While we don't verify specific claims because reviewers' opinions are their own, we may label reviews as "Verified" when we can confirm a business interaction took place. Read more
To protect platform integrity, every review on our platform—verified or not—is screened by our 24/7 automated software. This technology is designed to identify and remove content that breaches our guidelines, including reviews that are not based on a genuine experience. We recognise we may not catch everything, and you can flag anything you think we may have missed. Read more
Company details
Written by the company
Juwelier Bektas steht seit 1992 für hochwertige Uhren und ausgewählten Schmuck. Als familiengeführtes Unternehmen in zweiter Generation verbinden wir traditionelles Handwerk mit modernem Handel – stationär wie digital. Unser Ursprung liegt im klassischen Einzelhandel in Hamburg-Harburg. Mit dem Wandel des Kaufverhaltens haben wir unser Angebot konsequent weiterentwickelt und unser Sortiment um einen professionell geführten Onlineshop erweitert. Heute liegt unser Schwerpunkt klar auf Markenuhren, ergänzt durch ausgewählte Schmuckstücke. Was uns auszeichnet, ist eine klare Beratung, ein hoher Qualitätsanspruch und der Fokus auf langfristige Kundenzufriedenheit. Fachwissen, Verlässlichkeit und ein ehrlicher Umgang mit unseren Kunden sind für uns keine Marketingbegriffe, sondern tägliche Praxis. Unsere Vision ist es, unseren Kunden die passende Uhr für jeden Anlass zu bieten – ob als täglicher Begleiter, besonderes Geschenk oder Wertanlage. Dafür setzen wir auf sorgfältig ausgewählte Marken, transparente Prozesse und persönlichen Service.
Contact info
Dubbenwinkel 7, 21147, Hamburg, Germany
- 04070295453
- info@juwelier-bektas.de
- juwelier-bektas.de
Asks customers to review
This company invites their customers to review, whether positive or negative
Replied to 100% of negative reviews
Typically replies within 24 hours
How this company uses Trustpilot
See how their reviews and ratings are sourced, scored, and moderated.
Wrong watch sent, contradictory explanations, return process obstructed — Amazon had to intervene
Wrong watch sent, contradictory explanations, return process obstructed — Amazon had to intervene
Around three weeks ago, I ordered a Casio G-Shock GM-S2110-1A7ER from Juwelier Bektas through Amazon. Instead, the seller sent the different GM-S2110-1A1ER model.
This was not a minor colour variation. It was a different model reference, and the seller’s own invoice identified the model actually shipped.
Before delivery, the seller assured me that only the invoice was incorrect and that the correct watch was inside the parcel. I requested a corrected invoice showing the model I had ordered, but the seller did not provide one. After delivery, the seller reversed the explanation, confirmed that the original invoice matched the different model sent, and told me that I should not have accepted the parcel. By then, refusal was impossible.
The return process then became unnecessarily difficult. The seller’s first GLS return attachment could not be opened or used. The Amazon-generated return document was not prepaid and visibly required postage.
After repeated communication with the seller, Amazon, UPS and GLS, I had to arrange and pay for a tracked UPS return myself simply to return an item I had never ordered.
Ten days ago, I shipped the parcel back. Six days ago, UPS confirmed delivery to the seller’s receiving office in Hamburg, where it was received by BEKTAS.
Despite receiving the returned watch, the seller did not refund the original delivery cost charged for sending the wrong item and refused to reimburse the customer-funded return-shipping cost.
Amazon therefore had to intervene through its A-to-z Guarantee process. Nine days ago, Amazon confirmed in writing that the seller had refused reimbursement, that a claim for the return-shipping cost had been initiated, and that the full order amount would be refunded.
Only the original retail value of the item was initially refunded. Both the seller’s original delivery charge and the customer-funded return-shipping cost remained unresolved.
This was not merely a customer-service preference. Article 14 of EU Directive 2019/771 requires remedies for non-conforming goods to be provided free of charge and without significant inconvenience. German BGB Sections 439 and 475 likewise place the necessary transport and return costs on the seller. In practice, the customer should receive a usable, cost-free return method, such as a working prepaid label or an equivalent arrangement, rather than being required to finance correction of the seller’s mistake.
What should have been a straightforward correction turned into weeks of contradictory communication, unusable return arrangements, repeated contacts, additional expense and formal escalation.
My documented experience involved:
• A misleading product listing
• Shipment of the wrong model
• Contradictory statements before and after delivery
• Failure to issue the corrected invoice requested
• Reversal of the seller’s explanation about the invoice and shipped model
• An unusable GLS return attachment
• A non-prepaid Amazon return document
• Failure to provide a usable and cost-free return method
• Failure to refund the original delivery cost
• Refusal to reimburse the customer-funded return-shipping cost
• Confirmed delivery back to the seller
• Amazon A-to-z intervention being required
After my experience, I found another Amazon customer publicly describing a similar situation involving a returned watch, reimbursement difficulties and the need for Amazon intervention.
This does not prove deliberate conduct, and I cannot know the seller’s internal procedures. However, the similarity raises a legitimate concern that my case may not have been an isolated administrative error and may reflect a recurring problem in the handling of returns and reimbursements.
Where customers must fund returns caused by seller errors and then struggle to recover both original delivery and return costs, the practical effect is that the financial burden remains with the customer unless the matter is escalated.
I cannot determine whether this outcome is intentional. However, repeated cases could indicate a process that shifts costs arising from seller mistakes onto customers and creates a financial advantage whenever a customer does not pursue the matter further.
Based on my fully documented experience, I cannot recommend Juwelier Bektas.
Reply from Juwelier Bektas
Reply from Juwelier Bektas
Excellent communication
Excellent communication. Quick delivery. Quick answers to questions. I’m would happily order from here again
Reply from Juwelier Bektas
The Trustpilot Experience
Anyone can write a Trustpilot review. People who write reviews have ownership to edit or delete them at any time, and they’ll be displayed as long as an account is active.
We use dedicated people and clever technology to safeguard our platform. Find out how we combat fake reviews.
Learn about Trustpilot’s review process.
Here are 8 tips for writing great reviews.
Verification can help ensure real people are writing the reviews you read on Trustpilot.
Offering incentives for reviews or asking for them selectively can bias the TrustScore, which goes against our guidelines.