les excuses sont faites pour s'en servir

 

Indeedy.

If the watchmaker can’t do the job or get any required parts, they shouldn’t take the job on…

 

In the picture of the timegrapher, the beat error is too high and the graph is not showing an average rate over 30 seconds (this is the standard) as it is clearly more than +1.5 seconds per day. Just at the end, it's close to zero so they are probably using a 2 second average. The Lift Angle is correct, though.

The picture with all the rates and amplitudes is all over the place and I would say some values are in the wrong rows looking at the amplitude values. Incidentally, Omega won't be asking for six position performance and this picture is inconsistent with the photograph if you think they used a 52 degree lift angle.

It doesn't seem very clear so, why not ask them if they would do the following:
Set the timegrapher to 30 seconds average and 40 degrees lift angle with chrono off.
Put the watch in each of the six positions and let the trace run completely across the screen - send a picture of each one (they can download directly from this machine to a stick so no camera is needed).
Do the above 30 minutes after winding fully and then repeat after the watch has rested for 24 hours.
Check the power reserve.
Afterwards, the performance should be tested with the chrono running but the above will tell you about the basic movement.

With those 12 pictures and the power reserve, it's possible to see more of what's going on.

Good luck, Chris

 

Thanks, Chris, that’s really helpful.

 

No, the answer is not legit. It's an easy answer - hey, the watch is old so we can't do anything about it! But that's just not true. I'd be willing to bet these timing results have very little to do with parts needing to be replaced. As Chris already mentioned, the numbers on that sheet don't make a lot of sense at all. I'm not sure why you think they have the wrong lift angle? I didn't see any lift angle mentioned there.

The beat error is also all over the place, which indicates an issue. Possibly endshake or sideshake in the escapement that's too large. The bizarre timekeeping could be to do with a loose roller, but again, anything is possible without seeing the watch. Point is, there are definitely issues that haven't been addressed.

 

He certainly did not get what he expected, or what he paid for. Yes, 321's are Switzerland only, and independent watchmakers have to source parts from the open market - but anybody that has the ability to look for those parts can get them. There aren't a handful of watchmakers that have a special network of people that can get those parts - anyone can. The problem with servicing any vintage chronograph isn't procuring parts, it's finding a watchmaker that knows how to service a vintage chronograph.

 

Thanks. Perfectly stated.

 

No need for me to pile on...it's obvious that it wasn't serviced well. M'Bob knows the answer to the question he is asking anyway...

 

Name them as a warning to others.

 

Parts nakes huge difference

 

@M'Bob in light of the replies in this thread, it looks like it is time to reveal the service center as a warning to others.....

@wrist time seems to be saying the same thing....
don't you think?

 

No, I won’t be doing that.

If anything productive comes of this thread, it will be educate people on how to navigate a similar situation should they find themselves in one, and perhaps to ask up front about what services are provided, what expectations can realistically be met, and what happens if they’re not.

 

I think this makes sense. May I ask what expectations you had and how you determined those?

As an example, did they say they would get your watch within the Omega specification or was it just that they were recommended so you thought they would work to a high standard?

If this thread helps others to agree expectations by asking some questions at the beginning then it seems a good idea.

Cheers, Chris

 

I've been saying here and elsewhere for a long time, that talking about expectations up front is the best way to go about it, but few people do it in my experience.

 

Agreed. Not to assume anything about the conversation between Bob and this “center”, but we all think we make our expectations clear “I want it serviced, no polishing”. But that can be very vague.
Before I knew to say “no polishing”, my watchmaker polished a couple of my watches. I told him “don’t polish them”, and the next one I gave him, he rebrushed the bracelet and case sides. When I picked it up I said “I told you not to polish it”, and he said “I didn’t, I just corrected the grain”
He knows now- don’t touch the finishes on the watch, just clean it and service the movement and replace any parts that are out of factory spec- and if you can’t get the parts, let me know and I will track them down.

 

To be honest, the group came so highly recommended that I felt, for instance, that it might be insulting to ask if they anticipated getting the watch to run within spec. Or, if they knew the correct lift angle to use. Which they apparently didn’t until I told them.

Bottom line: going forward, I will flesh out the answers to these, and other related questions, in the most diplomatic way I can.

 

The mechanical specs aren’t something you should have to furnish to a watchmaker- I would have assumed the same. Even if they didn’t “know”, the info is available via Google -which will take you to a thread here from 2017 which both you, Archer and many others discussed it in detail- yeah, I looked it up, they could have too.

 

Not to make too many assumptions here, but it very well may be the case that they didn't care about things like lift angle or factory timing specs. The number of "professional" watchmakers I see showing photos of watches on timing machines with the wrong lift angle, is somewhat astonishing. In many cases the default of 52 that most machines have isn't too far off, but for a watch like this one, it's really a long way off.

Recommendations are an interesting thing, and deserve to be taken with a grain of salt I suppose. For most people watch servicing is a bit of a black box, so you don't really know what sort of quality the work is being done to. So the best you have other than obvious visual clues is the watch performance. Problems will only be evident if the errors are egregious, the person who owns the watch bothers to check the rates, and cares that they are within spec. There are a large number of collectors who only wear a watch for a day at a time, and subsequently never really check the timekeeping in any way. To them, the job may have been done great, but in reality it's not so great...

I have customers who want the watch to be as close to spot on as possible, and others who would describe a minute off a day as "running okay." If the recommendations are coming from the customer who is second type, and you are the first type, there's gonna be a problem...

 

A theme is emerging here amongst our veteran watchmaker members and TBH, I agree with this general skepticism, it aligns with my experience.

How to vet a potential watchmaker ... should I start a new thread?

 

yes, please!!
i certainly want to know/learn.....