Watch authentication spoilt at 3rd party

[watchknight]

Have you ever come across being a buyer or a seller who went to authenticate a watch you want to buy or want to sell and the watch was scratched by the technician who was removing the caseback ?

Who will be responsible for that scratch if the buyer wouldn't want to buy the watch after it was scratched by the technician even though it was the buyer who initiated the authentication and suggested this particular technician to remove the case back. And the technician refused to be responsible for it as well.

[Oceanklassik]

Now, this is a rather sticky situation. I feel that whoever wants/initiates the work to be carried out on the watch should bear responsibility. That means if the buyer wants a verification of authenticity to be done, he/she should bear responsibility for whatever may happen to the watch. It's like buying things from a shop right? You often see, "ONCE BROKEN, CONSIDERED SOLD".

It'll then be up to the buyer to deal with the technician how they want to settle between themselves and leave the seller out of the equation. I still insist on proper communication before a transaction so that there will not be misunderstanding.

[seiko.citizen]

*imo* this is my take.

buyer insist on authentication. buyer bears risk of damage by technician. buyer will therefore follow up any damages with technician.

[triton]

even RSC can damage items when sent in for service. let's not say 3rd party technician.

i agree with Oceanklassik that the buyer should bear 'responsibility' together with the watch technician.

however, technician can claim otherwise that the scratch was there prior to inspection.

as i always say, i may not have any issues with a particular technician, however it does not mean that the technician is 'fault free'. that is why unfortunate accidents like the one you mentioned occur.

are watch enthusiasts going to insist that the technician issues you a receipt marking down where the dents/scratches are like how we send our car in for service and/or when we rent car where the rental company issues a receipt similar to that of a car mechanic?

as i would expect the technician to handle any watches with due care, proper communication and/or principles should be made known to all parties in concern. there is a need to safeguard seller's interests first.

[problmchylde]

I agree. Whoever who wanted to have the watch verified/inspected......in this case the buyer.....should bear the cost of any damage done.

Regards,P.

[leeye]

I came across a similar situation previously when I was selling a BNIB watch. Buyer wanted to have it checked at RSC even when the watch is BNIB and comes with complete papers. Immediately I turned down the buyer as I could not risk any tool marks on a BNIB watch.

An alternative is for the buyer to pay in full for the BNIB condition watch and we verify the watch together at RSC. If the watch is verified by RSC, then there are no issues about the watch origins. Unless the watch turns out to be a fake which full refund have to be given back to the buyer. Therefore buyer should bear the risks.

[johnjoux]

Leeye sounds right. Unless the watch proof to be fake.. then its the seller responsibility. Otherwise i would say its the buyer responsibility.Though this might be a rather hard situation... perhaps the seller can reduce about SGD 50 - 150 to satisfy both party.

Me normally as a seller would do it this way if such situation comes up..