines the focus of my post as relating to that which goes on in the Courtroom. Once again, we all know that devious drug dealers who perpetrate frauds are quite likely to have their height adjusted with a chainsaw, or circumcised with a blow torch, but that does not change the fact that they cannot be SUED.

Finally, no need to thank me. I have spent much of my life in public service, and I am always happy to take a few minutes of my time to clarify the muddled mind of anyone that sorely needs it.

Bill

[eddhead]

Of course you will, and good for you . . . not just everyone has the strength of character necessary to stand by the obviously untenable - especially when driven to support that position with the very quote that undoes it.

Although I realize that I am brutalizing an already dead horse, let's look at, "You cannot, for example, sue your drug dealer . . ."

You highlighted the word "example" so I can only conclude that you did in fact recognize the choice of words that followed was chosen to be illustrative of the point I chose to make.

Now, look closely at the very next word.

Consistent with my previous, and indeed repetitive, references to the Courts, I specifically say, "sue," a word that once again defines the focus of my post as relating to that which goes on in the Courtroom. Once again, we all know that devious drug dealers who perpetrate frauds are quite likely to have their height adjusted with a chainsaw, or circumcised with a blow torch, but that does not change the fact that they cannot be SUED.

Finally, no need to thank me. I have spent much of my life in public service, and I am always happy to take a few minutes of my time to clarify the muddled mind of anyone that sorely needs it.

Bill

.

I am beginning to think that your post is less 'narrow' than it is 'narrow minded' Your initial post suggested to me that you feel you cannot hold anyone who cannot be sued or taken to law, accountable for their actions. This is a narrow-minded view of how to hold someone accountable for their actions. I can only take from this that you are in or work closey with the legal profession. That would explain your propensity to clarify points to absolute and utter confusion

[FxrAndy]

http://watchwindersworld.com/fmco10004-con...8922-p-401.html

$308 for Swiss ETA 2892.

It's not outside the realms of possibility.

I belive that this movement was the subject of some scrutiny from Ziggy the other day and it was pointed out at that time that ETA tend to use removeable balence spring posts as opposed to the fixed ones fitted in the above linked watch, which could possibley be an ETA base plate with asian works above it.

[TJGladeRaider]

I can only take from this that you are in or work closey with the legal profession. That would explain your propensity to clarify points to absolute and utter confusion

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

OK Sir Edward, you got me there!

BTW, how's that wonderfully fine watch holding up?

Bill

[Craytonic]

If you were paying for the kleenex at a "brand name" price, and got single ply toilet paper I would think you may not see them as the same... Same as if I order a coke and receive pepsi without prior warning. Those are two specific brands... Id be even more upset if it is advertised as coke and I receive no-name brand cola. Now multiple the cost by 100x and there should not even be a question of why this is an issue.

The point is sometimes it is acceptable because the meaning of the word changes and sometimes it is not. Here I think not - see first 3 pages of thread for reference.

[Craytonic]

Trademarked, but now we're arguing semantics, as in "the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text".

Sorry, trademarked. You are correct. Either way it is misleading and they need to call a spade a spade - the meaning of the words has not changed.

[solicitor]

Whoa, with all due respect, you guys have far too much time on your wrists, umm, hands....

[deltatahoe]

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?!?!

i've had nothing but great transactions with the two dealers discussed in these threads, and i have RWG to thank for leading me to them and informing me about replica watches. so i fully agree with the forum's purpose and function. i just personally don't enjoy the negative and often accusatory tone of these threads, so i think i'll just exclude myself from the discussions from this point on.

my point about this being blown out proportion is primarily with regard to how badly this dead horse is being beaten. last count on the little white lies thread was 500+; let's hope the dealers have heard our dissatisfaction with the way certain watches and/or terms have been misrepresented and will respond in the way they represent watches in the future. i think it is time to move on -- i don't believe discussing it more at this point will make a bigger impact than the previous 550 posts.

finally, to answer your question directly (even though i agree with your point above), my reason for being here is that i love watches and enjoy learning & discussing them with others.

deltatahoe

[pabra]

As some of this is clearly OT.

An ETA is an ETA because it is not a Miyota or a PP 240. Meaning is given to it in regard to what it isn't. Let me clarify this. Pretend you have a castle, a villa and a lodge (and they didn't enter a bar). And you have a good idea of what they 'are' and what they look like. As you see a castle, you think 'castle', and so on. In the same way, when you say castle, you have a mental image of what a castle looks like (although generalized). So, moving to the point, a villa looks like a villa, as it is not and does not look like a castle or a lodge.

What happens when you remove the word villa? I mean eradicate it. Will it not have a word or concept attached to it? Let's pretend that a new word isn't invented and used. Both castle and lodge will extend their meanings to embrace some villas: grand ones to castles and small ones to castles. In time, if a word is not needed for the category, the habitats formerly known as villas will be either in the 'castle' category or 'lodge' category. Don't know if Saussure would've been proud of me, but let's pretend

So what happens when people singledhandedly decidade that it is not only ETA that should be called ETA, superlume is only super in terms of, well what? Well, confusion at first, as obviously the word isn't really gone and ... the rest is in a long long thread.

[andreww]

Can we just agree that the B&R project was not exactly handled properly and move on? I'm sure the guys will know that they are being watched, and I'm sure we won't see this kind of thing again.

I will, for one, continue to do business with these guys as previous to this incident they have provided nothing but top quality service by all accounts!

[eddhead]

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

OK Sir Edward, you got me there!

BTW, how's that wonderfully fine watch holding up?

Bill

they are both great... actually... timing was handy too as i have a couple being serviced at the moment. Let me know if you have any problems with the other end of the deal

[gioarmani]

I'd like to stay out of the drama as much as possible, but I do agree some mistakes were made & cheer to just moving on. I also believe in giving our two best dealers the benefit of the doubt--as drop shippers they're probably going more by descriptions given them by their supplier/manufacturer, than they are from hands-on, self-discovery. If one was in their position as a salesman (who are not directly overseeing the manufacturer), you'd do the best you could (with what's given you), in order to sell what you--as the salesman--believe to be the best product, the best way you can. I understand the issue of exaction in definition (with regards to ETA & sapphire) has been addressed ad nauseam, and I think maybe the subject has been dragged out a bit too far to be bordering on unnecessary chastisement. None of our current dealers have done anything to provoke being banned from selling here, so maybe this sort of continued response isn’t exactly necessary or productive, in the long run (hypocritical I know, for using such a long post to express this).

There will always be discrepancies in sales descriptions--regardless of the product line being sold--because no one particular end of the sales chain is ever completely informed on exactly what the other end has done. The very principle of a sales description is to paint a picture prettier than what you would actually see: to take the product’s basic definition and put a glamorous spin on it, in order to make it have immediate appeal for the consumer. The final decision—regardless of how much the seller has tried to honestly disclose, or intentionally deceive--is still up to the discretion of the consumer; thus, “caveat emptor”.

I know there are plenty of rebuttals to offer towards that, but having been fairly successful in sales over the years, I've learned that regardless of how well I had been trained on the product-knowledge (or even what more I had researched myself, on top of what the company provided), there was still the occasional miscommunication I’d eventually run into with the customer, as to the features & benefits, or a service provided, or the way the product/software was supposed to have performed, etc.

I think they've done a pretty good job so far--better than most obviously, based on their performance reviews and the frequency thereof.

However, as a consumer (of any goods, for that matter), I think the smartest thing for the consumer to do--and I know I've said this before--is to do your homework. It only takes a little bit of research & probing to find out what you're really getting. Any sales-pitch is going to contain some degree of [censored], so as with anything else, simply ignore the descriptions and trust your eyes--whether it's the food you put to your mouth, or the car you put to the road. These dealers generally post pics of the exact products they carry. Look at the shapes, at the construction, and at the movement and the markings, etc. Make your decisions on whether or not to purchase, based on what you see. If you still have concerns or questions about specifics, simply email the dealer.

If I purchase any product based solely on the description, chances are I’m not going to get what was described. That line of thought is simply foolish. This is where a bit of brainwork comes in. If I’m expecting said watch with “real, genuine, Swiss-made ETA 2-what-ever movement”, and I’ve only paid a couple hundred dollars for it--knowing the movement alone costs that much (or more)--I can’t realistically expect to have gotten the complete package for less than five or six hundred dollars. It’s just not going to happen. I’m guessing that the description was probably a spin created by the supplier (another bloody salesman in the chain ) in order to sell them to the dealers, who, in turn use the description--given to them--to sell to their buyers, and so on. I’m guessing if any of their site’s movements/descriptions were mislabeled, then I’m guilty of passing the same on to my customers when I resold my goods here.

But I don’t necessarily feel cheated or deceived, as for that price, I couldn’t have realistically expected that; nor was that what I should’ve based my purchase upon. My feelings are (as far as the movement’s labeling is concerned) that regardless of whether my “ETA” movements are Swiss made, Asian made, ETA clones, etc., they’ve been accurate & fantastically performing little movements with great parts (as recognized by our resident experts) and if treated properly, greatly reliable over the long term. Mind you, their quality is leaps and bounds above cheap Chinatown rip-offs, and it’s obvious in many ways. However, if I was adamant about having to have a watch who’s movement had to be Swiss movement, had to be made in Switzerland, and the piece’s exact details and description had to be damn near clinically correct & exact, then a little common sense would lead me to the fact that the replica world was not where I needed to be. Gens are more tailor-made to those specifications, and that’s where my luck would probably be better played. As a consumer of replicas, I know I’m going to have to expect a little more deviation than normal in the market I’m dealing with. The B&R project might have been a [censored]-up, but at least someone cared enough to try to give to us what we wanted; something that no one else had, and something that didn't exist before.

Whether it’s design, manufacture, or assembly, a watch is only as good as the care that went into it; rep or gen. With reps there is a bit of the ol’, proverbial “luck of the draw”, but the ones that are built well will last a long time; especially the ones with the ETA movements that we buy here, regardless of where or by whom they were manufactured.

And regardless of where or by whom they were manufactured, legally speaking our dealers do take a huge risk that most of us would not be willing to take, in order to bring us a much higher quality product than what’s in a shop stall or briefcase on Canal Street. There’s also a great deal of care that these two have taken in trying quite hard to make sure their customers get what they want, and are happy with what they’ve received. I know I’ve always been quite pleased with them, and on the rare occasion I get something that wasn’t as described (i.e. an incorrect date-font), or even a DOA piece, the situation was always rectified in an orderly and timely fashion.

We must keep in mind that as consumers we have responsibilities too; no matter what it’s with, at the end of the day we’re the ones left holding the bag if we didn’t think about what we were being given, before we bought it. For example, this morning I had to get some minor warranty/maintenance work done on my Volvo, and while waiting for the mechanic to finish, I’m bored and wind up standing out there talking to him about the ins & outs of the car. Turns out some of what the salesman thought the car had, was not what the mechanic said that it had (i.e. a lot of the engine parts were manufactured in Belgium, not in Sweden, and the stereo speakers were Harman Kardon, and not Bose). Not a big deal, just another miscommunication somewhere in the line between the maker and their salesman.

Rep dealers generally aren’t master watch-builders who know the horological definitions & terminologies of the product they’re peddling inside and out; they’re just the middlemen. What I’ve gotten from them does what it’s supposed to do and it does it quite well. I’m quite grateful for getting a good product at a good price and being treated properly along the way. And if the descriptions don’t match up exactly, [censored] it; there’s always another drink.