Verification @ RSC and other alternatives

[decksurgeon]

IMHO think the easiest is for both parties to come to an agreement prior to verification. with verification you have 2 discrete answers only.

(i)- a rolex that came out from the geneva factory
(ii)- a rolex that did not come out from the factory (nice way of telling u fake lah)

so you can agree before hand who is to pay depending on the either outcome above.
that way no issues should the verification throw up an unexpected result.

this sounds reasonable and gentelmanly enough for a trade deal no?

[ricnas1]

Ok I agree that it is the buyer's "want" for authentification rather than the seller, that the buyer has to pay. My concern is, WHAT IF, authentification proves otherwise? Is the seller then going to refund the verification fees to the buyer? If yes, then no problem.

This was raised from another post by someone who was asking about buying watches from pre-own shops. Similar concerns. Thanks.

a private seller who's confident that his watch is all original wld not mind that the watch be "authenticated"....

similarly a buyer who is confident that the watch is original need not send the watch for "authentication"....

i have to insist that the buyer forks out the "authentication fee" for their own ease of mind, to know that the watch is oiginal....

however if this is otherwise, means watch is not original or have fake parts ie bracelet, then the private seller wld have to refund the fee... that is only correct and gentlemanly.... but not necessarily wl be done or agreed upon....

sometimes the seller might not know themselves... but this is the responsibility of the seller that the watch is original as he is selling it as an original and shldnt feign ignorance...

pls bear in mind, that the "authentication" is merely to confirm that all parts are original, does not mean parts are correct to the watch...

but in the case of pre-own shops.... u must cfm with them prior to purchasing that the watch needs to be authenticated.... they shld accompany you to rsc and get it done... but u still will pay the fees...

if they refuse, dun buy.... if the watch is not original... they stand to lose the reputation....

whats in it for you as the buyer... either "losing" the SGD75 to know the watch is a fake and never returning to the seller and shop...... or paying SGD75 for peace and ease of mind.... imho.. that SGD75 is worth it... though it wld be sweeter if they only charge sgd25

[Oceanklassik]

Both ricnas1 and decksurgeon, WELL said ! Yes, I find the responsibility of authentification resting heavily of the seller, than the buyer. Isn't this how the consumer laws were crafted? Thanks.

[decksurgeon]

errr....slight OT, but when you exchange hands for a nice fast car. more often than not the buyer pays the LTA 'transfer fee' (only in exceptional cases, seller agrees to pay transfer fee).
then again, i have never come across a fake 911 GT3 or fake lambo for sale.

as a seller if you have a genuine product for sale - you will never daunted by any authentication challenge.
if you are a buyer, of course you have ever right to know what you are paying for is the real mc coy. so there is always a reason for both sides and room to meet at an amicable solution.

[ricnas1]

errr....slight OT, but when you exchange hands for a nice fast car. more often than not the buyer pays the LTA 'transfer fee' (only in exceptional cases, seller agrees to pay transfer fee).
then again, i have never come across a fake 911 GT3 or fake lambo for sale.

as a seller if you have a genuine product for sale - you will never daunted by any authentication challenge.
if you are a buyer, of course you have ever right to know what you are paying for is the real mc coy. so there is always a reason for both sides and room to meet at an amicable solution.

any example is a good example...

[feudallordcult]

good thread by TS. i have another query pursuant to this $75 verification. How will the technician know/ensure that the watch case back has been correctly secured in order to withstand water resistance? I read from somewhere that there is a certain gauge that must be used to test for waterproofness. pls pardon me if this qn has been posted.

[Darkangel]

good thread by TS. i have another query pursuant to this $75 verification. How will the technician know/ensure that the watch case back has been correctly secured in order to withstand water resistance? I read from somewhere that there is a certain gauge that must be used to test for waterproofness. pls pardon me if this qn has been posted.

They can test for waterproofing. There is a machine...it's like a vacuum machine...that mimicks the pressure just like under water.

[ricnas1]

good thread by TS. i have another query pursuant to this $75 verification. How will the technician know/ensure that the watch case back has been correctly secured in order to withstand water resistance? I read from somewhere that there is a certain gauge that must be used to test for waterproofness. pls pardon me if this qn has been posted.

i'm not sure how this goes and if i'm even answering yr question...

1. when u send a watch in to get a quote for servicing charges, they will tell you that they will not bear the responsibility of the watch's waterproffness after they open the casing.....

2. but when u send for authentication, they will not say such a thing.. so i suppose they will have a machine/gauge test to actually press the case back into the watch properly...

[decksurgeon]

They can test for waterproofing. There is a machine...it's like a vacuum machine...that mimicks the pressure just like under water.

the machine is called a ALC 2000 and made by Witschi in Switzerland.


it has a range of 0.8-10bar and can be coupled with a compressor for more complex testing. This is the top of the line machine and can be hooked up to a printer to print out the test result also.

there are cheaper testers out there and one example is from Bergeon

[decksurgeon]

i'm not sure how this goes and if i'm even answering yr question...

1. when u send a watch in to get a quote for servicing charges, they will tell you that they will not bear the responsibility of the watch's waterproffness after they open the casing.....

2. but when u send for authentication, they will not say such a thing.. so i suppose they will have a machine/gauge test to actually press the case back into the watch properly...

(1) am very surprised. surely they should guarantee water proofness after a service. isnt this what the service of a watch is about in the first place? to put things right, back to near factory condition. usually the seals are changed after a service and the watch is tested with the ALC2000.

of course if the watch is vintage and has not waterproofness to start with in the first place, then this is not possible at all (eg. old vintage IWCs, vintage Omegas etc)


(2) - i'd expect that the watch be returned to the owner in the same waterproofness state even after the caseback is opened for verification. somehow it does not make sense to pay a provider for a fee to do a service (such as verification) to have you product returned to you worse off state than before. does anyone know what actually happens at RSC with regards to this matter?

pressing the caseback (usually screwing it back in the oyster case of rolex) is one thing - having the right tools definitely makes the job a lot easier for the operator. but the final test with a ALC 2000 still must be carried out after that to ensure that the watch is indeed waterproof.

[decksurgeon]

it has a range of 0.8-10bar

sorry typo error -0.8 to 10 bar i mean.

i tried to edit, but it hangs???

can the moderator pls edit for me and delete this post, thank you.

[jazz_samz]

Cool info deck..

Thanks for sharing!!

[Taurus75]

good thread by TS. i have another query pursuant to this $75 verification. How will the technician know/ensure that the watch case back has been correctly secured in order to withstand water resistance? I read from somewhere that there is a certain gauge that must be used to test for waterproofness. pls pardon me if this qn has been posted.

I started a thread sometime ago pertaining to this... like bro feudallordcult, I too was wondering back then if the WR of a watch would be compromised after authentication by RSC and if they would bear the responsibility should the watch comes in harms way when exposed to water after their authentication services. But the consensus were split with some suggesting/confirming that RSC would be accountable while some insisting that authentication itself does not ensure full water worthiness of the watch and that only a full serivice would suffice. So heres the link to the thread:

http://www.sg-roc.com/showthread.php?t=1049

So I guessed the answer to this question remains vague...

[Darkangel]

sorry typo error -0.8 to 10 bar i mean.

i tried to edit, but it hangs???

can the moderator pls edit for me and delete this post, thank you.

Dun wry...mine also hang

[feudallordcult]

will call & ask rsc tom. must get to the bottom of tis once & for all.