杯具了，老IWC保养回来原来的把头不见了。。。。

loui · 发表于 2011-4-15 15:56

刚刚看到一个论坛的讨论，某人的把头有小鱼标志的老IWC寄回原厂保养回来后，

发现原来的小鱼把头不见了，打去IWC问，理由是旧把头不防水，换了个新把头，

原来的旧把头没得退，这位老哥提醒大家，要保住原把头的话，先将把头取下再送原厂保养，

他还有另一块旧表在保养中，郁闷ing。。。。原文如下。。。。。。

I originally posted this on the IWC forum, but thought the people on this forum would have good insight also.
I recently received back from IWC my old red gold reference 807, having paid a bit less than $1000 for service. (The service generally came out decently, although the watch arrived running slowly and required a bit of regulation.)
The service included (at a cost of $70) a new crown. The crown I received did not have the famous "fish" emblem on it, so I called IWC to ask what had happened. Their answer was that they couldn't get the watch to be adequately waterproof, so they wouldn't put a fish crown on it. I asked whether I could get a fish crown if I promised not to hold them responsible for water-resistance; they said I could not. I asked if I could get my old crown back; they said I could not.
The good news is that I did not have a "fish" crown on the watch to start with, so I am no worse off than when I started. However, it is clear that if the watch had been sent to them with a fish crown, they would have kept it. (I have another similar watch that is still at IWC being serviced and did have a fish crown when it went in. Fortunately, I have been told that it will come back with a fish crown; I just hope it's true.) Nevertheless, I'm quite upset about the situation. My comments:
1. If you're sending a vintage watch to IWC, remove the crown before sending it. Then they can't keep it and you can have it replaced after the watch is returned.
2. When I get parts replaced on my car I am entitled to receive the old parts back. I think the same should be the case with my watch.
3. If IWC intends to keep parts, they should disclose their intention to do so VERY CLEARLY in order to allow customers to consider that before submitting watches for service.
Of course, I understand that IWC doesn't want to put a fish crown on a watch if they think it's not water resistant (although since as far as I can tell they don't guarantee water resistance I'm not fully sympathetic to their position), and I'm sure they would prefer not to have old crowns in circulation. However, I don't see why their wishes should trump my property rights.
1. Am I out of line? Are they?
2. If they send my other watch back with the wrong crown, what recourse do I have? (I paid for the service with a credit card.)
Your comments will be much appreciated.

loui · 发表于 2011-4-15 15:59

大家给点意见他咯。。。。。。

zzzz · 发表于 2011-4-15 16:13

最简单的办法：叫阿里大师给他做条小鱼儿上去！

naonao1122 · 发表于 2011-4-15 16:15

我以为是大叔的掉了呢。

loui · 发表于 2011-4-15 16:59

看看这位仁兄怎么说的。。。。。。

IWC used the fish crowns...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For many years to denote that the watch was water-resistant. Here is a pertinent elaboration from the excellent, authorized NY IWC watchmaker Jack Freedman:

"For those who have very old IWC vintage watches it may interest you to know that quite often when they are serviced at the factory the watchmaker finds that due to the condition or age a watch can no longer be guaranteed as water-resistant. As such, the factory will then replace the fish crown with a non-fish crown (usually the same type or style crown without any logo). This change signals the company and its owner the new status of the watch.
...I was told by a well informed source at the factory that the 'fish' crown was replaced by the 'probus scaffusia' for 'marketing reasons'..."