Joined
·
16,791 Posts
It's been said before that you'd be unlikely to get answers from a luxury Swiss brand about sourcing, so what's any different here?
Classic Sub Smackdown: Rolex Sub 16610 vs. Ginault Ocean-Rover
- Status
101 - 120 of 133 Posts
Joined
·
8,608 Posts
To answer a couple of questions:
1. I exchanged a number of emails with Ginault. Once, I asked about the veracity of the Hand Built in America and Made in USA claims, and Ginault's reply--which it authorized me to share here--was to double-down on those claims, except to acknowledge that Made in USA might be a stretch and they might be making new casebacks. That answer did not come with any evidence other than bare assertions of veracity; instead, Ginault said it was "preparing a draft here to answer many of these questions to post later on WUS." That was on January 10, and by that date the questions of provenance had been percolating, and indeed boiling here on WUS, for almost 3 weeks.
A few days ago, I emailed to ask whether the Ginault movement might be the same as another alleged American-made ETA clone, but to date have not received any response. So, yes, @Cafe Latte, I have asked for clarification. Perhaps I will receive it; perhaps not.
2. @Hornet99, yes, doubts about provenance and honesty of advertising were present from the outset. Anyone who knows much of anything about the watch industry knows how unusual it is to find a watch that claims to be Hand Built in America and/or Made in USA due to the stringency of those requirements. I bought a Ginault because of, not despite, those claims, because I wanted to see for myself. The watch itself only invites more questions; it doesn't answer any. I had hoped those questions would be answered, but they haven't yet, and I find that disconcerting.
3. So, why did I delete my posts? Couple reasons:
first, I choose not to be placed into a position by Ginault where my honest assessment of the quality of the watch could encourage others to buy it, when I, personally, think the claims of provenance don't add up. I don't want to be any part of that.
second, I chose to delete my posts because I let myself get dragged into messy exchanges with adherents of Ginault's claims. I don't come here to get drawn into stupid, pitched battles with folks who don't care whether the advertising is true or not, or choose to give Ginault the benefit of a doubt that Ginault itself caused with its advertising campaign. I choose not to accept at face value Ginault's claims, and I decided not to perpetuate my role in those heated exchanges. If I could delete those of my posts that others quoted, I would. But I can't, so I won't.
4. @Quicksilver, I'm not going to get into a dispute with you. You're a moderator, and I'm not. There's a power imbalance there, so I can't win. What I can say is, if you think I'm "shrinking into my shell," you don't know me. You can characterize it as you like, but I can tell you that's not my style, and it's not what I'm doing. What I am doing, rather, is withdrawing my support from Ginault until such time as Ginault provides answers to legitimate questions that only it can provide, whether by affirmatively supporting its express claims, or by opening its doors to some other neutral observer to report back to the community. That's the only leverage I have. If you find that "silly," so be it. It's at least not naive.
5. As for whether I'm holding up my end of the deal, that's between me and Ginault. If Ginault wants to have that conversation, that'd make my day.
1. I exchanged a number of emails with Ginault. Once, I asked about the veracity of the Hand Built in America and Made in USA claims, and Ginault's reply--which it authorized me to share here--was to double-down on those claims, except to acknowledge that Made in USA might be a stretch and they might be making new casebacks. That answer did not come with any evidence other than bare assertions of veracity; instead, Ginault said it was "preparing a draft here to answer many of these questions to post later on WUS." That was on January 10, and by that date the questions of provenance had been percolating, and indeed boiling here on WUS, for almost 3 weeks.
A few days ago, I emailed to ask whether the Ginault movement might be the same as another alleged American-made ETA clone, but to date have not received any response. So, yes, @Cafe Latte, I have asked for clarification. Perhaps I will receive it; perhaps not.
2. @Hornet99, yes, doubts about provenance and honesty of advertising were present from the outset. Anyone who knows much of anything about the watch industry knows how unusual it is to find a watch that claims to be Hand Built in America and/or Made in USA due to the stringency of those requirements. I bought a Ginault because of, not despite, those claims, because I wanted to see for myself. The watch itself only invites more questions; it doesn't answer any. I had hoped those questions would be answered, but they haven't yet, and I find that disconcerting.
3. So, why did I delete my posts? Couple reasons:
first, I choose not to be placed into a position by Ginault where my honest assessment of the quality of the watch could encourage others to buy it, when I, personally, think the claims of provenance don't add up. I don't want to be any part of that.
second, I chose to delete my posts because I let myself get dragged into messy exchanges with adherents of Ginault's claims. I don't come here to get drawn into stupid, pitched battles with folks who don't care whether the advertising is true or not, or choose to give Ginault the benefit of a doubt that Ginault itself caused with its advertising campaign. I choose not to accept at face value Ginault's claims, and I decided not to perpetuate my role in those heated exchanges. If I could delete those of my posts that others quoted, I would. But I can't, so I won't.
4. @Quicksilver, I'm not going to get into a dispute with you. You're a moderator, and I'm not. There's a power imbalance there, so I can't win. What I can say is, if you think I'm "shrinking into my shell," you don't know me. You can characterize it as you like, but I can tell you that's not my style, and it's not what I'm doing. What I am doing, rather, is withdrawing my support from Ginault until such time as Ginault provides answers to legitimate questions that only it can provide, whether by affirmatively supporting its express claims, or by opening its doors to some other neutral observer to report back to the community. That's the only leverage I have. If you find that "silly," so be it. It's at least not naive.
5. As for whether I'm holding up my end of the deal, that's between me and Ginault. If Ginault wants to have that conversation, that'd make my day.
Joined
·
4,927 Posts
Joined
·
4,298 Posts
Not having read the entire thread, but getting the gist of the issues at hand (and having previously read the bizarre and grandiose claims on Ginault's website), it seems to me that the original review should remain, as the OP received a nice discount in consideration for the review.
However, if there are issues about the provenance/claims made about the watch, those issue should be appended to the original review, as they seem relevant.
However, if there are issues about the provenance/claims made about the watch, those issue should be appended to the original review, as they seem relevant.
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
O&W told me their cases are made in China, and that this is true for most Swiss watch companies these days.
Seven Friday tells you country of origin for their components. (although this may be stretching the definition of luxury).
However, when you make the made in USA claim, you have to be able to show that "all or virtually all" major components are sourced from the US. If you buy in parts, you have to have your supplier show what percentage of the parts supplied are of foreign content.
Made in USA is more stringent than Swiss Made.
Joined
·
16,791 Posts
Fair enough guys, I was trying to make the point that the manufacturer doesn't necessarily have to prove the provenance to the customer, but he does have to with the regulatory authority in the USA I'd have thought?
Joined
·
8,608 Posts
All,
It seems my editing of my posts runs afoul of a WUS rule. Perhaps I should have known better, but I didn't. So, public service announcement for the day:
"Rule 14: Members are free to leave, but not free to change the history of a discussion. Members wishing to leave Watchuseek can do so by contacting the admin at any time. Their account will then be set to 'inactive' and their posts will remain."
It seems my editing of my posts runs afoul of a WUS rule. Perhaps I should have known better, but I didn't. So, public service announcement for the day:
"Rule 14: Members are free to leave, but not free to change the history of a discussion. Members wishing to leave Watchuseek can do so by contacting the admin at any time. Their account will then be set to 'inactive' and their posts will remain."
Joined
·
8,608 Posts
Doesn't work that way with the Federal Trade Commission. Advance permission not required, but you can be held accountable if your claims prove to be untrue.
Joined
·
8,608 Posts
My end game is and remains sunlight: I hope the claims prove true, and hope that Ginault will do what is required to prove them true. None of us here on WUS can do that for them.
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
He has to be able to withstand audit following a complaint- I believe.
You don't pre-register, but once there's a complaint you have to be able to show the federal trade commission where it all comes from, and just using American suppliers isn't enough-you have to have the country of origin for the parts they supply.
You don't pre-register, but once there's a complaint you have to be able to show the federal trade commission where it all comes from, and just using American suppliers isn't enough-you have to have the country of origin for the parts they supply.
Joined
·
16,791 Posts
......there's a rather extreme solution to all of this controversy.
Joined
·
517 Posts
Joined
·
8,608 Posts
I have restored my original post per Forum Rule 14 as required by the moderators. I have added a note at the top of the post to explain my reasons for complying, and updated my conclusion at the bottom of the post with an explanation. I guess this whole affair is another example of the old adage so often repeated around these parts: buy the seller, guys, not the watch.
Joined
·
4,767 Posts
wow. I'm glad I have already consumed a beer by the time I caught up on this thread.
Joined
·
4,426 Posts
I was avoiding getting into this discussion, but I see things differently and I wanted to express my opinion;
Maybe Ginault started as counter-fit manufacturer, but they have straighten up and started producing their own watch; we can't really judge them for the past productions, which we don't have prove for anyways. The watch in hand is not a replica or a counterfit afterall;
For example some of us specially the modders have ordered items from Ken, he is known for his falsely branded items, but as well as the sterile items; so I think using your sense we will not be allowed to post pictures of our own builds if we have used, for example hands from Ken; although there is no hint for a branding there.
The other claim about hand built in America, I don't see a problem here, it is likely to be true.
The main concern is the "Made in USA" claim, it is very likely to be untrue keeping in mind the regulations, but they have mentioned that they will update their case back if mandated to do so, not sure if this will ever happen though;
So for now, I really don't see a real problem, except the "Made in USA" claim; so be it; for WUS this issue is strictly between Ginault and the authorities; until proved to be a false claim, then they might take an action
That's my 2 cents, and I hope I didn't offend anyone.
Thanks
Maybe Ginault started as counter-fit manufacturer, but they have straighten up and started producing their own watch; we can't really judge them for the past productions, which we don't have prove for anyways. The watch in hand is not a replica or a counterfit afterall;
For example some of us specially the modders have ordered items from Ken, he is known for his falsely branded items, but as well as the sterile items; so I think using your sense we will not be allowed to post pictures of our own builds if we have used, for example hands from Ken; although there is no hint for a branding there.
The other claim about hand built in America, I don't see a problem here, it is likely to be true.
The main concern is the "Made in USA" claim, it is very likely to be untrue keeping in mind the regulations, but they have mentioned that they will update their case back if mandated to do so, not sure if this will ever happen though;
So for now, I really don't see a real problem, except the "Made in USA" claim; so be it; for WUS this issue is strictly between Ginault and the authorities; until proved to be a false claim, then they might take an action
That's my 2 cents, and I hope I didn't offend anyone.
Thanks
Joined
·
8,702 Posts
It's likely that at least some purchases of the watch were made to better afford an opportunity to knock the company down. That's been the clear agenda for some at every single step (along with trying to shout down anyone else who likes the watch, and took a more rational (read: less dogmatic) wait and see approach before burning Ginault at the stake). We all get the concerns here, but to belabour it to death is a little scary.
101 - 120 of 133 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
