Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Vich last won the day on September 28 2017

Vich had the most liked content!


About Vich

  • Rank
    Distinguished Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
  • Interests
    Real ale - CAMRA Member
    Watch Tinkering
    IT - Used to be what I did for a Living prior to retirement

Recent Profile Visitors

14,934 profile views
  1. The Reality behind the COMCO and EU decisions. View this email in your browser The Reality behind the COMCO and EU decisions One of the problems of being engaged in legal action, especially in other countries, is that it is very difficult to talk publicly about topics and evidence that are likely to form part of your submissions to the Courts. You don’t want to disrespect the legal process by pre-empting the deliberations of the Courts with a public debate. However, if another entity makes a significant public pronouncement on one of those topics, then the need to respond in kind becomes overwhelming. This is the case with the recent announcement by COMCO, the Swiss Competition Authority, that it would not be conducting a full investigation into the issue of Watch Parts and Independent Repairers. Last Friday, Cousins sent an Open Letter to COMCO requesting that they rethink this decision. The letter is reproduced (see attachment) for all to see, so I will not detail its contents here. Suffice to say that those who would have the industry believe that the EU has approved the restriction of parts supply by the Swiss watch brands, and declared this practice to be legal, have not properly interpreted the findings from the EU Commission and Courts. Furthermore, those who then use that same wrong interpretation to justify their own refusal to investigate are only compounding the error. Once again I assure all of you in the Independent Repair Trade that Cousins is still in the thick of the fight, still confident of its position, still seeking the most competitive market for the end consumer, and still determined to ensure that the evidence is correctly delivered and evaluated in the most appropriate legal forum. Your feedback, as always, is welcome. Kind Regards Anthony Cousins Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd. www.cousinsuk.com https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ceefad6307d366a92a1b87c7b/files/88597ebb-83fa-4a09-94fa-3cdd113efa74/An_Open_Letter_to_COMCO_from_Cousins_Material_House.pdf?utm_source=Cousins+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=6f5fed437d-Swiss+Federal+Supreme+Court+returns+the+Case_COPY_&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_271211a809-6f5fed437d-136688705
  2. As always it is up to individuals to make their own decisions and this should be respected by all. Cheers, Vic
  3. Vich

    Francis Barker Mk III Compass

    Hello Paul, I was very much a "spectator" on this interesting article, I suggest you PM Ry himself. In general the older anything is the harder spares would be and unfortunately you could be looking at butchering an old item to get parts. Cheers, Vich
  4. Good luck and best wishes. Vic
  5. Hello jdm, Can you advise me what "forum " format is these days, I originally put it up some time ago as a pdf because it is an industry standard that was readable from any device or OS and easily downloaded should that be desired, I can convert to anything you want if necessary. Cheers, Vic
  6. Hello jdm, The "Walkthrough" on the fix is in the PDF attachments but I have no strong opinion and this is just a comment. Regs Vic
  7. Vich


    Hello David and greetings from me as well. Cheered, Vic
  8. Latest I have received:- CEAHR loses EU Court case against the Commission Earlier this week, the European General Court gave its ruling in the case that CEAHR brought against the EU Commission. The Court ruled that it could not overturn the findings of the second Commission investigation, which was closed on the ground of ‘administrative priorities’. The Commission is under no obligation to investigate every complaint if it believes there is insufficient justification for the costs of an investigation. The Court confirmed the Commission’s assessment, and found that the Commission was within its powers to close the investigation without making a final finding of infringement or non-infringement. This ruling has not changed anything for Cousins in its legal dispute with Swatch, and the English courts remain free to find that that the conduct of the Swiss watch manufacturers is anti-competitive. The onus was always on CEAHR to demonstrate where the Commission had got its reasoning wrong, and reading through the judgment it becomes clear that CEAHR just did not produce sufficient evidence to support their arguments, refuting the findings of the EU Commission. From the moment Cousins first considered taking action against Swatch, we knew that evidence was the key to winning. We applied to be an intervener in support of the CEAHR position and the need for an investigation, in the same way LVMH, Rolex, and Swatch intervened to support the closure of the investigation. The EU Court refused our application on the basis that CEAHR represent watch repairers, and as Cousins is a parts supplier not a repairer, we were not directly involved in the European proceedings. The opportunity for Cousins to present its arguments and evidence proving the anti-competitive nature of Swatch’s conduct to the English High Court will come in due course. Kind Regards Anthony Cousins Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.
  9. My projects are all packed away and I have not touched a watch for a while, apart from replacing a quartz movement like for like in a Rotary and putting in batteries for friends and relatives. Stuff is settling down a bit so maybe not long until I am back and in a position to contribute once more. Wandering by the bank of the Tweed on a day out celebrating our 42nd wedding anniversary and happened upon a small water spring with a plaque. Pics below.
  10. I hope it ends up as a true victory for Cousins partly for the reasons given by CB and partly because I would like to see a company that seems to think the law is something to be worked around to brings matters to their own largely self serving advantage, to the detriment of others and the industry as a whole, properly brought into line. I have nothing against any company that becomes a market leader because the goods they supply are much better than anything else on sale. However, when a company systematically sets about buying out and removing the competition with the intention of controlling and monopolising an entire industry in the most protectionist of self serving ways - well, I don't like it, something inside me screams about fairness and dishonour. At the risk of sounding dramatic their actions and attitudes are perhaps even coming close to being evil. Vic
  11. I hope it ends up as a true victory for Cousins partly for the reasons given by CB and partly because I would like to see a company that seems to think the law is something to be worked around, to brings matters to their own largely self serving advantage, to the detriment of others and the industry as a whole. Vic
  12. Swatch v Cousins. Swatch Appeal against Bern Court decision. View this email in your browser Swatch. A Watch Company that Wastes Time... “Forum Running” is a term that describes an attempt to avoid legal action threatened in one Court, by dragging it to another that has no real reason to deal with it. It is a rather unlawful practice that is sometimes used by big companies to frighten off smaller opponents by wasting their time and money. When the Judge in Bern dismissed Swatch’s claim against Cousins, he made it tolerably clear that Forum Running was not going to be allowed in his Court. Wasting time and money in the hope Cousins will go away seems to be one of Swatch’s tactics, and the fact that they have now, as we expected, appealed against the Bern Court ruling seems to demonstrate that they still haven’t learned that Cousins will not be frightened off, and will see this through to the end. What particularly demonstrates the time wasting nature of the appeal is that the Bern decision was based on a ruling from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and it is this very same body that the appeal has been made to. Our Swiss lawyers are currently studying the details of the appeal, which arrived with them recently, however, it seems on first reading that Swatch are trying to argue, amongst other things, that the Supreme Court has it wrong, and needs to change its practice. It’s hard to say what the consequences of that would be for the Swiss legal system. The appeal process is likely to run for less than ten months. For now, Cousins is still here, still not frightened, and still fighting. Some companies like to waste time, Cousins likes to save time ….. along with the independent repair industry that keeps it ticking. Kind Regards Anthony Cousins Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.
  13. PS. Mine was a front loader and I had to split off the bezel to change the movement. I have remembered that did work on a Rotary chrono some time ago, again a movement change, and it was quite fussy, two sub dials and lunar phase plus date indicated by a hand as well and that one did actually have a Miyota 6P50 movement in it. Cheers, Vic
  14. Hello Ishima, Just replaced a movement in a similar Rotary and it was a Ronda (Cousins Ref RH785). It may be worth checking the Ronda section. Cheers, Vic
  15. Happy Birthday from me Will. Ok it was expensive but so what, if we can' t have a treat at our time of life it would be a pity. You can admire it when you lift a glass in celebration. Cheers, Vic