TAG Watch Repair Cost - SCAM

shaun_from_Africa

daytona0 wrote: »

So does Switzerland have anything equivalent?

I've just been trying to find out but as Switzerland is not an EU member, I'm not too hopeful that any laws will be of much use.
Businesses in countries that are part of the EU can have legal action taken against them fairly easy but with other countries it can be far more complicated and far more costly.

Even if it was possible, I can't see that there would be much of a chance of winning a case simply because the manufacturers recommended maintenance wasn't followed.
It would be a bit like trying to sue a car dealership for a faulty car when that car had never been correctly serviced.
Yes, a win is possible but I wouldn't risk spending my money to find out.

Keep_pedalling

daytona0 wrote: »

So does Switzerland have anything equivalent?

I doubt if we have any experts on that subject here, but even if it had been bought in the UK the OP would have little comeback. He owns a machine that requires a regular service, it has not been serviced but he basically can have it fixed for the price of a service. If this had been a car he failed to service he would not get a new engine for the cost of a service. If it was a piece of solid state electrical equipment then maybe he would have a case, but despite the small scale this is a machine with lots of moving parts that need to be maintained.

takman

ess0two wrote: »

Each to their own,a brand new Fiesta(£8k)?? will get me from A to B equally effective as a Range rover (£80k)??

Yes but the Range Rover is of a much higher specification such as it has a higher towing capability, 4WD, Reversing and Side Cameras and much more.
So by paying a higher price you get more useful features.

In the case of the £2000 watch it is of a lower specification than the £80 watch!, so that's the difference.

takman

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

You keep saying that the TH watch is less accurate but that is not true, it is still a Quartz watch. You can certainly say that about mechanical watches, but the point about owning one is that as well as being functional it is a piece of superb craftsmanship put together by skilled workers, and I value that more than knowing the time to the nearest second.

Properly serviced it will go on for a 100 years or more. For super accuracy most people just need to look at their mobile, so you could save even more money by not having a watch at all, but lots of us like to wear one, and as it is the only jewellery I wear £2k is quite frankly cheap, and I may even get another in the very near future as I have a hankering for this one.

My watch synchronizes the time every night with the Anthorn signal which is accurate to within 1,000th of a second. The specification of my watch says that is is accurate to within plus or minus 0.5 seconds per day. As it synchronizes once per day that means it will never be more than 0.5 seconds from the actual time.
You compare that to the TAG watch which will be accurate at best to within plus or minus 10 seconds per month which soon adds up!

shaun_from_Africa

takman wrote: »

My watch synchronizes the time every night with the Anthorn signal which is accurate to within 1,000th of a second. The specification of my watch says that is is accurate to within plus or minus 0.5 seconds per day.

So what if it's accurate to half a second per day. Unless you are involved in something that makes this sort of accuracy vital, it's just a novelty and advertising gimmick.

It's a bit like people who boast of having a car that can do 200 mph yet never drive above 70mph.
What is the point of having such an accurate timepiece if 99.9% of the population have a watch or clock that may be a few seconds out?

ess0two

takman wrote: »

Yes but the Range Rover is of a much higher specification such as it has a higher towing capability, 4WD, Reversing and Side Cameras and much more.
So by paying a higher price you get more useful features.

In the case of the £2000 watch it is of a lower specification than the £80 watch!, so that's the difference.

I don't own a caravan, or have a requirement of 4WD.


Equally the re-sale value of a 2k watch will far exceed an £80, its a hobby for me.

George_Michael

Personally, provided that the buyers are using their own money or money from a loan, credit card etc that they knowingly applied for and they have the mental capacity to make a decision, I don't see anything wrong with them paying £20 for an "upmarket" sandwich, £2000 for a watch or £200, 000 for a car.

Here's a question for those that disagree with the OP's wife spending 2K on a watch.
Over their life, how much have they each spent on alcohol, gambling, holidays etc? These are all things that we can do without, just as a great many people worldwide manage to do without.

fierystormcloud

Bobcrowther wrote: »

Too poor to be able to afford one? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

No.

marleyboy wrote: »

Naah, My money is they are just not stupid enough to spend that much on a wrist watch.

This ^^^ :T

marleyboy wrote: »

I could afford one, but as my £40 Sekonda is still ticking away after 20 Years, with only 4 £9 battery replacements to date. Spending £2000 on a wristwatch when I could use the money to fund a holiday in Florida instead, would be a pretty stupid idea.

This also. Spending two grand on a watch is insane, unless you're a frikkin' millionaire!

Although, as someone said earlier, smoking is just a much of a waste of money, and would rob you of several thousand a year. But then you could say it about anything I guess; fishing, playing golf, going to footie matches... All typical male hobbies really! :rotfl:

Each to their own, but hell would freeze over before I would spend two grand on a watch.

globalds

takman wrote: »

Yes but the Range Rover is of a much higher specification such as it has a higher towing capability, 4WD, Reversing and Side Cameras and much more.
So by paying a higher price you get more useful features.

In the case of the £2000 watch it is of a lower specification than the £80 watch!, so that's the difference.

Perhaps a Morgan would have been a better example ?

It costs a lot because it costs a lot ..it really offers nothing often less than a fiesta

ARandomMiser

takman wrote: »

But i'l quite happily discuss where you can get a watch for £9.99 that automatically synchronizes the time with the Anthorn signal every day, is waterproof and shockproof and has battery in it that never needs replacing. But i highly doubt your claims are true because i did a good amount of research before i bought my watch and couldn't find a better one any cheaper than £80.

There you go, that is what you were dying to come out with but nobody cared enough to ask ... so you were forced to mention the auto-setting yourself and I am sure this will not be the last mention you make of it.

Auto sync watches often have cheap mechanisms in them because they don't have to be accurate because they sync. But taking your criteria, my £9.99 watch (given to me as a birthday present by my nephew in 1998 and is still regularly used) is waterproof (I have actually swam with it on), it is shockproof (from X meters - can't remember how many), and doesn't even contain a battery (self winding). On the accuracy front it gains about 30 seconds in the period between having to reset it between summer/winter clock changes - so technically speaking that is more accurate than the claims you make for your mechanism.

So please let us know. what possessed you to waste £80 on a watch that you described as having low accuracy - was it the gimmick of being able to tell people how it sets the time using Anthorn?

BTW one of my other watches, Citizen Ecodrive, meets all the criteria you mention (so I knew why you were making accuracy claims). It cost over £80 but when I looked at the less expensive ones they looked and felt cheap.