Timeshops.net - reputable?

[cornerstone]

i told that admin. if he can send back broken watch to me. then i will make new watch replacement to him. i will pay for two way postage.

To follow up on Offshore's post I've seen the PMs at the time and this is categorically false. That was exactly what was NOT offered.

- Watchmark took the money.

- Watchmark wrote he would personally QC the watch.

- The watch had a faulty bracelet, and the bezel and second hand fell off. The faulty bracelet caused the watch to fall off.

- As the watch had fallen off because of the faulty bracelet, Watchmark deemed this now to be a 'used' watch that he would not exchange for a new watch.

- Watchmark offered only to repair watch if two way postage was paid by the buyer. (3 weeks after being told about the problems with the watch).

- Watchmark was asked to exchange the watches - send the QC'd watch he was supposed to have sent to begin with, and receive his lemon watch in return. This is the 'second' watch of which he speaks.

- Watchmark refused, and was belligerent and unhelpful.

- The implication was that all buyers on RWG receive this treatment and level of customer service. Indeed Watchmark made it quite a point of principle - even though he had failed in his initial assurance to QC it, and sent a lemon.

- Crap product and crap customer service was the conclusion.

- Caveat Emptor.

At the end of the day, Watchmark's idea of QC, customer service and standing behind pre-purchase assurances made to buyers fell way short. Or to put it another way, there are other people that would have dealt with the customer differently and made their mistake right. Watchmark didn't.

[KB]

Mark if you feel the Admin team is ganging up on you here think of this.....we read all the transaction mails.

Think twice before you attempt to call one of our team members a liar.

Ken

[watchmark]

To follow up on Offshore's post I've seen the PMs at the time and this is categorically false. That was exactly what was NOT offered.

- Watchmark took the money.

- Watchmark wrote he would personally QC the watch.

- The watch had a faulty bracelet, and the bezel and second hand fell off. The faulty bracelet caused the watch to fall off.

- As the watch had fallen off because of the faulty bracelet, Watchmark deemed this now to be a 'used' watch that he would not exchange for a new watch.

- Watchmark offered only to repair watch if two way postage was paid by the buyer. (3 weeks after being told about the problems with the watch).

- Watchmark was asked to exchange the watches - send the QC'd watch he was supposed to have sent to begin with, and receive his lemon watch in return. This is the 'second' watch of which he speaks.

- Watchmark refused, and was belligerent and unhelpful.

- The implication was that all buyers on RWG receive this treatment and level of customer service. Indeed Watchmark made it quite a point of principle - even though he had failed in his initial assurance to QC it, and sent a lemon.

- Crap product and crap customer service was the conclusion.

- Caveat Emptor.

At the end of the day, Watchmark's idea of QC, customer service and standing behind pre-purchase assurances made to buyers fell way short. Or to put it another way, there are other people that would have dealt with the customer differently and made their mistake right. Watchmark didn't.

it's not. in the end in the e-mail. i told that admin. i will replace new watch to him after his watch received. . but he ask me re-send a another watch instead without send back broken watch. i can't accept this. so i refuse.

for any problem watch. i will replace prblem part. and if the watch is due to our problem. we will replace for customer. but customer need send watch back to us first. this is our policy !

but that admin refuse return watch to me and ask me send another same price watch(not rolex if i am not remember wrong). i can't accept this. because you need send back to us first. and i will replace same watch to you. not another watch !

regards

mark

[watchmark]

Mark if you feel the Admin team is ganging up on you here think of this.....we read all the transaction mails.

Think twice before you attempt to call one of our team members a liar.

Ken

hi KEN

this is private event only for me and that one buyer who is RWG admin. NOT the problem for me with RWG admin team ! please make it clear.

i just know what i said is truth here. i swear to GOD i didn't make lie here. that customer ask me send one more watch and he don't want send back broken watch back to me. this is truth. he tell me that he will put me off if i don' send one more watch to him. this is truth too. what do you think about this ? please advice

the quality problem is very normal in every seller's business. if i do mistake on QC or what. i will of cause take responsibility. but even i DO QC mistake and i don't think that buyer give me fair offer. all right ?

regards

mark

[KB]

Wrong Mark this is the business of the entire Admin team as in the end we are the guys trusted to look after our members.

Ken

[watchmark]

Wrong Mark this is the business of the entire Admin team as in the end we are the guys trusted to look after our members.

Ken

oh. i see. no wonder.

[cornerstone]

it's not. in the end in the e-mail. i told that admin. i will replace new watch to him after his watch received. .

No - it still says you'll repair the watch - this being the watch with three problems that you said you had personally QC'd before sending. The watch was a lemon.

You specifically state you would not exchange the watch due to your policies.

The quality control was critical to the purchase, because it was going to be a gift. You got the sale because of your promise to personally QC before sending it, and happily took and kept the money on that basis.

I honestly don't think you even understand what the buyer was suggesting - which was an exchange of watches. The idea was not for them to have two watches, there's a new working watch, and a broken one. They get the working one, you get the broken one you sold the first time. Is it complicated?

If you say you're going to personally QC a watch, then QC it before sending it. If you're not, then don't promise customers you will.

Saying you're going to QC the watch, sending a broken watch, and then hiding behind store policies that render quality control completely meaningless is bad for the buyer:

- BROKEN PROMISE

- BAD PRODUCT

- POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE

- CUSTOMER HAS BROKEN WATCH

- WATCHMARK KEEPS MONEY

If this is the BS you give experienced members, it's reasonable to assume you put even less effort into new members.

At the end of the day, you traded your reputation to make a few bucks.

[watchmark]

No - it still says you'll repair the watch - this being the watch with three problems that you said you had personally QC'd before sending. The watch was a lemon.

You specifically state you would not exchange the watch due to your policies.

The quality control was critical to the purchase, because it was going to be a gift. You got the sale because of your promise to personally QC before sending it, and happily took and kept the money on that basis.

I honestly don't think you even understand what the buyer was suggesting - which was an exchange of watches. The idea was not for them to have two watches, there's a new working watch, and a broken one. They get the working one, you get the broken one you sold the first time. Is it complicated?

If you say you're going to personally QC a watch, then QC it before sending it. If you're not, then don't promise customers you will.

Saying you're going to QC the watch, sending a broken watch, and then hiding behind store policies that render quality control completely meaningless is bad for the buyer:

- BROKEN PROMISE

- BAD PRODUCT

- POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE

- CUSTOMER HAS BROKEN WATCH

- WATCHMARK KEEPS MONEY

If this is the BS you give experienced members, it's reasonable to assume you put even less effort into new members.

At the end of the day, you traded your reputation to make a few bucks.

i did ask you send back watch for problem part replace. i told you that i will replace new part for you. mean's if you watch band broken. then i will replace a new band for you. and i promiss you after replace . your watch will be ok.

this is what i e-mail you. right ?

1. why you don't send watch back to me for replace ?

2. why you ask me send you another different new watch without you send back broken watch ? mean's ask me send total 2 watch to you. you only pay 1 watch.

3. why you say if i don't send second watch to you. you will put me off on RWG ?

please advice.

[watchmark]

No - it still says you'll repair the watch - this being the watch with three problems that you said you had personally QC'd before sending. The watch was a lemon.

You specifically state you would not exchange the watch due to your policies.

The quality control was critical to the purchase, because it was going to be a gift. You got the sale because of your promise to personally QC before sending it, and happily took and kept the money on that basis.

I honestly don't think you even understand what the buyer was suggesting - which was an exchange of watches. The idea was not for them to have two watches, there's a new working watch, and a broken one. They get the working one, you get the broken one you sold the first time. Is it complicated?

If you say you're going to personally QC a watch, then QC it before sending it. If you're not, then don't promise customers you will.

Saying you're going to QC the watch, sending a broken watch, and then hiding behind store policies that render quality control completely meaningless is bad for the buyer:

- BROKEN PROMISE

- BAD PRODUCT

- POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE

- CUSTOMER HAS BROKEN WATCH

- WATCHMARK KEEPS MONEY

If this is the BS you give experienced members, it's reasonable to assume you put even less effort into new members.

At the end of the day, you traded your reputation to make a few bucks.

ok. now you feelling my QC is no good. and i promiss you will do good QC. but i am not.

ok. even if i do mistake on QC your rolex watch. i will take responsibility for your rolex watch. that is why i ask you send back watch for replace.

and i also would like to pay 2 ways postage. but you refused . you don't want return watch to me. i understand that because you angry.

but i can't understand that you ask me send another expensive watch to you for free and you refuse send broken watch back.

[offshore]

Mark,

You really are confused.

You weren't dealing with Cornerstone!

You were dealing with another of the admin team, who hasn't as yet logged in.

I'm sure he will "have a chat"- when he arrives!

Offshore

[cornerstone]

i did ask you send back watch for problem part replace. i told you that i will replace new part for you. mean's if you watch band broken. then i will replace a new band for you. and i promiss you after replace . your watch will be ok.

this is what i e-mail you. right ?

1. why you don't send watch back to me for replace ?

2. why you ask me send you another different new watch without you send back broken watch ? mean's ask me send total 2 watch to you. you only pay 1 watch.

3. why you say if i don't send second watch to you. you will put me off on RWG ?

First up - as Offshore says I'm not the person that bought the watch, I've only seen the correspondence. So when you posted about an offer you never made earlier, I felt it important to correct it.

1. Replacing a broken part = repairing the same lemon watch. You didn't offer a replacement watch, you said it should be returned for repair. The watch was a gift, if you'd properly QC'd it to begin with, it wouldn't need repaired.

So all your comments about offering to 'replace' the watch are incorrect. Maybe that's a language barrier thing - but he wanted to exchange the broken watch for a working watch.

2. I suspect what you're talking about is the timing. What use is a broken watch (to you or him)? I doubt he was clinging on to it for dear life. The point would have been not to wait until receiving the broken watch before dispatching one for exchange, it's a completely pointless waste of time. They can be exchanged simultaneously. Pay for 1 watch, get 1 working watch.

Which is all a moot point because you never offered an exchange or a replacement watch. You refused to exchange it.

It's worth reiterating, he paid for 1 watch and received 0 working watches from Watchmark. And you're the one carrying on that you were hard done by.

Again maybe there's a language barrier in all this - but you're not understanding the customer's perspective at all.

3. I imagine because the broken promise, non-functioning product and poor customer service he received was indicative of how you treat all customers.

You're correct that the key issue was the promise of personal quality control.

If this had just been some random order through your web shop, you could easily point to your shop policies. But you made a specific promise before purchase, and then sent out a lemon watch anyway. That watch was a gift to his mother-in-law and you knew that.

All he wanted was a QC'd watch to give as a gift. He didn't receive that, and then he wanted to exchange the watch, but you never offered that.

Don't make promises if you don't intend to keep them. Lots of dealers don't QC watches, we know that. But then they don't promise to personally QC them either.

If you had done a better job of looking after your customers you would have a better reputation - but you didn't look after this customer at all.

ok. now you feelling my QC is no good. and i promiss you will do good QC. but i am not.

ok. even if i do mistake on QC your rolex watch. i will take responsibility for your rolex watch. that is why i ask you send back watch for replace.

Except you didn't offer a replacement - you didn't offer to exchange the broken watch for a new one.

[KB]

You also need to get someone who speaks better English to read what Cornerstone wrote because your answers don't correlate with the questions.

Ken

[watchmark]

You also need to get someone who speaks better English to read what Cornerstone wrote because your answers don't correlate with the questions.

Ken

sorry for my bad english. i am china guangzhou local business man.

i will stop reply after this mail. in the end. i would like replace or exchange new working watch to that customer. hope everything can finsh here.

regards

mark

[Pix]

I have personally read all the content of the correspondence between Mark and the Admin. That was sometime in April as far as I remember.

The admin in question had bad luck with the watch falling on the ground, surely because of the defective bracelet.

I discussed this matter personally with Stephane, member of the team, as I felt bad for Mark and how things turned for him. St

[houndoggie]

I have personally read all the content of the correspondence between Mark and the Admin. That was sometime in April as far as I remember.

The admin in question had bad luck with the watch falling on the ground, surely because of the defective bracelet.

I discussed this matter personally with Stephane, member of the team, as I felt bad for Mark and how things turned for him. St

[maxman]

No disrespect to the Rwg staff or the Admin. I was thinking, what If I or another member had this same problem? Would you have removed mark from the forum? I think not. I cant speek for anyone else but It sounds like the old double standard If Mark would have had problems with several members then I could understand. As of yet not one negative remark about Mark I personaly think that he deserves another chance. I also beleive that mark Is one of the good guys. I have corasponded with Mark on several occasions and he has always been polite and profesional. Does anyone else feel this way? Mike

[Pix]

I appreciate your reply on this one... We have 2 conflicted accounts here and needed another less biased opinion. In all honesty, I believe Mark's side more than the other side.

I don't know if the point is to believe one side rather than the other. Looking at the correspondance, you can see that both got worried because they both felt they were about to be scammed. I don't say I have more understanding for the Admin or for Mark. I just say that I find it too straight to ban him as a dealer because of one case with an admin. Look at Mark's reviews, if he was so bad the world would know. Look at other dealers reviews, you may wonder why they are still here. That's my point.

Besides, there are obvious language problems, but this is something easy to settle : make short and simple sentences. Imagine the guy you talk to is not American or English native. That's what I do always, maybe it's easier as English is not my native language either.

If I believe the admins may have taken what they considered as the right solution, I wonder why they don't have the same step when bad matters happen with others. Can one draw conclusion on ONE case ? At that time, I doubt RWG would endorse anyone, even the "best" ones... (no, I won't give names, it would turn into an immediate bashing thread)

[cornerstone]

To explain, Watchmark was given every opportunity to do the right thing. He was actually given a choice at the time and explicitly chose that he'd rather be removed than make it right - he was quite specific about it. He even asked for his RWG account to be deleted.

He specifically promised to QC the watch before sending it. It was a lemon. He was asked to exchange the watch, he refused. The one thing he did not offer at any point was a replacement, because that's what was being refused.

@houndoggie: I'm not the buyer. I am a 3rd party - I'm just reading the email exchange. If you think I can't read, you're mistaken.

I'm just guessing, but for those arguing Watchmark's corner, you're not doing his PR campaign any good by wading in just as he's said that he didn't QC it properly and offering to rectify the matter, by saying you're not sure what happened and who to believe...

It's a reasonable conclusion (one I reached) that if a long term member would be treated that way, a newer member would not be treated any better. Indeed Watchmark himself made that very case - this was the same his standard of service he offered to everyone.

Well, then, it wasn't very impressive.

(Personally, I think it was a PR disaster entirely of his own making. For the sake of a few dollars on a faulty product he'd promised to QC and then sold, he's no doubt forgone many times that. But if his 'principle' was that he doesn't fulfill promises, QC watches or exchange them if they're faulty, no matter the circumstances, and buyer be damned - it was hardly a noble one. Hardly a compelling case to be kept around, and no real benefit for members in that. This isn't the GZ watch sellers union.)

[KB]

As CS states members wading in now trying to give Mark support is futile, to do so is to question the creditability of the entire Admin team who (as we do with every important topic) turned this situation inside out within the Admin area before unanimously voting for his removal.

Quite simply Mark dug this hole he needs to climb out of it himself.

@Pix there was an administrative reason when the team viewed all the mails between the buyer and seller, on the other hand it is very wrong that you were made privy to another members private mails. There is also the fact that the team voted with an absence of bias, you have already demonstrated that you can not say the same.

Ken

[Pix]

@Ken : I'm not starting any kind of crusade here. A decision was taken, it's not my right nor duty to fight against that. I just felt I had to post my opinion on Mark, persisting in the fact I rate him as a good dealer.

What happened happened. We won't change that.

But keep in mind that if a mod takes a bad decision, he's not banned if he does it only once. Mark was (somehow)

Regarding privacy : I have not published anything and won't. I was informed by Mark about this matter as he was looking for some support (if you look how he arrived here, you'll see that I was the one who introduced him on RWG). This is to say I have very good relationship with him, and he asked me for support... as a friend.

I'm not judging. I'm just feeling a bit bitter about how he was so quickly kicked, whereas other dealers who have more detractors are still here. In the end I was close to think that the fact that this story happened to an Admin was the reason for the ban. That's only my opinion. And I accept the fact we disagree, respect your decision, but don't agree with it

But it's not that important, there are real scams around, and these should be treated more seriously than what happened to Mark...

[KB]

But you see Pix Mark showed you private mails that he had no right to show you.........he just dug the hole deeper.

Again you are posting a judgement regarding a favourite dealer, that means you cannot give an unbiased opinion.

If you would like to read what CS posted once again you will see that Mark chose to be removed, actually asked us to delete his account rather than sort the problem.

Ken

[Pix]

You're right, he asked for that.

Did Mark permit to show the content of his mails to the whole Admin team ?

I have deleted this conversation with him long time ago, but I had the feeling he proposed to sort out by exchanging the watch, paying the carriage both ways (which is not the usage). That was not accepted, as the only way he was let was to make an immediate replacement, without waiting the watch to reach him back. Besides he was requested to deliver an other model. These are all tiny details which made the thing complicated and obviously not acceptable for him.

What is worth mentionning, because it can explain why he was reluctant in spending too much to solve the thing (although he followed his return policy, as stated on his webstore) is that he sold the watch at the factory price, having therefore very few allowance to make an additional "commercial gesture".

There are words he wrote I would not have accepted either, this is true, and I put this on the account of anger brought by misunderstandings and inflexibility in the expectations of the Admin concerned.

Usually if I return something under warranty, it's difficult to get something else in return when it fails. I get the same.

I think he went out of the hole already anyway, by being a trusted dealer on other boards.

Different boards, different dealers, different ways of thinking.

My opinion might be biased, however I bought more than 50 watches from him, got the usual problems (none D.O.A. however) and still buy from him : if he would treat his customers so badly, I don't think I would buy from him anymore. Not that I consider me as a reference, but as a normal guy who knows what's acceptable and not for himself.

The most important is that we can discuss freely

Actually I don't want to debate the details, I know it will lead nowhere.

I really just wanted to bring an other angle in the conversation, to say that it's not all black or all white.

[KB]

Pix you are way in over your head on this....and I should add wrong.

Of course Mark (or any other member) does not get the choice about the team reading his mails, how can we possibly administrate this board if we don't have access to all the required information?

You are a regular member for anyone to show you another's private mails is wrong, for you to read them is wrong for you to believe that your opinion holds more weight than the entire Admin team is ridiculous.

There seems to be a belief that what happened to Mark was only because the customer was an Admin, this is not the case, the way it panned out Mark would have been removed if it involved a regular member too as in the end it was Mark who said he wanted his account deleted.

Ken

[Pix]

I have not asserted that my opinion is worth more than the Admins' one. I confirmed I did not agree, and that it's not all black or all white, that's different.

And maybe it's because Admins consider "regular members" (should I mention I've bee a Platinum one and still a Supporter) as having automatically no mean nor right to influence / comment certain things, that I decided not to have RWG as my home anymore, about one year ago.

I take the right to read problems (and relative correspondance) which are freely submitted to me by either members or friends for my opinion and advice. It's common sense.

I have "returned home" for Lani's photo contest upon invitation, which I could not refuse, as a gentleman (I mean he), but rest assured I will not disturb anymore soon, after this contest (which I do love) and the Rocketeer matter are solved, if ever.

Maybe I'm just not done for RWG and the way it's driven, RWG which has been for me, and still is, a great board with great members....

[houndoggie]

The bottom line was the question "Is timeshop.net reputable?" The answer in my opinion is yes, because I have, like I said purchase 5 or 6 watches from Mark and have had an excellent experience everytime. When there have been hiccups (which happen with every dealer), he rectified the situation immediately. There seems to be lots of extra curricular stuff with the admins purchase... maybe there was too high of an expectation from them, maybe Mark felt he was being taken advantage of... So, of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, I am sure.