Govberg Watch Repair-Dispute-#9561104

First and foremost, I would like to apologize to Mr. Silver for the length of time it took for us to provide an estimate and return his watch. We typically return watches that have been declined for service within 7 business days and we did not do that in this case and for that, I apologize unreservedly.
Second, I want to defend our reputation against the claims of the theft. We have been in communication with Mr. Silver for several weeks and have made good faith attempts to assuage his concerns. We sent him pictures that were taken of his watch at 2 separate times while the watch was with us. On 3/30 he promised to send photographic evidence that his case back was switched. As of 4/18, no package has been received by me.
It would be highly unlikely for someone to switch out the case back of a watch, as case backs do not hold much value with respect to the rest of the watch. It is not uncommon to receive a watch with damage that requires replacement of the case back. For example, if the case back is dented, the watch may not be able to be sealed and would be susceptible to taking on water.
Rolex stopped making the case back for the 5508 many years ago, but they do offer a substitute case back for 5508 watches. That part is the case back for the model 1500. It seems that the more likely scenario is that during some prior servicing of the watch over the 40+ years, the case back needed to be replaced and the technician used the official Rolex sanctioned replacement. Mr. Silver may have just realized that the case back is different, but that does not mean that we switched out the case back.
We have been in business for over 90 years, service thousands of high end watches every year and are authorized dealers for over 50 top watch brands. It is frustrating to have your integrity challenged in a public forum and we appreciate that those that take the time to hear our side of the story. We still hope to reach a mutually agreeable solution to this issue.

I appreciate the reply from Govberg Watch Repair but was careful in my complaint not to use the word "theft"; however I reject the suggestion that I erred in knowing which case-back I sent. By now (April 22, 2013) or by tomorrow at the latest (April 23, 2013), Govberg Watch Repair will have received photographs of the watch before and after I sent it for an estimate. These photographs establish that the case-back that I sent is not the one that I received from Govberg Watch Repair on March 1, 2013. Please note: I sent two letters to Govberg well before April 18, 2013--one of which included photographs of my watch--but the manager of the repair department wrote that he never received them. How often do two separate letters, mailed on two separate days, fail to reach their destination? And what about the two separate photgraphs that Govberg sent me? Neither photograph, one of which was taken by Rolex U.S.A., shows the case-back. The photographs that I sent and have re-sent show two different case-backs.

That Govberg Watch Rerpair and jewelers has been in business for ninety years argues in my estimation that it should not advertize on its website an in-house service procedure that it did not follow, i.e. sending my watch to Rolex U.S.A. without my permission and describing on its estimate an opitional service of stripping a vintage dial of its value. The charge for this service is over $900.

As I wrote to the representatives at Govberg Watch Repair, I do not complain gratuitously and will be happy to submit to a polygraph examination to substantiate all that I have written. I wonder whether Govberg is willing to have all of its relevant employees do the same?

We have received the information and photographs from Mr. Silver. By Mr. Silver's timeline of events, there are 2 other repair centers that have opened this watch besides us - one before us, and one after us. Both would have had equal motive and opportunity to have switched the case back (though why someone would even want to switch a case back remains a mystery to us, there is little value in old case backs).

That being said, we have no interest in a public and protracted dispute with Mr. Silver. It took us too long to process Mr. Silver's watch and we are willing to offer compensation for that delay, even though Mr. Silver did not spend any money with us to begin with. I have asked Mr. Silver what compensation would be acceptable to him, but I cannot return his original case back because it has not been in my possession since we sent his watch back to him. Mr. Silver has informed us that "we are well beyond conversation", so we await his response.

I find Mr. Kaplan's reply curious. I assume that as the manager of Govberg Watch Repair, he wrote the latest portion of our exchange on PeopleClaim.com. He requested from me names of other watch repair services in order to confirm my claim but then uses this information to maintain that other poeple could have switched or ruined my original case-back. He points out that there are two other repair centers that have opened this watch but fails to mention the following: 1) the watch repairman at the last repair center to open my watch called me immediately to point out the incorrect case-back. I ask rhetorically why a repairman would call to point out an incorrect and improper case-back if he himself had substituted a 1500 model for a 5508 modelf? Why would he take the chance of telling me something that I would never have discovered on my own? 2) Mr. Kaplan of Govberg Watch Repair recurrently ignores my reminder that Govberg Watch Repair sent my watch to Rolex U.S.A. without my authorization and while it was legally reponsible for my watch. Again this action violates what Govberg Watch Repair lists as a policy on its website, namely that it is as an exclusively in-house service. Is Govberg Watch Repair clear about the consequences of false advertizing? 3) Goverg Watch Repair writes that there is little value in old case-backs; hence it lacks incentive to switch an older model (no. 5508) for a newer model (no. 1500). Govberg Watch Repair claims to know about the many watches and brands that it services. Among other things, numerous watch repair services and collectors will gladly tell anyone who asks that the value of a vintage Rolex Submariner is substantially diminished if that watch is not complete, i.e. if it is not a watch that has all matching componets. I ask anyone who takes the trouble to read this exchange to take the additional trouble to see what other dealers and repair services have to say on the matter. 4) Govberg Watch Repair has still not replied to my question why it lists as an optional service stripping a valuable dial--look, for example, at asking prices on Ebay--of its inherent rarity. I continue to wait for an answer from a repair service that claims to look carefully at each watch that it receives and that is jealous of it reputation for integrity. Here too I urge anyone who reads this exchange to ask other services and collecters about the appropriateness of this $900 + option.

Finally, I repeat what I have said at this site and in email messages and letters to Govberg Watch Repair. I am happy to take a polygraph examination at my expense to document every claim that I make. Moreover, I am happy to ask all other repairmen to which Mr, Kaplan refers to take polygraph examinations at my expense. I ask Mr. Kaplan whether he and his staff are willing to do the same.

Govberg Watch Repair would like this problem to disappear. So would I. But satisfaction for me is not some token payment because there was a delay in returning my Rolex Submariner, model 5508. And so enough.

I really do not have much to add beyond my last posting. I stand by our assertion that no one associated with our company switched out Mr. Silver’s case back. To answer Mr. Silver’s specific points:
We do not market ourselves as an exclusively in-house service. It is well within the industry norms of watch repair to send watches to the manufacturer based on the nature of the repair. We sent Mr. Silver’s watch to Rolex USA because our technicians determined that they would be best suited to fix it. However, Rolex refused to work on the watch because of the age and poor condition of Mr. Silver’s watch.
In the interests of trying to provide service to Mr. Silver, we provided an estimate to repair the watch that included an extensive restoration of the watch as well as an optional dial refinishing, which is a service often requested by customers that own vintage watches, including Rolexes. It was offered as an optional service, because the dial of the watch was in poor condition. It was optional, because some customers do not want their dials refinished and would rather have a stained/damaged dial. For some reason, the fact that this service was offered was offensive to Mr. Silver.
Again, we close by asking Mr. Silver what it would take to provide satisfaction. Presumably, he started this PeopleClaim to come up with a resolution to this issue. We cannot meet his request to return his case back because we have not possessed it since we returned it to him. One place we can agree with Mr. Silver is that enough is enough!

Although Govberg Watch Repair and I agree that enough is enough and that I am not yet satisfied, I believe a response is appropriate to the claim that Govberg does not market itself as an exclusively in-house service. What foillows is from the Govberg Watch Repair website and is what induced me to send my Rolex Submariner, model 5508, for an estimate:

WE'RE AFFORDABLE -- As an authorized retailer and service center for the best watch brands in the world, we can provide better service and better pricing than your local store. With a team of in-house watchmakers, we can cut out the middle man and offer competitive pricing.

How should I or anyone else who might consider Goverg Watch Repair for service interpret the website-declaration above? I assume that this pronouncement argues a good reason to do business with Govberg; however if Govberg does what others in the industry do, then why wouldn't anyone conclude that its website is misleading?

I also dispute the Govberg claim that my dial was in poor condition. Numerous dealers who have looked at my watch--dealers whom I am delighted to name--say that for a 1958 Submariner, the dial is in remarkable condition. And once more, I have never encountered any other repairmen or dealers, except Govberg Watch Repair, who would even consider stripping a vintage dial of its value.