Great Grandfather’s Vintage Gold Omega Watch

Posts
29,252
Likes
75,650
I know what both he and I are entitled to thanks, so don't need lectures on it from you...

I don't agree with this policy. The parts removed from a watch are the property of the watch owner. If there is a requirement to send the parts back to the brand to get a new part, so be it - that is unavoidable. Otherwise in my view, they should be returned to their rightful owner, even if it seems an inconvenience to the watchmaker.
 
Posts
365
Likes
1,079
Well you might not like it, and nobody is saying you have to adopt it. The beauty of a free world. Because 90% of his work is Rolex, perhaps he has it as a standard rule across his workshop. It might make life easier. Perhaps if the customers asks for the parts back, he would give them back, who knows. You don’t seem to agree with his policy, you think it’s nonsense. Your entitled to that right. Just like he’s entitled to his right to have a policy that he sets in his business. It was implied in the thread that such a policy could mean unscrupulous business practices going on. I’m helping to set the record straight. He’s a great watchmaker, a very helpful guy, and an asset to the horological community. Any customer sending their watch to him should be happy with their choice and be confident they are getting a very high level of service.


The "right" to adopt and enforce a business practice does not equal the right to avoid community discussion or criticism of said policy. That is also "the beauty of a free world." There are great watchmakers with terrible business practices; both things can be true at the same time.