[Bradjhomes]

Several links to replica watch sites were posted. They have been removed - hence the mention of rule 9.

The content would need to be restored - favourable or not, sponsor or not.

As CMSgt Bo mentioned in this thread (or another on this topic) there have been sponsors banned and blackballed before.

Has the sponsor broken any rules here?

 

[dan_bsht]

I'm a keen follower for your posts here and on Instagram, and we share the same passion, so I'm not worried about you getting offended, I meant other members that I don't know.
I'll tell you my philosophy, I come here escaping form real life and politics, enjoying nice watches, reviews pics and so on.
To me this ocean rover is a nicely done watch, I confess that I might get one, scrap the dial, hands and movement and place my own stuff in there; to me the case, and bracelet alone verifies the discounted price; or maybe keep it as is, I'm not american after all so I don't know the "Made in USA" regulations.... LOL

 

[hwa]

WUS-at-large can debate this endlessly, here, there, and everywhere. All I really can add is what I said in my OP that I would separately address, but perhaps have not yet made public: I bought the watch because of the marketing claims that it was American made. I hoped that claim would prove true despite reservations that the claims were unverified at the time of my purchase and my doubts as to whether they ever can or will be verified. I was not required to sign any loyalty oath to Ginault as a condition of my purchase, and I wouldn't have signed one. As with any purchase, I am entitled to pay my money and take my chances, and that's all that I did. I don't buy any or all Sub homages; I bought this one BECAUSE of my interest in the provenance, not despite that interest.

I don't know who @radar1 is aiming at--although I can speculate he's looking at me, particularly, along with some others--but I would reply that karma has a way of running over dogma. @radar1 and I know where we stand with each other; he can continue to bait me all he wants. When he does, I'll just report it to the mods and let them handle it. I was asked to stand down, and I have.

Beyond that, the mods apprised me of the rules regarding deleting posts, I have endeavored to comply where it's been directed, and I'm done debating the issue unless and until new facts come to light. If and when we get answers to the questions about the provenance of the watch--which I expect will happen, if ever, after the passage of the 3-week edit period--I hope and trust the mods will permit me to edit my OP to reflect any new facts or developments. It is not just the sponsors that have reputations that deserve protection, but the community members, too. Time, it often is said, will tell...

 

[hidden by leaves]

Has the sponsor broken any rules here?

With all due respect, isn't it you all who should be telling us the answer to that question? There is certainly some smoke (as the content of the deleted links showed), is it not up to WUS to investigate any possible fire before admitting a sponsor? (or member, for that matter).

I mean this company literally used, word for word, ad copy from a known replica (the illegal kind) producer. How can you ignore that or not call it into question?

 

[Bradjhomes]

With all due respect, isn't it you all who should be telling us the answer to that question? There is certainly some smoke (as the content of the deleted links showed), is it not up to WUS to investigate any possible fire before admitting a sponsor? (or member, for that matter).

I mean this company literally used, word for word, ad copy from a known replica (the illegal kind) producer. How can you ignore that or not call it into question?

With all due respect in return, as far as I am aware, no rules have been broken. I'm not the one suggesting Ginault are protected in any way, so I was asking others if they think rules have been broken. As you haven't provided any, I guess not.

VerticalScope vet all sponsors before their sponsorship begins. If you have any concerns, or evidence, then please direct that towards VerticalScope or the site admins. Posting links to replica sites is not allowed on the forum.

 

[Cigarbob]

Has the sponsor broken any rules here?

Would making a claim that a watch is "made in USA" if in fact it was not, be illegal and therefore in violation of rule #9?

 

[Radar1]

My advice for you is to stop obliquely insulting and disparaging other people, as you have done repeatedly for the past several days. You in fact did not "stand down" - more accurately have taken things "underground" to circumvent. And if you post a photo of the open caseback and movement, and then disparage same simply because it doesn't have a signed rotor - without providing any other comment on the movement that would help all of us discern "provenance" (which was your stated goal) - then you can fairly expect your motives to be called into question.

As for the "karma" comments - what is that? Some sort of veiled threat? Surely it has nothing to do with the watch because I am quite happy with that and if it turns out the "Made in USA" claim is off-kilter I will be able to live with it (while still getting the patriotism of the US folks). If the movement origin is never resolved, I can live with it, too. So, where exactly does "karma" come in? I'll get hit by a truck for liking the watch and putting all the hot-button issues on the back-burner? Or "stuck" with a very nicely executed homage that may not be 100% "Made in the USA" as claimed?

 

[hwa]

reported.

 

[Radar1]

Would making a claim that a watch is "made in USA" if in fact it was not, be illegal and therefore in violation of rule #9?

I think you would have to establish both intent to deceive and an unwillingness to redress, as a reasonable litmus test. I believe I read already that the company was willing to replace casebacks if their wording was inaccurate. Where that stands I am not sure. If they did make an honest mistake, give them a chance to fix it. Unwillingness to do so hints at the dogma I referred to earlier.

 

[Avo]

a few words from the maker could clear up two major questions: whether Ginault is the same maker that's producing the high-end reps and the legitimacy of the Handbuilt/Made in USA texts.

Well I doubt they're going to cop to being the same people doing something illegal. Ginault, the LLC, is no doubt well insulated even if some of the people are the same. Which we don't know to be the case.

As for the texts, this is what Ginault themselves have to say: "However, there are still some parts absent of domestic suppliers. Those parts are the hairspring, the mainspring, the red synthetic sapphire crystals also known as jewels, and the shock absorber."

https://ginault.com/caliber-7275

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this disqualifies them from being able to make an unqualified "Made in USA" claim, even if every single other part is fabricated in the US. For example, here is Weiss on the making of their movement, which has most parts made in the US, but has a Swiss hairspring (and perhaps other Swiss parts as well):

https://weisswatchcompany.com/blogs/news/usamade-caliber-1003-in-process

And this is what it says when you go to buy one:

"Movement: US-made Caliber 1003 mechanical movement manufactured and assembled in our Los Angeles studio from US and Swiss parts"

https://weisswatchcompany.com/products/american-made-weiss-watch

As I understand it, it's the qualifier "from US and Swiss parts" that's important to the FTC. Ginault can probably claim "Hand built in America from US and imported parts" if they've indeed assembled it in the US, and at least some of the parts are US made.

Discloser: I've bought one with the 55% discount, and I'll be posting my review on the main Ginault thread in f74 soon. tl;dr version: it's spectacular, and I would pay MSRP for it no matter what the provenance of the movement is.

Here's a just-snapped photo:

 

[Radar1]

reported.

Do you have additional findings on the movement to also report?

 

[hwa]

to those who are interested, this from the FTC's publication:

What is the standard for a product to be called Made in USA without qualification?For a product to be called Made in USA, or claimed to be of domestic origin without qualifications or limits on the claim, the product must be "all or virtually all" made in the U.S. The term "United States," as referred to in the Enforcement Policy Statement, includes the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories and possessions.
What does "all or virtually all" mean?"All or virtually all" means that all significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no - or negligible - foreign content.
What substantiation is required for a Made in USA claim?When a manufacturer or marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is Made in USA, it should have - and rely on - a "reasonable basis" to support the claim at the time it is made. This means a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S.

You shouldn't need a lawyer to tell you that, "Made in USA" is an unqualified claim; that inclusion of critical movement parts from Switzerland and China preclude an unqualified claim; and quoting the FTC, "a manufacturer or marketer needs competent and reliable evidence to back up the claim that its product is "all or virtually all" made in the U.S." I'm not making this stuff up; it's not my job to substantiate the claim, it's Ginault's job.

 

[Avo]

Well, as I noted above, Ginault says on their own website that key parts of the movement are sourced outside the US. So they don't meet the FTC standard for an unqualified "Made in USA" claim (as you and I understand that standard).

But that is not new info! That statement has been on the Ginault website at least from the time of their first post on WUS (which is when I first read it).

The part that surprises me is the claim that they're making the rest of the movement parts in the US. If they really are, good for them. If not, but they're making some of key parts in the US (cases alone may be enough), they can probably still make a qualified claim, similar to Weiss. So no matter what the truth is about the rest of the movement, I believe they can make a qualified claim of "Built in America from US and imported parts" if they're assembling them in the US.

And, legally, that's all they have to tell us.