# Experience with Vodrich watches?



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Does anyone have any experience with (AAAC) sponsor Vodrich? I am intrigued, due to the low cost and decent looks, but couldn't find any prior discussion or much in the way of reviews.


----------



## WmC (Apr 6, 2012)

You should do a search on timezone.com. Good hunting


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

If you do purchase a Vodrich, you know about the AskAndy Member discount, right?



Did you see the other watches and discounts on the Watches page of Selected Merchants? Link at the top of this page!


----------



## jd202 (Feb 16, 2016)

Andy said:


> If you do purchase a Vodrich, you know about the AskAndy Member discount, right?
> 
> Did you see the other watches and discounts on the Watches page of Selected Merchants? Link at the top of this page!


Yes, thanks Andy! I will definitely use the code if I pull the trigger on a purchase. I was hoping someone might have some insights, but the prices are so low that I will probably give it a shot anyway. If it's even wearable, it seems worth it...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

At those prices they seem worth the risk. Too often junk is marked up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

*Vodrich watch was very disappointing*

The Vodrich watches are junk and customer service is hell to deal with. I'm just glad I bought mine on amazon so I was able to bypass the nightmare customer service at Vodrich and ask for my money back with an amazon a-z claim.

I bought the Vodrich sterling watch and noticed it had no stamp indicating it was sterling. After contacting customer service and asking if the watch was actually sterling, they told me they never said it was silver. This is verifiably false. It was labeled "Vodrifalsens sterling silver" on amazon and the description stated "silver case". Sterling is not a color, sterling is legally defined as .925 purity silver.

The Federal trade commission specificalay prohibits this behavior in CFR title 16 part 23.6 b :

"It is unfair or deceptive to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product as "silver," "solid silver," "Sterling Silver," "Sterling," or the abbreviation "Ster." unless it is at least 925⁄1,000 ths pure silver."

Further, the watch wouldn't stay wound. Absolute junk and the company reps showed no claandwhat so everAmazon, thank goodness for Amazon.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

rob34:

THANKS. I just took their banner off the site.


----------



## vodrich (Jul 11, 2016)

rob34 said:


> The Vodrich watches are junk and customer service is hell to deal with. I'm just glad I bought mine on amazon so I was able to bypass the nightmare customer service at Vodrich and ask for my money back with an amazon a-z claim.
> 
> I bought the Vodrich sterling watch and noticed it had no stamp indicating it was sterling. After contacting customer service and asking if the watch was actually sterling, they told me they never said it was silver. This is verifiably false. It was labeled "Vodrifalsens sterling silver" on amazon and the description stated "silver case". Sterling is not a color, sterling is legally defined as .925 purity silver.
> 
> ...


Hi Robert,

We're sorry to hear this and thought we should put across our side of the story too.

BOTH Amazon and Paypal would not grant your request to be refunded based on your complaint that the product is not .925 sterling silver.

The reason for this is because Sterling is simply a name for the product, and we did not claim anywhere that it was made from 100% real sterling silver, which of course would make it a VERY VERY expensive watch. The watch you purchased was an affordable price under $100 - so from both the price and the fact that we never claim it's .925 silver, it's safe to say we were not false advertising in anyway&#8230;and paypal + amazon agreed with us.

We actually have a 14 Day Money Back Guarantee, so if you wanted to return it and get your money back when you first got it that would have been 100% okay. But unfortunately you filed a claim three months afterwards (April - July 2016). There is no online store that has a 3 Month money back guarantee&#8230; We believe 14 days is more than enough time to decide that you didn't want the watch.

Finally, in regards to calling our products 'junk', we believe our products are of a high quality, especially for the price. We don't just say that though, we back this up with a 12 Month Warranty - so if anything happens to the watch we will fix it or send a BRAND NEW one.

That is our side of the story. Still we appreciate your purchase and will take on any feedback. Our main concern is making our customers happy and satisfied with their purchase.

Thank you,
Mon
Vodrich Customer Loyalty Manager


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Very interesting and arguably, enlightening. It's always good to hear both sides of the story, before forming ones opinion...what say you, rob34, in reply?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Indeed. My first thought was who would think they are getting a sterling silver watch at this price. My second thought was who would want a sterling silver watch that would tarnish and gunk up their wrists.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

The modus operandi of Vodrich seems to be misrepresentation of facts.

At first, I thought this entire ordeal was due to a mere oversight... That surely once it was clearly identified their product was misrepresented and I purchased their "Vodrich sterling silver" watch under the pretense it was in fact a sterling silver watch, I would have my money returned promptly accompanied with a humble apology. This type of customer care is the sign of class, or at the very least, respect for the rule of law. After all, why would they want my business if they didn't earn it?

To my surprise, they stated they never said it was "made of silver". This maddening defense is easily seen past by those, like myself, who regularly purchase sterling. Referring to a product as sterling IS saying it is made of silver. 

To demonstrate how absurd their claim is, it is best to use gold as an example for those unfamiliar with sterling. Sterling is to silver as 18 karat gold is to gold. It is a legal measure of purity. Whereas sterling means .925 pure silver, 18 karat gold means 18 out of 24 parts or .75 pure gold. Thus, advertising a sterling watch while claiming they never said it was made of silver is analogous to advertising an 18 karat gold watch while claiming they never said it was made of gold. They could, of course, attempt to play the game of "18 karat" is the name of the watch. However, this type of deception is clearly prohibited by the federal code I provided earlier.

There is truth to a portion of Vodrich's response above. My amazon a-z claim was indeed closed without action. The email I received from Amazon stated the following:

"We have closed your claim for order 106-0497634-1277817 because you did not contact the seller to report the issue within 30 days of receipt, or return the item within 45 days of reciept."

For the record, I made no Paypal claim unless the a-z claim is somehow connected to a Paypal claim in a manner unknown to me.

Remaining consistent with thie modus operandi of Vodrich (misrepresentation of facts) and their maddening disregard for the legal definition of sterling, their Customer Loyalty Manager publicly wrote the following:

"BOTH amazon and Paypal would not grant your request to be refunded based on your conolaint the product is not .925 sterling silver.

The reason for this is because Sterling is simply the name for the product, and we did not claim anywhere that it was made from 100% sterling silver, which of course would make it a VERY VERY expensive watch."

Rather than using reason and evidence to rebut the legal argument I presented along with citation of the applicable federal code, Vodrich immediately fell back to misrepresentation of facts. The reason my claim was closed is verifiablly not "because Sterling is simply the name for the product" as Vodrich claims. 

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"-- socrates

Besides, If this was the case, Amazon would not be much better than Vodrich due to condoning unfair and morally objectionable practices. As this is not the case, the legality, morality, and fairness of Amazon's behavior in regard to my claim is not a subject of this post. Moreover, as far as I can tell, Vodrich products are no longer available for purchase on Amazon which can be verified with a quick Google search which will inverably lead to dead Vodrich listings on Amazon. Infer what you will from this development. 

Subtle and insidious is the corrosive effect Vodrich's claims have on the Amazon brand and legitimate sterling sales. If taken at face value, Vodrich's false claim that Amazon will support sellers of non-sterling watches labeled sterling as long as the company later insists sterling is merely a reference to the name of the product, destroys any confidence sterling buyers may have when purchasing sterling on Amazon. 

As for thier claim they are free to misrepresent products as sterling because their products are reasonably priced... This is neither a moral nor a legal defense. I'd further add that silver was trading at about $16 per troy ounce at the time of my purchase and watch cases contain significantly less than a troy ounce of material. While legitimate finished sterling items can be had for reasonable prices, it is certainly true many jewelers and watch makers will price gouge many times above the actual cost of labor and materials. But this truth in no way justifies Vodrich's misrepresentation of a non-sterling item as sterling.

I don't really care to alert the attorney general's office of Vodrich's blatant disregard for the law or litigate to recoup my $70 dollars. I've spent more time than it is worth on this matter as it is. But rest assured these unscrupulous business practices are illegal. And if one isn't inclined to accept the letter of the law as I have provided with direct citation of federal code or the analogous gold example above... Vodrich's behavior, at the very least, is utterly without class.

And that's really what you wear on your wrist when you wear a watch. You wear the class of the company that stands behind it.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

On one hand, using the words "sterling silver" is at least flirting with false advertising. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine anyone a) wanting a sterling silver watch other than, say, an heirloom pocket watch, and b) thinking that a $70 would be silver. 

I don't, by the way, see any Vodrich offerings on Amazon. Were they taken down?

If I had only $70 to spend on a watch, I'd be a Seiko or a Casio. If I wanted something classier looking, I might consider a Vodrich, which has at least sharp looks. But I'd buy knowing I wasn't buying anything special, and probably not something as reliable as a Seiko or Casio.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

The most alarming issue is the continued false public statements made by Vodrich and their dismal customer care. However, If you'd like to chastise my faith in the rule of law which exists to prevent exactly this type of behavior, I stand chastised. 

But my primary concern now is to expose the blatant continued public deception of the company. I am prepared to provide evidence, either via a conference call with Amazon and a moderator or any other method of unequivicaly sharing the disposition of my Amazon claim. I doubt Vodrich is willing to offer the same level of transparency for the Ask Andy community.

It is Vodrich's character that is in question. As stated earlier, what you really wear on your wrist when you wear a watch is the class of the company that stands behind it. Vodrich has demonstrated moral bankruptcy and a total absence of class.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Looking at their website, it is pretty clear that Sterling is the model name.

I am curious to ask why $19/oz silver would be much,much more expensive, ignoring the fact that it would also be soft.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

This may be true on their site... At least now it is their. But the Amazon listing , the set from which I purchased, appears to list a sterling watch.

https://www.amazon.com/VODRICH-Mens-Sterling-Silver/product-reviews/B01C4929XK

Again, now I am concerned with bringing to light the pattern of misrepresentation of fact in which Vodrich has engaged.

The misrepresentation of sterling on Amazon appeared to be a slip up. But when paired with a refusal to return fund based on the obvious misrepresentation of the Amazon listing and a public misrepresentation of the Amazon a-z claim disposition, one begins to develop a more cynical perspective. This behavior is, again, without class.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You do realize the only reason they said anything is because you called them out publicly and used this forum to do it.

It sounds like an unfortunate clerical error. I'm not sure why you thought you would really get sterling silver for $70.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

The manufacturer is pretty overtly offering for the item to be sent back under their 12 month warranty. I would expect that, regardless of how skeptical one is of the company, it would be wise to take advantage of this.
I'm also curious if there was actually a physical test done on the admittedly not sterling watch or if the absence of case markings, which rather belies the claims of subterfuge, was the letdown.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

The warranty applies to malfunction, not fraud. They in no way are offering a warranty for lack of silver content.they are offering to replace a non-sterling watch with another non-sterling watch should I so desire. 

I am surprised by the comfort with deceptive business practices, misrepresentation of arbitrated dispute disposition, and the general pattern of dishonesty. If this company was willing to return my money, there would have been no a-z claim and they would not now be boosting of their refusal to refund me as evidence the did not defraud me.

Ultimately, this is about Vodrich's moral bankruptcy and utter lack of class. This serves as a record of interaction with Vodrich customer care and serves to inform the Ask Andy community as to what what the Vodrich brand represents on a wrist.

And to answer your question, I have acid test which can determined silver purity.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

rob34 said:


> Further, the watch wouldn't stay wound. Absolute junk ...


Is not that a malfunction? Assuming this is a legitimate complaint, I'd think it grounds for a warranty claim.
I can't see how one can blame the manufacturer for Amazon denying a return based on a clumsy listing. The manufacturer probably should admit some culpability on a misinterpretable description, but they have publicly offered to stand by their warranty, which seems like adequate customer service to me. I can't condemn them when they still have unused offers open.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

I agree! And should I pay postage to send in the watch, they will send me another non-sterling watch assuming the performance is not simply a characteristic of the movement in which case they will return the original watch.... Which leads me right back to the dishonesty of the company and the details of my purchase of a non-sterling watch represented on Amazon as sterling. And of course, all the misrepresentation of fact presented publicly by Vodrich which has since ensued.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

What exactly does one expect for $70?


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

Fair enough on the performance aspect, there was never a claim of high performance. It appears to beat at 4 beats per second so my best guess is it has a Chinese movement. But my chief complaint was not and is not performance. This was more an acknowledgement of an earlier member's comment on his his expectations for Vodrich quality. As for what I was actually expecting, I was expecting a sterling watch as advertised. I was not expecting abysmal customer care and a pattern of public misrepresentation and dishonesty.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm sorry, sterling silver for $70?

There's a guy in Times Square selling Louis Vuitton bags for a $100. Do you take the claim that they're authentic at face value?


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

I purchase sterling regularly. I am aware if a wide range of prices on finished sterling goods and test them personally. Sterling is a relatively inexpensive inflation adjusted metal compared to it's storied past. I have purchased reasonably priced sterling from reputable sellers , in this case Amazon, in the past. I am familiar with the law by which which reputable sellers abide. I also search forums like these to vet merchants or at least ensure nothing like this pops up in thier google search results. In spite of this, Vodrich got me. And, again, if you chose to chastise me for faith in the laws that regulate reputable dealers' resentation of non-sterling vs sterling, I stand chastised .

I did not, however, expect the habitual dishonesty which ensued. This, I did not glean from the price tag.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Sorry, not trying to chastise you. If it came across like that my apologies. 

I don't buy sterling silver often. When I have seen it it's usually more expensive than $70. 

Besides, someone else mentioned this as well; sterling silver is an odd choice of material for a watch.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

It is I who owe an aplogy if I came across quick to offended. Sterling is a niche market. People who understand the historical relevance tend to appreciate it more than the average person. Often times silver is rhodium plated like white gold so you don't tend to have the dreaded tarnish everyone imagines is so terrible.

Silver is extremely cheap today based on historical norms. Some finished sterling can be had for reasonable prices while some is sold at outrageous mark ups. While it is true the maliability of sterling can be challenging for machining especially tiny pieces like gears, this is not a legal nor a moral argument for representing a nonsterling item as sterling.


----------



## rob34 (Jul 7, 2016)

To forsbergacct2000, you are clearly a respected member here. I too at one time believed this to be an unfortunate clerical error but began to have my doubts when a) they refused to refund once the clerical error was identified and b) publicly misrepresented the disposition of an impartial arbitration. If anyone has seen my typing, they must know I am sympathetic to clerical error. 

Somehow I have lead you to believe I take issue with thie fact they responded after I called them out on this forum. To the contrary, I take issue with the deception of their response... The lack of character... The questionable morality. It is this which repulses me, not the fact that somewhere in the sea of commerce the may possibly be a clerical error.

Rational debate, peer review, challenge of argument always lead to the greater understanding of truth. I welcome the challenges made to my position and I believe I have stood the test of some pretty close scrutiny so far.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen, I think this controversy boils down the the wise counsel reflected in that old adage, "if it seems to be too good to be true, it probably is!" A prospective customer seeing a highly designed, flashy watch that appears to be advertised as silver and priced at a paltry $70, should pause to consider the realities of the situation. Hell, Timex charges more than that for many of their watch designs these days. Another old adage tells us, "you get what you pay for," and if if we pay next to nothing, we should expect to receive full value for what we spend and nothing more! And a final bit of counsel, one last and timeless bit of counsel from the old adages, "Let the buyer beware!" This present fight is not worth the energy that has already been invested in the 'highly improbable' desired outcome. It's time to learn what there is to be learned from the experience, let it go and move on.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

eagle2250 said:


> Gentlemen, I think this controversy boils down the the wise counsel reflected in that old adage, "if it seems to be too good to be true, it probably is!" A prospective customer seeing a highly designed, flashy watch that appears to be advertised as silver and priced at a paltry $70, should pause to consider the realities of the situation. Hell, Timex charges more than that for many of their watch designs these days. Another old adage tells us, "you get what you pay for," and if if we pay next to nothing, we should expect to receive full value for what we spend and nothing more! And a final bit of counsel, one last and timeless bit of counsel from the old adages, "Let the buyer beware!" This present fight is not worth the energy that has already been invested in the 'highly improbable' desired outcome. It's time to learn what there is to be learned from the experience, let it go and move on.


Excellent advice! Thanks eagle2250


----------

