03 Feb 2007, 18:15
I just thought I'd drop a line and thank Ed for putting my Majestyk watch in the spotlight. I would like to address a couple of things...
1) The watch Ed reviewed was given to him back in December, for a service that he provided.
2) The watch was an earlier sample in which I mentioned to Ed wasn't 100% clean. It was never meant for an actual review.
3) Although the watch is mostly brushed finish, it intentionally has a slight polished nature to make it shine. Any polished based watch can garner more scratches if it's rubbed up against hard surfaces. The one I've been wearing for a year has only a couple of hairline marks that can be seen when under light but nothing noticeable.
4) I've had a number of people state that the watch looks better than in the photos. We'll they are talking about the ones on www.majestykwatch.com. It definitely looks better than the photos in the review. :)
EDIT: I saw the "in defense" post in the letters to the editor and I just want to make it clear that I thought ED's review was very professional and I'm very please with it. I don't think the watch needed defending but my thanks to the individual who wrote it. My purpose of this post was mainly to illustrate that the watch was not in mint shape when given to ED. This was not due to normal wear and tear it was simply one of a few early samples that ended up like this, straight from the factory. If I had known the watch would have been reviewed, I would have sent Ed "normal" production watch. :)
Thanks.
Majestyk over and out...
1) The watch Ed reviewed was given to him back in December, for a service that he provided.
2) The watch was an earlier sample in which I mentioned to Ed wasn't 100% clean. It was never meant for an actual review.
3) Although the watch is mostly brushed finish, it intentionally has a slight polished nature to make it shine. Any polished based watch can garner more scratches if it's rubbed up against hard surfaces. The one I've been wearing for a year has only a couple of hairline marks that can be seen when under light but nothing noticeable.
4) I've had a number of people state that the watch looks better than in the photos. We'll they are talking about the ones on www.majestykwatch.com. It definitely looks better than the photos in the review. :)
EDIT: I saw the "in defense" post in the letters to the editor and I just want to make it clear that I thought ED's review was very professional and I'm very please with it. I don't think the watch needed defending but my thanks to the individual who wrote it. My purpose of this post was mainly to illustrate that the watch was not in mint shape when given to ED. This was not due to normal wear and tear it was simply one of a few early samples that ended up like this, straight from the factory. If I had known the watch would have been reviewed, I would have sent Ed "normal" production watch. :)
Thanks.
Majestyk over and out...
Last edited by Majestyk on 17 Feb 2007, 13:15, edited 2 times in total.
