Jaeger-LeCoultre Master-Quartz Réf. 23301-42 Cal. Favre-Leuba 353 -1972- 1950-1959 Tachymètre sur le rehaut 400 équipé du calibre

Jaeger-LeCoultre Master-Quartz Réf. 23301-42 Cal. Favre-Leuba 353 -1972- 1950-1959 Tachymètre sur le rehaut 400 équipé du calibre

Name: Jaeger-LeCoultre Master-Quartz Réf. 23301-42 Cal. Favre-Leuba 353 -1972- 1950-1959 Tachymètre sur le rehaut 400 équipé du calibre
Brand: www.ihc-sa.com
SKU: 67592053453
Price: 825.00 USD
Availability: InStock
Rating: 4.1242 (10 reviews)

EUR825.00

EUR848.00

SKU 67592053453 · ★ 4.1

Pay in 4 interest-free payments of $206.25 Learn more

Shipping Estimate
USA

USA

CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Nov 13 - Nov 18

Harbor notes

Description

Jaeger LeCoultre Master Quartz Réf. 23301 42 Cal. Favre Leuba 353 1972 1950 1959 Tachymètre sur le rehaut 400 équipé du calibre Tachymètre sur le rehaut couronne de remontoir d'origine Vacheron & Constantin dimensions : 39 mm (hors couronne) x 43 mm (anses incluses) Type de montre Montre Sexe Homme Unisexe Marque Jaeger LeCoultre Numéro de référence 23301 42 Modèle Master Quartz Steel Serviced 02 22 2 Year Warranty 1972 État Bon (Traces d'usure légères à visibles

Exchange/Return Notes

We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy

Frequently Asked Questions for Jaeger-LeCoultre Master-Quartz Réf. 23301-42 Cal. Favre-Leuba 353 -1972- 1950-1959 Tachymètre sur le rehaut 400 équipé du calibre

What should I check when product images are described as illustrative?

Do not infer functionality from a decorative presentation element. Avoid treating staged context as part of the purchase.

What should I record if a purchase-related problem happens only sometimes?

Describe how the issue affects your intended use when it occurs. Use the observed sequence to explain the uncertainty accurately.

How can I request another review of an unresolved support issue?

Distinguish disagreement with a decision from a missing factual explanation. Focus the request on the specific unresolved issue and relevant evidence.