The Breitling Watch Source Forums

I don't know who is right at this point soley because you finally came forward with something to actually consider. We all are entitled to draw reasonable inferences based upon the evidence existing when at the time we draw them. Your lawyer can explain that to you. We do it in all aspects of our lives every day.

Sorry if you think I'm stirring a hornet's nest. But it's called fair comment. Your husband's inital responses just made it look worse. That is precisely when this exploded and everyone had the exact same reaction to it. Check it out yourself. This isn't our first rodeo with scammers who try to fight back by threatening and hollering. And they have been outed and fessed up. Perhaps if you had gotten involved earlier instead of your husband's blustering, the questions we are asking tonight would have been asked last night.

But now there is something more to discuss because you gave us some evidence to look at. Thus the questions I posed in my last post remain out there and valid questions. But even if the only thing you had to say tonight was "people are posting stuff about our business and sending angry emails" and none of the other evidence, my advice would be the same - STOP IT!

As for watchuseek, you can see for yourself I deleted his name from the post directly after his first post here yesterday. As soon as his first post threatening criminal action, as silly as that was, I deleted his name.

But without giving the OP a fair opportunity to respond, it would be imprudent to change anything else. There are still issues on both sides, but my past watch dealings with Justin tip it in his favor.

As for my "precious Justin," thanks for the thought, but I'm not gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

_________________
SHARKMAN

It was actually nice to get a laugh out of something from this today.

I sure wish I had been the one to find out about this forum before he had the chance to spew shit all over the page. This is why I run the business and he sales guns.

Speaking of guns, we have appointments in the morning to meet customers out at the range to play with full-autos and silencers. It is 1:30 am... way past my bedtime...

If anyone has any other questions for me/us/him please feel free to ask. I truly have nothing to hide and will gladly offer any information that I have.

I look forward to Justin/Danny/J Fernandez's responses...

_________________
I am not your rolling wheels, I am the highway
I am not your carpet ride, I am the sky
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning
I am not your Autumn moon, I am the night
-Audioslave

Boy, I step away for twelve hours and all hell breaks loose.

Hi, Sarah. Thank you for taking your time to post in this thread and to share your side of the story. As the one who tore your husband's post apart, first let me say that I offered my comments solely for the furtherance of discussion about this matter on this forum. It was never my intention to spur other people on to threatening your business, or harassing you in any fashion. For what it's worth, I can assure you that I was not one of those people. I was looking at what Jeremy wrote, and what didn't seem to make sense about what he wrote. At that time, all we had were two stories, without the support of further evidence. My comparison of Jeremy's "behavior" to that of criminals was merely to point out that ardor in professing one's innocence could swing either way: guilty people frequently decry the accusations against them, often as a matter of course. But of course, people who are wrongfully accused do too, and have every right to. I can accept that Jeremy was shooting from the hip (no pun intended), and may have written things out of anger that, in retrospect, didn't make as much sense as he thought they did when he wrote them.

Although I had no direct part in any of the harassment you have received, I am nevertheless sorry you have been experiencing it. I am also sorry that after taking the time to thoughtfully explain your position in a cool-headed, well thought-out and well-written manner, you were still met with skepticism, condescension, and rudeness by some of the members of this forum. That is unfortunate. Speaking only for myself, I appreciate your time and effort to explain this to a group of people whose opinions, ultimately, don't have any relevance to the basic dispute at issue. We're just observers who have no direct stake in this matter. You don't owe us anything. (Although, to the extent that some of our members are harassing you, I can see why you felt the need to address us.)

What you say makes sense, and you have shown a lot of documentation to support your side, including evidence that goes directly to my earlier comment of whether Jeremy could prove "Justin" was telling different stories in different places. You strike me as credible. You've also shown grace under fire. I think some of the questions and criticisms leveled at you, such as why didn't you take a picture of the watch you received, or what's up with that AD's letter, are a bit unfair. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback; the fact is, we weren't in your position. Also, it seems evident neither you nor Jeremy are watch enthusiasts like we are, and I think it's unreasonable to evaluate your behavior with the expectation that you should act like we would in the same situation. As for the AD's letter, I can't tell you how many posts there are on this forum talking about how so many ADs don't know their ass from a hat; it is no surprise to me that you may have found one who is a little sloppy with the finer details. That doesn't mean the letter is bogus, or that the AD's general observations are not valid. Furthermore, you're exactly right: you're not an attorney. Whether you use the term "slander" in place of "libel," or what have you, makes no difference in the price of tea in China as far as the validity of your claim goes. I think if we step back and evaluate your story as a whole, rather than gratuitously picking on small details, we can see that it holds together. There are some definite questions that need answering, but it would seem you have the same questions we do.

I don't have a bone in this fight, except that I don't like to see anyone get scammed - whether it be a seller or a buyer. I do not know either party. To the extent that he cares what this community thinks, I think the OP needs to weigh in and answer some questions, because the evidence has taken a clear turn, in my opinion. I can see that I (and I believe many of us) rushed to judgment, although, to be fair, we were looking at the evidence we had before us at the time. So as not to rush to judgment again, I'm going to step back and see how this goes before I make up my mind either way. However, in my opinion, Sarah has made some strong points, and both she and Jeremy deserve to be heard out, fairly and with respect. The same goes for the OP. I also agree with Tom: the harassment and threats to Sarah's and Jeremy's business are wholly inappropriate and have got to stop.

I have followed this thread from the start. Fascinating stuff, because the original poster made a serious allegation, and people on here know of him and suported him and we are all concerned about watch and ebay fraud.

Then the accused person who was claimed to be at fault posted, in an (understandably if he is right) angry way. That didn't help get him any support.

Then the accused guy's wife Sarah started posting, with a very detailed and rational explanation of the events from their point of view. She has followed up, when requested by us, with copies of documentation and emails which definately add to their case. I see no issue with the fact that she didn't photograph the watch, we might do as watch enthusiasts, they were just returning it for a refund. I wouldn't have photographed it - except with hindsight. I have bought items from new sellers, the price is often cheaper, and I always know I have papal to help if things go worong - though I've learn't here it may not be the case.

the original poster has had a series of very significant questions asked of him by leading members of the forum, eg why did he say he bought from an AD but his email to Sarah say it was from a person and without papers, who is Danny, why did his address mismatch. I am wondering why he had a new ebay account with 3 previous transactions if he is the longstanding watch dealer that he claims.

The most significant thing here is that Sarah is going out of the way now to assist us, with information and copies of documents. Every time there is a question, she answers it.

What is really concerning is that J Fernandez or whatever his name is, the original poster, has gone very quiet and isn't contributing and isn't answering the growing series of important questions that are being asked. Why???

There are certainly two sides to every story, and I am getting the feeling that the 'other side' ie Sarah and her evidence are now standing up to scrutiny better than the original poster's story, and he has gone quiet. I look forward to hearing back from Mr Fernandez on those questions soon.

Also, the watch pictures on ebaby that most of us can access - does that look like a fake or original watch? Hopefully an expert can confirm that one either way.

Finally an apology to Sarah for the stuff that has been written to and about her business, I'm sure people were taking sides and angry early on, it happens, but I do think she has turned the tide with her professional and curteous responses.


NB I wrote this, post, and was notified of JacksonStone's post because it said, I may wish to amend mine as his has overlapped... He is a very experienced forum member, unlike me, but his post is in a very similar vein, so I am leaving mine untouched apart from this NB comment. The tide has definately turned here...

Martin

_________________
Martin

--

Breitling E17370 titanium Avenger Seawolf yellow face
Tag Heuer Carrera dad date calibre 16
Omega Speedmaster Tintin
Tissot PRC automatic day-date

the numbers on the back of the watch posted in the ebay pictures is the same numbers on the letter from the AD claiming it's fake. Are fakes that accurate with reference numbers? I assumed they just stamped any numbers on the back.

Seems to me if the OP bought the watch second hand, without papers, perhaps he unknowingly bought a fake (was it through eBay? Is the original listing still available?). If he bought it from and AD, papers, the original receipt, or a letter from that AD should be available. I know my AD would have no problem producing sales records. I also find it curious that the eBay listing doesn't note the missing papers. Most experienced watch sellers know this is important information to most buyers.

Perhaps the OP was scammed early on.

LL

Alright.

I have tried desperately hard to let this thread run, and I am now very glad I did, we have a much more complete picture of the positions, if not any resolution about what really happened.

However, it is remarkably clear that this thread is going to run and run and remain at the top of the list for further editorial comments so I am going to lock it. If jadanf or jjalcede have additional information to provide please contact me via PM and I will arrange to have it added.



Now a few personal comments........

My opinion (and you can all determine the value of that for yourselves) is that the photos in the eBay auction are of a real Bentley Motors. That implies nothing of course about the watch sent / received.

The fact that people have been using other methods to comment on jjalcede's business sickens and disgusts me. I hear over and over that this is the best watch community on the internet - are we not better than this? No one besides the parties directly involved knows what happened, and perhaps only one of the parties knows the full story. To make unsubstantiated accusations about someone's livelihood based on this thread shows a shocking lack of judgment and I encourage anyone who made such comments to withdraw them if at all possible.

I sincerely hope that this turns out to be a simple misunderstanding somewhere along the line, but I think that resolution needs to go beyond an internet forum and be left to the appropriate authorities.

This entire thread saddens me.