Not sure what you mean. The set price often works to the advantage of watch owners who let their watches run until there's a problem, because not matter how worn the parts are inside, they all get covered under the set price.
This is specifically what I’m referring to. Think you’ve implied the same in the past too, but I feel like paying to service the watch through Omega every 5 years rather than 10+ years on average is much more expensive. Results would be different if going with a good watchmaker that can only target necessary components
Not sure what you mean. The set price often works to the advantage of watch owners who let their watches run until there's a problem, because not matter how worn the parts are inside, they all get covered under the set price.
Regarding set pricing structures.
I see that IWC claim it costs them more to service a watch than they charge.
I know it's understandably somewhat short on specifics, bordering on commercial in confidence and seems like sweeping generalisations are applied.
Interestingly they advocate for a minor service primarily covering the Escapement and Seals but listing 8 points they cover every 2 years or so and a major service which includes 16 points every 5 years.
It seems to be in line with service schedules which are routinely applied by automotive manufacturers with an alternating between minor or major service.
Any thoughts Al?
I don’t know what IWC charges for a service, but brands will generally win some and lose some in servicing with a flat rate. Is servicing truly a loss? I doubt it, but you can manipulate cost structures to make the numbers say so if you want in a corporate setting.
I don’t think brands and the big conglomerates would be moving more and more to servicing all watches themselves, if they were truly loosing money at it. Richemont, who owns IWC, is incredibly restrictive with parts access, making Swatch and Rolex look generous. Why would Rolex closeall parts accounts for independent watchmakers, if bring all that business into their own already swamped service centres leads to even more loss? Can’t say I believe it.
Some brands do call for more frequent partial services between the regular servicing. In today’s context of extended service intervals, it seems out of touch to expect customers to send you their watches every 2 years. If a brand can’t figure out how to make a watch last more than 2 years between interventions, that seems like a red flag to me. The fact that they talk about the escapement is interesting, as I’m not sure why that would need attention after just 2 years...odd...
This is an academic question for the time being, as I bought my Seamaster 300M brand new around a month ago, but I am intrigued to know when I will know that it needs servicing?
The AD told me it won’t need servicing for around 10 years. Do I just go by that date or will there be something obvious that will inform me otherwise?
Also, what factors will bring forward or extend the interval? Will wearing it more be better or worse for the watch, servicing wise?
I don’t know what IWC charges for a service, but brands will generally win some and lose some in servicing with a flat rate. Is servicing truly a loss? I doubt it, but you can manipulate cost structures to make the numbers say so if you want in a corporate setting.
I don’t think brands and the big conglomerates would be moving more and more to servicing all watches themselves, if they were truly loosing money at it. Richemont, who owns IWC, is incredibly restrictive with parts access, making Swatch and Rolex look generous. Why would Rolex closeall parts accounts for independent watchmakers, if bring all that business into their own already swamped service centres leads to even more loss? Can’t say I believe it.
Some brands do call for more frequent partial services between the regular servicing. In today’s context of extended service intervals, it seems out of touch to expect customers to send you their watches every 2 years. If a brand can’t figure out how to make a watch last more than 2 years between interventions, that seems like a red flag to me. The fact that they talk about the escapement is interesting, as I’m not sure why that would need attention after just 2 years...odd...
I'm new to mechanical watches & have A Zodiac Super Sea Wolf & a Speedmaster, the Zodiac says service every 2 years, but the Omega (3861) says 5 years. Online advice says 2-5yrs & 5-10yrs respectively. Both watches only get worn evenings /weekends at most, as I'm in construction. Regardless of wear time, what would you say was an advisable time to get a watch serviced?... Thanks.
I'm new to mechanical watches & have A Zodiac Super Sea Wolf & a Speedmaster, the Zodiac says service every 2 years, but the Omega (3861) says 5 years. Online advice says 2-5yrs & 5-10yrs respectively. Both watches only get worn evenings /weekends at most, as I'm in construction. Regardless of wear time, what would you say was an advisable time to get a watch serviced?... Thanks.
That's a bit of a hard one and I understand your conundrum👎
To be respectfull of the watches, I might be inclined to not let a service go beyond the 10 year mark on any of them given your usage pattern. The only condition I would be mindful of which would override that time frame would be if the timekeeping starts to go off or something else mechanical manifests.
That gets the movement out of the way👍
Now one needs to factor in deterorating seals and gaskets👎
Maybe you could pressure test them at the 5-7 year mark and yearly after that to give you some piece of mind until a proper service can be done.
Just throwing some numbers and scenarios at it👍
Omega's recommended service interval is from 5-8 years...
Regardless of the use, oils will dry up eventually, so I wouldn't stray too far outside this recommendation if you are concerned about wear. But again, go back and read my posts on page 1 for more information.
