JLC Master Chrono

[poocherama]

Update.

I received this back from CS - "We can confirm that the watch has most certainly encountered a knock/shock, and the intervention remains fully chargeable."

I've asked for it to be returned to me.

P

[poocherama]

yeti said:

I'd ask for clarification on how they know this and what evidence they have. I wonder if an independent could verify what they claim? Of course if it comes back to you and it hadn't had a knock, it will have had one now in order to prove their point.

Apparently the 'evidence' is that the case has marks on it consistent with an impact. This is of course bks as I've the condition report from dropping it off at the boutique, it just mentions signs of general use, nothing to outwardly suggest it'd been damaged.

I concur with your last point!

[poocherama]

I've just heard back again from the JLC 'concierge' service (what does that even mean?)

I've repeatedly asked after the original fault when the watch was repaired under warranty back in March 2014. My reason being that it may be related to the current fault. They still won't give me an answer. Instead I received a rather snotty reply this morning upgrading the damage to the pushers at 2 AND 4 o'clock! 'There is most certainly no manufacturing issue.'

This though, is priceless - 'We of course cannot comment as to how this has happened as we were not there when this occurred.'!

P

[poocherama]

Variomatic said:

Ok, so when it arrived with them it had damage to the 2 o'clock pusher. It now has damage to both. So, by their own assessments (I assume you have written copies of both assessments), the damage at 4 o'clock must have occurred in their care.

I'd be politely pointing that out.

Quite. In my reply I asked why damage that hadn't been assessed and priced originally had now been uncovered.

[poocherama]

I've been contacted by the 'administration and commercial manager for the UK' (massive cheese I'm sure). In essence he cut and paste the original assessment from the JLC service centre in an attempt to 'clarify' their actions. I politely pointed out that quoting emails I'd already seen wasn't that helpful. I mean, why roll out the grand fromage that is the administration and commercial manager for the UK, then cut and paste an earlier email? No effort has been made whatsoever. It's like dealing with BT, though at least they don't hide behind a veneer of luxury and exclusivity. JLC concierge service, it still gets me every time!

The real question still to be answered is what caused the original fault? In the event that my requests for further clarification go unanswered or are ignored (highly likely) I assume I'm buggered? It is after all their word agains't mine.

I'm in the process of draughting a letter to the JLC CEO detailing my experience with his brand to date. A well known vintage watch dealer I dropped in on last weekend suggested he'd had luck with this approach in the past.

P

[poocherama]

RichB said:

thought you were disputing that it had had two knocks? I assumed the original fault was caused by the first knock?

I can see why there might be some confusion. This saga has been running for a year. The 'original' failure I referenced occurred a week after I bought the watch in March of last year. It was subsequently repaired under warranty. Despite asking them on a number of occasions they've never let on what was wrong with it.

The watch failed again 6 weeks ago. The two knocks you refer to above are from the original diagnosis on the 19th Jan and a subsequent diagnosis on 18th Feb.

Variomatic - I've brought to their attention the fact that the original damage report mentions scratches consummate with normal wear. Neither pusher is damaged.

P

[poocherama]

Quick update.

JLC are still insisting that the watch received a knock causing the failure. However they are now offering to carryout the repair work for free (not under warranty as such) though they have still not told me what the original fault was back in March 2014. Should I press for an explanation or just accept the repair work? It seems that my persistence may be a factor in the current offer.

Thoughts?

[poocherama]

PJ S said:

If they're finally relenting (seeing sense), then does it really matter what caused what before?
More to the point, after all this (by which I mean needing 3 repairs) will you even be remotely interested in keeping it?
Just accept the offer, get it back, then enjoy (until it breaks again) or get rid of it, and go for a different JLC or something less fragile.

I agree, once back I think it'll be for the chop!

[poocherama]

Hopefully the final update.

As you know the watch is being repaired under 'goodwill' not under warranty. Today however I received a call from Jaeger le Coultre Customer Service UK, with reference to my 'blogging' about my experience to date. It was an interesting conversation.

They didn't let on what forum they'd been following but wanted to know what they could do to make amends. They offered me an extended one year warranty. Sure, though I politely pointed out that the watch still had 14 months of warranty when it broke in January and it hadn't been repaired under it.

The really interesting bit was the issue of the original failure back in March 2014. Apparently the Richemont system doesn't allow for notes to be added about diagnosis / repair work. Apparently when a watch fails (in my case completely) it's not always apparent what the cause is. It's taken apart, serviced, if a component is broken replaced, put back together and tested. This apparently was the situation with my watch, no history of the failure was noted. I pointed out that this seemed at odd's with the latest diagnosis which was pinpointed directly to an impact/knock.

Long and the short of it was they want me to report a favourable outcome. Happy to write about my direct experience to date was the reply. What did I really want? Not to have to contact JLC customer service for the foreseeable future!

Let us hope this is the case!

P