Engee
·I often notice here comments on "shall I pull the trigger" threads warning people not to forget to factor in the cost of a service.
But why should this be a factor, apart from if the buyer is on a budget and might overlook this additional expense? Surely all vintage watches need a service at regular intervals. Even a watch bought new is going to need a service after 5 years or so. One might buy a working watch and decide that they won't wear it often, and calculate that they won't bother to have it serviced, but ultimately, any mechanical watch brings with it service running costs. You wouldn't factor in service costs when buying a car - it goes without saying.
Again, yes, the cost of servicing my Skoda is probably less than a Ferrari, just as a watch with many complications will cost more to service than a simple three-hander, but still, I don't see why anyone would consider the cost of a watch, plus the service costs, when deciding whether to buy. It's the watch alone that (and perhaps the strap / bracelet) that is relevant, no?
But why should this be a factor, apart from if the buyer is on a budget and might overlook this additional expense? Surely all vintage watches need a service at regular intervals. Even a watch bought new is going to need a service after 5 years or so. One might buy a working watch and decide that they won't wear it often, and calculate that they won't bother to have it serviced, but ultimately, any mechanical watch brings with it service running costs. You wouldn't factor in service costs when buying a car - it goes without saying.
Again, yes, the cost of servicing my Skoda is probably less than a Ferrari, just as a watch with many complications will cost more to service than a simple three-hander, but still, I don't see why anyone would consider the cost of a watch, plus the service costs, when deciding whether to buy. It's the watch alone that (and perhaps the strap / bracelet) that is relevant, no?