F.P. Journe

bigdave
104

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Thank you

Your post is very kind; I am afraid that I would be unfair to you if I didn't say that it is too kind. What you are generous enough to talk about in terms of managing expectations strikes me much more like being an unpaid beta tester. Nobody would stand for that if health or safety issues were involved: there is an entire industry built around the regulatory system designed to address those concerns. Nobody would stand for that if something as essential to most people's everyday life as an automobile were involved: in the US, a large number of states have passed so-called "lemon laws" to protect against that.

But humor me and take one step toward the abstract. In the last 18 months, I have had two perpetual calendars go back for repair within a few months of purchase: one went twice, and i didn't even get an apologetic note from the maker; the other went once, and, as a way of saying they were sorry, the maker offered me a piece of clothing that was unavailable in my size. Both watches had MSRPs over USD40,000, which, while not in Centigraph territory, is, I feel  sure, more than most Americans place as down payments for their first homes, and more than the median purchase price of cars on American roads. I grant you that I am fortunate enough to alreeady own a home and a car, so I did not sacrifice those things to buy the watches, but  it is also true that neither of the men who run the operations that manufactured my defective Perpetuals is doing so on a not-for-profit basis. If either of them wants me to field test their demonstrably incomplete efforts, they can pay me for the privilege, like field testers elsewhere are paid, OR not take my money until they get it right, OR AT THE VERY LEAST, as another poster has already suggested, put the watches that have been paid for and proven defective AT THE VERY FRONT OF THE QUEUE for service, before sending out new pieces into the market that will likely exhibit the same problems.