Allow me to make an analogy to an industry I know well - transport.

Let's say that you take your Volvo FH into your Volvo service centre because the vehicle, literally, is telling you to. Their technician will connect the vehicle to their diagnostic system and it will provide details of the fault that the vehicle has recognised. Let's imagine that the vehicle reports a fault on a height control sensor. The technician will then replace that sensor, clear the faults, re-test and close.

Now, this isn't a vintage watch that is losing an original part but the thought process behind it is the same: Volvo are warrantying their work. They are making an implied promise that, when the vehicle is returned to you, it will work as if it were brand new. Omega are making that same implied promise.

From experience, I know that the most likely fault with a height control sensor is just the deutche connector or metripack plug. I also know that an experienced electrician can replace that in fifteen minutes at a grand total of around £25. It's much the same with an experienced watchmaker. He understands the mechanics but also appreciates the aesthetics and the "soul". Our electrician, in any other industry, would be called an engineer .. he not only is able to read and follow a manual but he understands the machine he's working on. For the customer, it is more cost effective to have the experienced electrician repair the defective component. However, this is reliant on the skill of that engineer and is a risk that Volvo choose not to take. The cost to the customer is more with the route Volvo chooses to take but the risk of subsequent (and warrantied) failure is less for Volvo.

This brings up the difference between a technician (be he a watch or vehicle technician) and an experienced engineer or watch maker. All of our industries are losing engineers as a result of modern working practices and the loss of apprenticeships. That said, I do not imagine for one second that Omega doesn't have incredibly experienced watch makers on their staff ... but it's efficiency - in all aspects and definitions of that word.

The thing that Volvo and Omega have in common is their warranty and their efficiency. It is more efficient, in terms of long term cost, for them to replace a part at fault with a new part. This way, it is far less likely that the watch or vehicle will be returned to them, under their implicit or explicit warranty, following the failure of their original repair. They do not run the risk of one of their individual employees making an imperfect repair with the consequential loss that the company would incur.

A complaint I often make to anyone who'll listen to me: we live in a world run by accountants. They don't care about cost (or originality) so long as their cost is quantifiable and predictable. The nightmare that leaves them awake and dripping in cold sweat at 3am is consequential loss incurred by a substandard repair. It goes further than that, though, because both Volvo and Omega have a reputation that is incredibly valuable to them. This is what I mean when I use the word "efficiency"
- providing the best result for least input; with the best long term reliability; with less need for training, experience, individual worker input .. and so on.

The independent (and experienced, competent and self-employed) watch maker is in a different position. He has no reason not to have faith in his own ability to make any repair he is happy with. This is what his entire business is built on and so he must have confidence in his own abilities. So he knows his limits and is comfortable with his work ... or he declines to do the work in the first place because he would not be happy with the resultant repair. His efficiency is producing the result that his client is happiest with at a cost that both are happy with - the watch maker to provide his living and the client to retain or enhance his collection.

So, there are two different approaches yet both have the same ethos: to provide the client with a service that is warrantied, efficient and satisfies the client. While the guarantee of workmanship is comparable between the two approaches, the latter two are not. Both routes are efficient, but with regard to different parameters, and the true deciding factor is the satisfaction of the client.

I think that this is the point of the original question the thread raised: do we need to point out to the more casual forum user that the reason the "collector" advises against using Omega for servicing is their approach to using new parts over refurbishing original ones? And, that should be your deciding factor, along with cost, as to whether you choose to use Omega or not.

 

In my view your analogy fails right there. There is an assumption that doing something other than the route that Omega takes will somehow result in a lesser, more fragile, or more "risky" repair that would be unsatisfactory to the customer. That is really not the case, but even if it were, my view is the customer should be given the option.

Again it's not about skills or abilities, or even necessarily about the bean counters (you can charge appropriately for this work and I'm sure many here would pay accordingly), it's about the will of Omega to treat this brand in a way that values the brand's heritage the way collectors here do - they simply are not interested in doing it. Other watch companies do this every day, so unless you consider all Omega's watchmakers to be somehow inferior (I don't) then there is no reason at all they could not provide a "vintage collector's" service that allows the collector control over the repairs. But my feeling is they won't invest in what's needed to do this for a mid-level, mass market brand like Omega.

In particular since the vintage collectors here are most certainly not Omega's target demographic, as the CEO clearly explains here:

https://www.ft.com/content/8473f664-8954-11e6-8cb7-e7ada1d123b1

If you think about the current line up of new, large, shiny, and colourful watches as you read the article and quotes from Omega's current CEO, it will be clear they have no interest really in doing the sort of thoughtful restorations people here would approve of. The company is focused on a very different demographic than those who are typically interested in vintage watches, some watches the CEO describes as "crap." Not the kind of language that would make one hopeful that they will finally see the light with regards to their vintage watch servicing.

Cheers, Al

 

If I owned an all original, vintage Ford, Chevy, Toyota, whatever, I would never take it to a dealer for service. Who knows what I would get back. I seek out a vintage car service person and let them source original parts so my baby stays original.

 

I didn't intend what I wrote to come across like that (and I carefully proofread to try to make my point as clear as I could). The "risk" I'm talking about is the perceived, real or imaginary, risk from the corporate point of view. If a faulty or damaged widget is replaced by a new widget, then the "risk" is no more than it is with supplying a new SplurgeMeister. If the faulty or damaged widget is repaired then the calculation of the risk changes to include the human factor of the person making that repair. I did not intend to imply that a repair is any riskier than a replacement when made by someone who is expert in all things SplurgeMeister or widgety. Neither do I mean to question the ability of the person making the repair (in this case the employee of "large corporation", nor that a customer would have that perception, rather that the anonymous beancounters would.

And this is exactly the point I was trying to sum up with. Believe it or not, it's the same with transport - there are some true fruitcakes out there who will spend more time tracking down the right wing mirror mount for a 1994 Scania 143 as there are fru .. collectors on here who will track down just the right endpiece ... and pay as much.

Which brings me back to the point: we can't just say "don't use Omega", but rather say if you use the manufacturer's repair centre, they will replace your damaged, though original, widget with the current recommended replacement; while, if you want to keep the originality of the whole piece, your widget can be repaired and reinstalled ... and probably for less money. Now, if you have a 40 or 50 year old vintage SplurgeMeister, you are better off with the repair but if you have a SplurgeMeister 3 that is still in warranty but damaged accidentally, then you might prefer to use the manufacturer to ensure that the remaining warranty isn't invalidated; or, if it is just out of warranty but has no intrinsic value due to age you might want to stick with the manufacturer anyway .. just understand the choice.

 

I believe you have misinterpreted my response. I am talking about the ultimate risk from the company's point of view - it's only a risk to the company and only comes back if the customer is unhappy.

The fact is, there's always risk when you repair anything, and that includes a factory service center style repair where they go crazy replacing parts. If you read back a bit, I've already talked about unsatisfactory servicing from service centers so I won't rehash all that.

As much as you want to equate servicing a watch at a service center to "swapping parts" in a truck, it's actually a little more involved than that. This is more equivalent to repairing or replacing a specific part when doing an engine rebuild than it is to the example you have cited (when I used to do machinery rebuilds every part was looked at for the 3 R's - Reuse, Repair, or Replace). There is already a lot of skill involved in doing a service the way the factory does it (or rebuilding an engine), so the added skills involved in what we are talking about here are minimal. In fact some of it simply involves not doing some things, rather than doing them. Your analogy doesn't really translate that well to the level of skills for the "regular" repair and the "more involved" repair in a watchmaking sense.

And that is often stated when someone says "don't use Omega" on this forum. Certainly some simply state "Don't send it to Omega!" for the sake of brevity, but usually the person who was talking about sending it there will ask why, and it will be explained that the watch will likely lose it's vintage characteristics. I have never seen anyone refuse to answer that question when it was asked.

Cheers, Al