Richard Mille

Ok so my RM11 had to go back to RM to have the date issue fixed. Firstly I found it ludicrous that watches leave the factory with this fault, as surely they should be left running for sometime before leaving the factory to ensure that the watches run as they should, certainly in this price range. I have just got hold of a Panerai 306 Tourbillon and that is supplied with a certificate showing it was left running for many days in differant positions etc to check its timekeeping etc ( COSC cert is it? )..maybe RM should test watches before leaving the factory. Also mine is a Lemans ltd edition one with the green bezel inside. When I got the watch I also noticed a blob of green paint on the inside of the crystal, quite noticeable, so asked that this get sorted when it had its date change repair. Again not a good sign of quality control on a high dollar watch, and also I think the AD's should thoroughly check things also before selling them on

Anyway watch came back to my AD in London, so spent £140 on a train ticket to go and get it yesterday, got there & they brought the watch out to me all fixed, then as he was setting the time the winder came off in his hand!! quite unbelieveable, so now its going back to RM again and I had a wasted & expensive ( and time consuming ) journey for nothing.

Ok Ive read Richards take on the whole issues and read peoples viewpoints on handmade complicated watch movements, but they are differant issues. There is simply no excuse for a watch leaving a factory with a blob of paint on the inside & without the date working. The RM11 has been around for a while before the LM version came out, so they knew the date could be an issue, so why oh why not test it before it leaves?...and the winder?...no idea about that, but we shall see

I also have an RM002v2 which I am pleased to report works fine, and an RM10 which is also fine, but having read about other peoples winders coming off in their hands, and then seeing it happen to mine makes you a little concerned about things in the future. My Panerai's have never once let me down, and I have been a longterm wearer everyday of those watches.

So Richard, beautiful watches, and I thoroughly appreciate all that has gone into mine, the one thing I request is a little better testing before they get shipped, yes becuase ot the nature of the complexity & human nature invloved I accept a few will have issues, fine, but quite simply my issues should have easily been spotted by QC in the factory, or certainly by the AD before sale

I will be keeping my RM's though they are great watches, love wearing them, and am hoping that once the 11 is ironed out it will be faultless for many years to come

and I can only point to a similar experience with another brand and at that time I was highly annoyed too.  My advice is to email Richard Mille watches directly and complain.  Mistakes do happen, it is just the case that when lighting strikes twice, it hurts even more - why me?  You also view any clouds on the horizon with trepidation - and that is not something you want when collecting watches.

I know such errors both annoy and sadden Richard,  and hence writing directly (the contents of the above post will suffice along with quoting the watch number) it will be dealt with directly by RM watches.

Again, sorry to hear of the problems

Andrew H

Your experience reminds me of my J*D watch I purchased couple months ago.  My watch had scratches on the inner bezel throughout the entire inner bezel which shouldn't have passed QC. 

Every brand has its mistakes because we're all human and humans aren't perfect.  Incidents such as yours happen to all the brands at some point in time.  It's how they fix the problem and treat you as a customer during this after sales service which makes the world of difference to me in determining if a brand is "good" or "bad".

Cheers,
Anthony

This message has been edited by AnthonyTsai on 2009-03-06 20:51:33

No message body

I'm sorry to hear you are the victim of yet another instance where Richard Mille has failed the most obvious omission, which is to TEST and INSPECT the watches before they leave! So far, we've mostly heard excuses for how RM watches are handmade, almost bespoke, and very very complicated. There is absolutely no excuse for a watch failing or having a visual imperfection at the time the customer first receives it. No matter how the watch is made or how complicated it is, it can always be tested!

If proper QA procedures, involving thorough tests and inspections, were put in place, the watches would at least work when the customer first receives them. That would be a start! Even though it's just a start, I think customers would be encouraged even if Richard Mille put in place QA procedure sufficient to ensure that the watches work when they are first received.

If I were in Richard Mille's shoes, I'd put in place absolutely strict QA procedures, and I'd go into an absolute obsession of many redundant tests and inspections to make sure that the watches are perfect before they are sent to the customer. Then, to get to the next level of quality, I'd start studying each of the failures observed in testing to see what procedures could be put in place to ensure they are less likely to happen in the first place. Then, to get to the next higher level of quality still, I'd do testing that subjects the watches in a short period of time to what they would experience over several years, study the failures, and put in place corrections in the manufacturing process. I'd also do CAD simulations to find further problems and correct them.

Richard Mille watches are some of the most expensive watches in the industry. I appreciate Richard Mille's explanation why they are so expensive too, and I actually like the fact that he is so obsessive about quality in the design process. I just wish he were also as obsessive in the QA process. If he were, he would have some unbeatable watches. I'd actually be willing to spend even more for his watches if their quality showed he was as obsessed in the QA process as he is in the design process. Given such a new level of quality, Richard Mille watches would be bought immediately at ADs, even if they were twice as expensive as they are now!

Take the RM011 for example. Here's what I'd like to see for quality. Basically, I'd like to see it as reliable as the Lange Datograph, which is also a flyback chronograph with a large date (RM011 is also an annual calendar, but the Datograph has a instantaneously jumping minute counter, so they are comparable). The Datograph is one of the most reliable watches. But, it costs only 60% of what a RM011 costs.
Eric von Schonberg

Gentlemen, please allow me to add some comment here, since I relatively new on this forum. I recently am very interesting in RM watches, mainly due to its captivating design. I went to see it in metal and I accept that the picture cannot do its justice. Since I am just a average Joe, I really can say that RM now is in my list that I am collecting my dime for. It is not yet the top priority, but it is in there. Having said this, I am looking more into the brand for sometime and still interesting to learn more.

As far as the quality is concerned, I agree with most of the comments KK/Eric have been providing here. Some time it is a bit sound too aggressive but if I were Mr.Mille, I think this is valuable inputs, which could be used/applied to his business strategies. This is also free. Anyway, I think he has already been listening, since I see his response/post on this forum. To me, I realize watch industry is getting more and more competitive every single days. I am not working in a watch industry but one thing that truly important to us is customer feedback, VOC. This is what is driving our business model, via QFD and FMEA matrixes, etc. My point is that RM should look more into this quality issues and brought this up to the higher level. May be RM has already been improving this; if that is the case, it needs to be published to its fan more. With this price range, I am looking forward to see more value added to the product, especially in term of reliability and product quality after sales. I know that it is impossible to share the product cost structure but RM company has to improve the communication to its customer and public, as far as the product quality/testing and reliability are concerned. I really do agree that to use Ti baseplate or other new materials/technologies to wristwatch is truly innovative and RM is very in the group in pioneering that. I really do respect that point. However, there are always consequences and trade-off. Those innovations are not come and can be used for free, combined with RM is relatively new in watch industries, it usual that some thing could pop-up and escape the quality control. However, the green paint on the crystal is not usual to me. This could be spot easily before the watch leave the factory. Most importantly, there should be some quality control channel to screen all these simple defects and expand beyond other technical issues, which in fact should be able to contact with customer after sales directly. By the way, I know that the webbase customer support is coming soon. It is great but my point is beside the design, RM company may need to look more into how to test its products, either 100% or randomly. Again, macroscopically, there should be some monitoring on product yield/performance in testing these watches before leaving the company. I realize that RM is not a mass pro watch manufacturer but it do not mean that one cannot take the QA control of the mass manufacturing method then apply to this wristwatch manufacturing. I really believe that this is going to help to strengthen RM watch a big deal. What pass is pass but these reports should be able to be used to improve the screening of the upcoming products. No one is perfect, I think everyone is really agree on this point, but the customer who pay this much of money for a wristwatch are not a "general" customer. Most have the loupe, at least to me, I do and it with me almost the time. By the way, the watch testing method like to offer a watch to a F1 driver or to throw a watch in a meeting room, I do not think it should be called as a product evaluation, since it is unquantifiable and also not in a control environment. If some things happen you cannot see what is actually/exactly cause the problems and in which degrees. So how one can derive the appropriate corrective action plan out of that.

As far as the handmade and is concerned, I personally do not think that this is a reasonable answer. We know that human is not as precise as the m/c however, the watchmaker could do a lot more thing that m/c is incapable, the finishing is one of a good example. Plus in repeating the same exercise over and over again, the innovative watchmaker should be able to come-up with a better solution in improving thing to achieve more with less, since watchmaker is not a simply operators in any factory. In fact, this is what classify the watch firm as well, in my opinion. It is true that about  every brand do have issues of these after sales micro-mechanics BUT these issues are reflecting how well the watch firm is screening its watch before let it leave the factory to their distributors. In fact, to place oneself into the top of this industries, I do not think the comment says other do have mistakes too or everyone can make mistake is going to help to brought the firm to the top position but instead, one should take this problem "proactively". Again, as far as human is concerned, the clear protocols and procedures as well as DFM and process mapping should be able to help a big deal in solving these human issues.

Lastly, just one thing that I do not agree with Eric is, I don't think the Dato is in the same league as RM011, as far as the movement design and finishing are concerned. Dato is born to be a chronograph. Additionally the feeling in operating the chronograph/flyback are significantly different. Again, this is from my humble opinion. Anyway, please correct me, if I miss anything, since I am new here but I sincerely hope that my comment should be useful to RM watches more or less. In conclusion, as far as the cost structure is concerned, the product yield and manufacturing cost are very critical; as everyone know finally all the charges are going to be bear by customers anyway. BTW, I really like the RM model that I recently looking at.

Sincerely,
Dave

I like RM's designs and find them so much more captivating
than what other more traditional watch brands have to offer.
So, I would like RM to remain in business for a long time.
In addition, I would like RM to remain in business, so that
any RMs I eventually own can be serviced, when they eventually
need service. Currently, I only have a RM010, but I could
easily see getting more once I feel the company is run well
enough to stay in business.

My concern is that quality, being less glamorous and sexy than
design, is not getting the emphasis it needs. I'm sure
Richard Mille has a passion for design excellence. That is
obvious in the innovative designs. But, designs are sexy and
it is easy to be passionate about them. Quality is not sexy,
and it is not easy to be passionate about it. But, quality or
its lack can make or break a business. Especially for expensive
products, quality is expected. To remain in business, quality
must be addressed. That would be true even in great economic
times. It is even more vital now that the world economic
conditions are dire. After the world depression (it's not a
recession folks, it's a depression) is over, a lot of watch
brands will have disappeared. Let's hope RM is not one of them!

No matter what, there is one quality issue that RM can fix
immediately. With proper testing and inspection, it should
NEVER be the case that someone receives a watch that has problems
like the ones brought up here. Problems that come up after
some amount of time are harder to prevent. But, problems that
occur from the start are 100% preventable!

As for the Datograph and RM011 comparison ... My point seems to
have been missed. The RM011 is significantly more expensive than
the Datograph. Therefore, the level of quality expected for RM011
is high. I'd like to see RM011 with a quality level approaching
that of a Datograph.
Eric von Schonberg

I agree.

Alot of problems can be prevented.............a watch that goes for repairs should not have to go back for repairs after 1 minute !......This applies to all brands.

Also , secondary values improve when the market respects the quality of a brands products.

I totally agree on your comment Eric and it is exactly what I feel. The design/concept of RM watches are really attractive to me as well, very much indeed, especially, when I see it in metal, but the only gating (just to me, IMHO) are the quality and the testing protocols before releasing their watches to retailers. I could be wrong here, since a number of reports on this forum is insignificant compare to total watches, produced. However, it appears like most of the issues are easily can be captured before the watch leave the factory.

Yes, honestly, I also hope that RM will survive thru this tough time, which is why I mention the strategy/model/goal of the brand. BTW, the RM011 keeps speaking to me everynight after I visit my AD to see it in metal but what holding me so far is this quality concerns.

After all, I think there are both short and long terms actions that could be taking place, and I think RM may have already started looking into this seriously already, I guess, by seeing from the extending warranty for instance. So I really hope that RM's team take these inputs seriously. Again, to make oneself stand out from the pack, I don't think to claim that other are having the very same human error may not be reasonable, IMO.

Regarding the comparison with DT, yes I agree, as far as the price/quality are concerned.

It seems we all agree, to summarise it seems we all understand that there can be issues with complicated, hand made and highly complex watches from time to time. We dont have a problem with this, what is the problem is not taking the time to QC products before they leave the factory. A blob of green paint on the face, the scratches on the bezel, ( in this case not an RM watch )and the date not working properly,( which was a well known problem at the factory before mine was produced ) are totally beyond excuses in my book,at this price range the product should be inspected and tested pre sale, especially when they are small volume hand made items where you can expect a little trouble from time to time.

As I keep saying I love the RM watches & again thanks to Richard & co for their amazing designs and input into making what is quite simply my favourite watches ever made. But please Richard just take away the need to rectify very simple QC procedures

Hello Eric,

As someone intimately involved with the watch industry and a student of quality improvement, I can't help but feel frustrated when I read posts such as yours that speak in such naive absolutes.

Nothing is 100% preventable, ever. Even with the most rigorous, insightful, ruthlessly applied and fantastically expensive-to-the-point-of-multiplying-the-cost-of-the-product-1000-times-over quality assurance program ever conceived, you could be handed back a watch that is freshly manufactured or freshly serviced and something can fail by the time you get it strapped onto your wrist. Welcome to the real world, you should try observing it in detail some time!

This is not to say RM is doing a stellar job at satisfying all of their customers (obviously that is not the case because of that little "all" word I threw in) and I'm confident they can do better. No brand wants to read about problems with their watches or service on public discussion forums, but the smart brands would rather read about it and learn something from it than have the discussion go away when the failures have not. The latter ultimately leads to the customers going away, and that is a bad thing.

If we want to encourage RM (or any brand) to read the comments though, it helps if we modulate our criticisms, stick to the facts and, most relevant here, stick to what we know and not pretend like we are in any position to dictate to them what kind of changes need to be made to their quality assurance/control processes. It just makes us look silly frankly.

_john

99.99% of watches failing immediatley at the AD that can
be prevented. We're talking about something that is highly
preventable. When this sort of thing happens it reflects
poorly on Richard Mille's QA. If all failures were to
occur after some extended period of time, once could
easily explain them in terms of no QA process being perfect.
But when something fails immediately, I begin to suspect
that there is not much done with respect to QA. My guess is that
when a Richard Mille watch leaves the watchmaker's bench, it
goes through some very cursory procedures to check rate
results, and it's then shipped without any further inspection.
Eric von Schonberg

miss your visits around here and the words of wisdom (termed in earnest). 

Andrew H

PS.  For vanity's sake, what did you think of the Patek 3834T/Rolex/English Masters posts?

nt

While the situation with Chris's watch is regretable, and I am sure Richard is not happy with the situation, you are pinning the whole QA, over thousands of watches, on a limited number of posts here.    For the individual concerned, in this instance Chris, the situation is frustrating, expensive (time and money) and should not have happened.  Yes, QC on the piece he bought should have been better and the watch should have worked perfectly when returned.  It did not.  Anthony T has a RM011 that to my knowledge has been working fine from the word go.  There are also numerous others I know of that also work perfectly from the word go.  What can we conclude about Chris's watch - that Richard Mille has no quality control?  Sorry to tell you this, but all evidence to the contrary. 

This does not excuse what happened to Chris's watch (see my post above), but is also does not justify a lynchmob mentality and a sweeping statement about QC at Richard Mille being sub-standard.  You stating conclusions from a few data points and extrapolating to a global model.  That is nonsense and would never standard up as an argument.  Richard, as he has stated previously, cares passionately about all the watches he manufacturers and when one is not up to standard, this saddens him.  He will put it right.  He is a perfectionist, but cannot oversee everywatch that goes out.

Look at this way, to err is human, to forgive, divine.  If we were not human, then perhaps we would not make errors, and perhaps the current economic state of the world would not exist.  This line of reasoning is about as valid as statements that Richard Mille is deficient generally about QC.

Andrew H

Dont want a lynchmob mentality, far from it I really support RM and am truly grateful to him. Its not a question of to 'er'...quite simply what I am saying that a watch leaving a factory having been handmade by an individual, with a blob of green paint on the inside of the glass shows a very real lack of basic QC, there is not an excuse for that. Likewise if there ia a problem with date changing on a certain model, and they are aware of it then surely they should be left running for a period to check before shipping out.

Yes I know there are problems with handmade & complicated watches, and yes Im sure many do have issues that require sorting out, not a problem I would accept that, but just like the scratches shown on that picture of the bezel, a watch with green paint on the interior of the glass should have been spotted.

Lets just leave it at that, I dont want to stir it all up etc, just would like to think that this feedback is good for the RM crew to maybe make a small change that would rectify such an issue, also it does not in anyway put me off owning an RM watch, I would buy one of all of them tommorrow if I had the cash. I do not doubt at all that issues will get fixed, just strikes me RM could save themselves some pain with a better pre desptach inspection.

forum exists and remains more than simply a 'yes' and 'great' advertising banner.

As I stated, there is no excuse for the watch that was shipped to you twice.  I have no argument against that, and nor does RM. 

However, there are others who then use your statement, made with good intensions, and frame a whole model or practice for RM watches that is simply not true.  The statement reads: "Look at this way, to err is human, to forgive, divine.  If we were not human, then perhaps we would not make errors, and perhaps the current economic state of the world would not exist.  This line of reasoning is about as valid as statements that Richard Mille is deficient generally about QC."  Your problems should not have happened - they did happen - now they should be fixed and done so in an expedient manner as possible.  They should not happen again; alas as perfect as any model might be, there is a chance that it will.  Best to fix the problem, find out how it happened and fix it, and move on.

It is the generalization by some that is wholly out of proportion and which if continued by some, will be to the detriment of others.

Andrew H

Thank you Andrew in stressing that "forum exists and remains more than
simply a 'yes' and 'great' advertising banner." This is the reason that
make me decided post my comments.

As far as the QA is concerned, as being a QA driving person, in the real
world and in practical, there are levels, when you are screening your
products. This is also tied with a process capability and finished product
performance,etc. I will not go further here, since it will be boring. The
point is, QC task does not valid only as attribute data point, as you seems
to understand,i.e. one watch have problem, another is fine, or yes/no. It
is contribute data set. Furthermore, these resolution/scale are linked to
the type of error or severity of the problems. Long story short, if the
quality control system is appropriately adjusted, it should eventually
prevent the problem to customer, more or less BUT not all, for sure.
However, as far as the customer is concerned, I would make this as less as
possible. Anyway, I think that luxury goods may not realize this as much as
consumer products.

The purpose of my post is I want to share to RM firm that there are a
number of ways to improve/strengthen his product. This is exactly the same
as there are a number of ways in completing the very same thing. I also do
not say RM QA dept is bad, RM watch all models are unreliable but my point
is from the reporting defect vs. its scale of noticability, it seems that
there are rooms to improved, regardless whether is handmade or automated.
In fact, this cannot be blamed, since there are pros/cons of each and each
industrial is different. So to make the best profit with customer
satisfaction behind, one have to pick the most efficient/benefit choices
with their appropriate quality control. After all, customer always need the
best with reasonable cost. One has to keep this in mine, since this watch
making business is not monopoly.

I know you admire RM watch. So do I. Otherwise, I wouldn't spend my time
writing lot of details comment in here. After all this is depend on RM goal
and strategy. As I say, if one goal is to stand out from the pack, there
are some extra thing that he/she has to do. IMHO, this is one of an
opportunity.

Dave

To put in a more balanced post, I bought a few RM watches in the last few years and no problem so far with all of them. I bought my first RM005 a few years back when it is first come out (it is just come back from routine service after approx. 4 years of use), followed by RM 10, RM 7, one of the first batch of RM 011 (in fact I bought the watch that was intended for launching exhibition) and last month RM 14. I guess I am quite lucky that I did not have any problem with RM 011 (date or jumping chrono) and the RM 14 has been running smoothly for the last 2 weeks on my wrist. Hope this experience will help others who are sitting on the fence...

Thank-you Andrew,

Dave

The single most important point I want to get across is that there should be absolutely 0% watches arriving back from repairs
not working, because proper testing can ensure that is the case.

Beyond that one can debate whether QA should catch a watch that fails after 1 day, or 1 week, or 1 month or 1 year.  That all is
debatable.  But, a watch properly QAed should not fail immediately upon being received back from repairs.

Now given that there is at least 1 watch that arrived back from repairs not working (the one reported here), the QA process
at RM needs to be addressed.  I suspect that if the possibility of  a watch failing immediately upon coming back from
repairs is fixed, then that will also decrease the chance of RMs failing after a short time as well.
Eric von Schonberg

No one can have 100% probability of error-proof watches returned from repairs.  That is frankly impossible because of transit issues.  Sometimes watches get broken while in transit because FedEx or UPS delivery people sometimes just toss packages resulting in significant shock no matter how well you pack the watch inside.  Most of the time the watches will be fine, but there's always a slight chance the watches inside these packages break cause of shipping abuse.

Just something to keep in mind.

- AT

I don't know what Richard Mille does to protect its watches
during shipping, but that kind of problem can be solved.
Most of the time other watches I've had serviced arrived
back with excessive amounts of padding to avoid completely
any of the problems you mentioned. I would expect Richard
Mille already knows to protect carefully the watch when
shipping them.
Eric von Schonberg

0 percent record.  I know for sure that RM is not alone in an isolated incidence.  Agreed, it should not have happened.  Agreed, RM should look back and see if there is something in the 'path' of the watch in the repair process that led to this fault.  And I am sure he will.  I am also sure he will put things right in an attempt to ensure that a 0 percent record is possible in the future.

Thanks Eric

Andrew H

A watch that immediately breaks upon its arrival can be
prevented, if not 100% of the time, practically 100% of
the time. Outside of shipping issues that can be addressed
with sufficient padding, sufficient testing should prevent
cases where the watch immediately fails.

Having said that, I would not expect Richard Mille can prevent
100% of failures after a short time like 1 week, but even
there, testing should prevent a large percentage of them.
The longer time that goes by, the less chance of being able
to prevent every failure during that period. And, yes, eventually
every watch will fail and need some form of service.
Eric von Schonberg

..lets call it a day. Ultimately the most dissapointing part of the whole thing for me is that the watch left RM with a blob of green paint on the inside of the cyrstal. Handmade watches, are obviously made by hand, so I cannot believe that whoever made the watch didnt see it when they finally checked over the watch, surely it should have been spotted, cannot see someone who has the time & patience to make such an object doesnt even look over it when its finished. This blob was visible to the naked eye, just in the same way that the scratches on the bezel posted above is, and like i said before, I just cannot except any excuses for that, especially on a £££££;s watch.

The date, the winder etc not too bothered about, I am sure it will get fixed...anyway as I said i think this has gone on enough now lets draw a line under it, I think all that needs to be said has indeed been said

Well got my RM11 back and the good news is the date is working perfectly. Was actually quite worried on 31st March as I was wondering if it would change to 01 next day and if the month would change to 04....indeed it did!..so all looks ok with that watch.

Unfortunatley it is now the turn of my 002 to go back...the morning I was off to collect the 11, I was winding up my 002, and guess what, unbelieveably the winder came out in my hand, just like had happened with the 11 earlier, and indeed strangely I have seen a few posts where the winders have just detached themselves.

Anyway luckily I was obviously going into the local AD to pick up the 11, so it was quite handy to drop the 002 off!!...so we shall see how long that takes. Not really that concerned about it, as I have total faith it will be sorted....just seems I have been having a bit of a run of bad luck.

My daily wearer, my Panerai 306 tourbillon continues to run perfectly though!!!