TAG Watch Repair Cost - SCAM

agrinnall

edinburgher wrote: »

I prefer the guy at the local shopping precinct who charges £4.50 for a battery, top man!

And does he guarantee it'll still be waterproof at 100 metres (although to be fair if mine is ever that far below the surface I'll be drowning and not worried about the pressure seals)?

daytona0

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Careful that you don't get too hurt when you fall off your high horse.
You admit to having an Apple watch, something that is a novelty which anyone could easily live without, so why buy this instead of giving the money to help feed those in poverty? Is it okay for you to spend money on things like this but not okay for others?

The funny thing is that I outright lied about having an apple watch, to see if anyone would draw that conclusion

Anyone can buy what they like. I was just pointing out that I would expect OP to be charitable too, because you can pay £2 for a watch in some places and it tells the time just as good. 2k is overkill and obviously bought just to look flash... I personally don't think OP is very flash if they don't automatically pay the £377 repair cost.

Ultimately, the "each to their own" mantra applies.

As for saying that the OP "should be giving money to charities".
How do know that they don't already do this? Even if they don't, this should be a personal choice and not done simply because others don't agree with how they choose to spend their money.

I'd be hopeful that they do

takman

theonlywayisup wrote: »

It is a money saving site, that doesn't mean you have to justify what you spend your money on.

I'm not saying he should publically justify the expense to everyone on the thread. I'm on about when you consider buying a new watch I can't see anyway that spending £2000 on a watch that is inferior to an £80 watch can be justified. Your paying 20 times more for a watch that has less features and is less accurate at displaying the time, which is a watches primary purpose!.

If you used the same logic with a car it would be like paying £400,000 for a Dacia Duster instead of getting a £20,000 Landrover Freelancer 2

takman

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

In that case we should never eat out unless its some cheap cafe, never splash out on nice hotel when there is a youth hostel is available (I'm not knocking the YHA I am still a member and still use them), never buy a nice car when a banger will do just as well.

That's not what I'm saying. When I paid £150 a night for a 1 bedroom suite in London last year I could justify that because it was bigger, comfier, had a kitchen, sofa, and a separate room for the bed and was very comfy. So was definitely worth the extra £100 a night over a very small and basic room.

The TAG watch is not as good as my watch because it is less accurate and less resistant to damage during normal use, but yet costs 20 time more so is not justifiable and a waste of money!.

daytona0

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

The lung cancer remark is just stupid, my father died from that but no amount of charitable giving is going to drastically reduce the number of people getting that as we know that is mainly in the hands of the individual, and the tobacco companies pushing the evil weed.

No, it isn't "just stupid". In the context of our posts, I was talking about spending £1990/£2000 on a nicotine support group instead of £2000 on a watch.

If you call that "just stupid" then I would be interested to know what you think about spending £2000 on a watch instead

Ultimately, I am talking about potentially extending the life of people who suffer from lung cancer/nicotine addiction (as an example relevant to your initial post) whilst OP is talking about an overpriced watch which needs repairing. I just can't see how you don't connect to that sentiment on a personal level?

colazombie

daytona0 wrote: »

Do you not think that £1990 of that £2k could have gone towards funding charity groups who help people who suffer from nicotine addiction? I'm sure the £10 surplus could have gone towards a watch which was capable of telling the time...

Some people may spend that much on fags each YEAR, but they don't spend that much ON ONE TRANSACTION! 2k divided by 12 months is £167 which MOST working people have in surplus each month (but don't necessarily have a 2k line of credit)! The watch is an impulse buy! Either due to OP being rich (in which case why did they not automatically pay the £377 repair bill for a 3-4 year old item?) or they have a fat credit line (fake "rich person"). It could also be a wedding (etc) purchase, but I'm not really buying that given the brand.

If op is genuinely rich then they should be giving money to charities. Maybe they should donate money to charities who help nicotine addicts, as per your post. Or should we "keep pedalling" 2k watches while people die of lung cancer in the UK?

what a ridiculous statement, so what if the OP treats themselves to a 2 grand watch, none of your business what they choose to spend their own hard earned money on. If they are rich, poor, or have just had a windfall and decided to treat themselves is nothing to do with you. They simply came here for advice

Keep_pedalling

takman wrote: »

I'm not saying he should publically justify the expense to everyone on the thread. I'm on about when you consider buying a new watch I can't see anyway that spending £2000 on a watch that is inferior to an £80 watch can be justified. Your paying 20 times more for a watch that has less features and is less accurate at displaying the time, which is a watches primary purpose!.

If you used the same logic with a car it would be like paying £400,000 for a Dacia Duster instead of getting a £20,000 Landrover Freelancer 2

It is really about aesthetics, I have a mechanical watch which is worn every day of the year. It has no features not even a date, but I love the style, the smooth sweep of the second hand, and I can even enjoy looking at the thing tick through its crystal back. It may need adjusting once a week but it is accurate enough for day to day use.

The one feature I love about modern electric watches is the ability to have a perpetual calendar, but unfortunately no one makes a simple elegant watch with that feature alone, you have to buy something the size of a dinner plate with cluttered dial and I am never ever going to wear such monstrosities.

marliepanda

I've said it before and I'll say it again, money saving is not 'buying the cheapest version of everything.'

If people can afford to drop money on something they enjoy, let them.

Money saving is not buying cheap things.

HiToAll

colazombie wrote: »

what a ridiculous statement, so what if the OP treats themselves to a 2 grand watch, none of your business what they choose to spend their own hard earned money on. If they are rich, poor, or have just had a windfall and decided to treat themselves is nothing to do with you. They simply came here for advice

I always find it odd when people say people on a moneysaving site should not spend money on items that cost a bit of money, or that what they choose to buy is too much.
This is a moneysaving site, yes, a site to get the best value for what you want to buy. Some people, it seems, think that it is a spend as little as humanly possible, not on what you want, but on the cheapest thing you can find-site..

Keep_pedalling

colazombie wrote: »

what a ridiculous statement, so what if the OP treats themselves to a 2 grand watch, none of your business what they choose to spend their own hard earned money on. If they are rich, poor, or have just had a windfall and decided to treat themselves is nothing to do with you. They simply came here for advice

To get back to the OP, he was actually bought this as a gift, so it is no surprise that the servicing costs came as a bit of a shock, and in the long run this may not have been the best choice for him. The best choice now I think would to get it fixed by TH, then sell it (the service documentation will help with the sale). That is providing his wife does not object too much in him disposing of her gift.