Nick Hacko rant about Swiss watch companies not selling parts to independent watchmakers

watchtinker · Jul 18, 2015

Fritz
... I can say it wouldn't be worth it for any but the most expensive or rare pieces. The tech will get cheaper but equipment that capable will never be that inexpensive.

Rebuilding parts is done and has been done in the past for high-end and museum pieces (see the restoration carried out for the Harrison's marine timekeepers in Greenwich or for some Breguet timepieces).
However, I doubt that this will ever be done for commercial products as Rolex or Omega wristwatches.

dsio · Jul 18, 2015

watchtinker
Rebuilding parts is done and has been done in the past for high-end and museum pieces (see the restoration carried out for the Harrison's marine timekeepers in Greenwich or for some Breguet timepieces).
However, I doubt that this will ever be done for commercial products as Rolex or Omega wristwatches.

Omega's CEO recently commented that Bienne had no limit on age of pieces they'd service and would restore anything, and if no parts were available they would have them made, with the exception of the 70s / 80s electronic watches which simply can't have their complicated PCBs replicated reasonably.

CanberraOmega · Jul 18, 2015

It is this sort of stuff that makes me question buying a Rolex. A Pepsi or Coke has been on my shortlist for a while, but with this c🤬p, I'm not sure if it is worth it.

ulackfocus · Jul 18, 2015

CanberraOmega
It is this sort of stuff that makes me question buying a Rolex. A Pepsi or Coke has been on my shortlist for a while, but with this c🤬p, I'm not sure if it is worth it.

Daniel, it's not JUST Rolex. Most of the other brands have similar, if not identical, practices.

g-boac · Jul 19, 2015

dsio
Omega's CEO recently commented that Bienne had no limit on age of pieces they'd service and would restore anything, and if no parts were available they would have them made, with the exception of the 70s / 80s electronic watches which simply can't have their complicated PCBs replicated reasonably.

Ash - can you elaborate please, or provide a link to that discussion? That would be wonderful if plays out that way, but I prefer genuine parts being available locally.

watchtinker · Jul 19, 2015

g-boac
Ash - can you elaborate please, or provide a link to that discussion? That would be wonderful if plays out that way, but I prefer genuine parts being available locally.

Just send an extremely rare 2468 to Bienne, as a customer of mine did a few months ago, and see what you get back.

dsio · Jul 19, 2015

g-boac
Ash - can you elaborate please, or provide a link to that discussion? That would be wonderful if plays out that way, but I prefer genuine parts being available locally.

This is the article:

http://timeandtidewatches.com/interview-stephen-urquhart-president-omega-part-2/

Will Omega protect and cater to the enthusiasts restoring vintage, genuine vintage pieces by maintaining their access to genuine vintage parts?

Absolutely. You have no idea, as the brand gets stronger, which it is every day, the amount of watches that we get in. You could call them vintage, they wouldn’t necessarily be sold in a Christies auction maybe tomorrow but they are watches of the 50s and 60s, and if we do not have the part we can make it. And just a fun little story I’d like to tell you which is true, the only watches that today we sometimes have to say I’m sorry we cannot repair are certain Quartz watches between ’72 and ’88. You cannot repair them. Because the parts do not exist and you cannot just make a new, individual circuit like that, just one piece. It shows the whole reason why mechanical watches have come back so strongly. You can repair a watch from 1920 and make it work beautifully but you cannot repair a watch from 1980.

davidswiss · Jul 19, 2015

dsio
Omega's CEO recently commented that Bienne had no limit on age of pieces they'd service and would restore anything, and if no parts were available they would have them made, with the exception of the 70s / 80s electronic watches which simply can't have their complicated PCBs replicated reasonably.

That's good to read it shows a real commitment to their products. I was starting to get a bit depressed after reading some of the comments.

Nobel Prize · Jul 19, 2015

Just to play Devils advocate, we all want a brand that is cohesive strong and has strict quality controls that justify it's elitist price point and expectations...but once we have it we want it to be able to be maintained at a super market.

I know that is extreme as a statement, and no disrespect to watch makers and professionals. I too like to have my watches serviced by preferred professional, but there is a line to be drawn somewhere.

Reading the article of course it seems stupid that you can't get a screw for a bracelet in Australia and would have to ship your watch....but where is the line? When you buy a rolex wouldn't you want to know that only Rolex ( or any other brand) has dealt with it or a brand certified watchmaker? At a micro level it seems an easy call. Certify watch makers and ship only to them. At a Macro level there it's not as easy to implement and guarantee work that would not deteriorate brand value.

It's not an easy proposition. Obviously the Australian issue is extreme....but would watch makers have to travel to Brienne to certify and then Re certify each time there's need to? Or should rolex have to spend millions to setup shop there? I'm not saying one or the other is the solution, but perhaps if we think for a second on the brand position instead of the end user we can have a more two sided conversation.

The VERY irritating and constant "I'm not stupid, I'm smart, I qualify " commentary on the writing is not only childish and typically filled with insecurity and paranoia, but it fails to acknowledge this is not about him. Because there are indeed some stupid, unqualified, not so smart people around and perhaps these brands don't want to take the time to sort them out.

Does it suck? Yes. But if you owned a brand of high end products and had the option to limit and channel service, improvements and brand awareness as well as increase your profit would you? Probably yes, it seems like good business.

There is a thread around about an Omega sold in a Vegas jewelery with marks and pitting in the bracelet screws. Now, what of that is the case everywhere with these brands? Wouldn't that deteriorate the quality perception of the general public? Not hobbyists, or collectors or aficionados that know better...but the general public that wants to know why their brand new omega looks worse than a seiko, or that want to understand the meaning of exclusivity, quality and quality control linked to price point.

Sgt_Bilko · Jul 19, 2015

Practically the entire Swiss watch industry sells the idea that their watches are steeped in tradition with a rich history of craftsmanship. Some even advertise how they can be handed on to the next generation.

We all understand that prestige watch manufacturers need to sell new watches but if they brush aside the tacit understanding that expensive mechanical watches can be sensibly maintained and worn for a lifetime they are really shooting themselves in the foot. I have a Seiko quartz in another room that has worked flawlessly now for almost 20 years; requiring zero maintenance beyond an occasional new battery and it may run another 20 years, yet I would consider this a disposable watch that wasn't worth repairing if it went wrong. Would I really want to spend £3000+ on a new Omega if the life expectancy was no more than a £70 Seiko, even with regular servicing costing many times more than the Seiko?

The cost of servicing has already rendered some lower end vintage watches obsolete but when it starts affecting more expensive watches there are going to be some very vocal upset customers and they won't feel like spending thousands on a new Rolex or Omega if they feel exploited. More to the point it will discourage others from buying new watches from the same brand. I have around 40 vintage watches including just one IWC. I won't buy another IWC (new or vintage) because they have made the availability of parts a nightmare.

Nobel Prize · Jul 19, 2015

There's a balance three somewhere. I personally don't concern myself too much. I'll enjoy the watch and if in 20 years I can't service it I'll find something else to enjoy. 20 years is not a bad deal

Sgt_Bilko · Jul 19, 2015

Nobel Prize
There's a balance three somewhere. I personally don't concern myself too much. I'll enjoy the watch and if in 20 years I can't service it I'll find something else to enjoy. 20 years is not a bad deal

If I was buying something like a mid level Tissot or a Mido I would agree that 20 years is acceptable for most people but if the watch was an Omega Constellation I'd expect a lot more.

Nobel Prize · Jul 19, 2015

And you'll probably get a lot more.

watchyouwant · Jul 19, 2015

wherever there is a market, generic parts will be manufactured. that happens for many years now regarding rolex chronographs ( special coloured wheels for valjoux 72...) and 321 parts as well. they keep our collectors watches ticking and that will increase because of the manufacturers behaviour. all you need is one sample and out come a few hundreds. you sell 50 or even less and have your costs recovered. and the rest is for everybody to buy on ebay.... all good; nobody will notice, once they are installed and have the right finish. life gets more complicated, but solutions will be found. kind regards. achim

Nobel Prize · Jul 19, 2015

watchyouwant
wherever there is a market, generic parts will be manufactured. that happens for many years now regarding rolex chronographs ( special coloured wheels for valjoux 72...) and 321 parts as well. they keep our collectors watches ticking and that will increase because of the manufacturers behaviour. all you need is one sample and out come a few hundreds. you sell 50 or even less and have your costs recovered. and the rest is for everybody to buy on ebay.... all good; nobody will notice, once they are installed and have the right finish. life gets more complicated, but solutions will be found. kind regards. achim

Exactly...or...you can be very dramatic and not buy a watch you like in case 20 years from now you need to change a screw that you may have to actually ask a service center for, or maybe just pick up on the market.

And in the meantime you won't enjoy a great watch.

Archer · Jul 22, 2015

D david_watch
However, with the small size of these parts, a 3D printer and a tech savvy watchmaker may in the future be the way vintage watches are fixed.

Just thinking.

I see this stated often as the way things will be fixed in the future, but it shows a real lack of understanding of what goes into a typical watch part. That's not a criticism of you, as you would not be expected to know what is involved in making a watch part, but these parts are often far more complex than people think.

Fritz
Only if you have the skills to measure out the old part, straighten it, add in the worn away material. generate a 3D model and print it.

Assuming you have a printer thats accurate to less than 0.001" and prints in metal.....

Add to this list things like being able to print in the right metal. Not just some random metal, but a specific alloy that has specific properties. Those could be about thermal expansion, or the ability to be hardened, etc. Then talk about the finishing of the parts - not decorative finishes, but finishes that are functional like a properly polished/burnished pivot. Some times functional properties are inherent due to the method of manufacture of the part - use a different method and you get different properties.

If you take something like a balance complete, often considered by some as "one part" it is an assembly made up of many parts. The balance wheel, possibly balance wheel screws, balance staff, roller table, impulse pin (roller jewel), collet, maybe a collet pin, balance spring, balance spring stud and maybe a pin there as well. This "one part" is a complex assembly made of many different materials with all kinds of different and important properties. Most people here have no clue how much work is involved in just replacing a balance staff, and making all these parts, fine tuning them, and assembling it to a working unit is orders of magnitude more complex than that.

Not saying that 3D printed parts will never happen, but they will not be the cure-all that many people dream they will be. If they are commonly used in the future, they will be for the most simple of parts, and will likely require a lot of hand work after printing (so post processing work) to make them functional.

Cheers, Al

Archer · Jul 22, 2015

Nobel Prize
Just to play Devils advocate, we all want a brand that is cohesive strong and has strict quality controls that justify it's elitist price point and expectations...but once we have it we want it to be able to be maintained at a super market.

I know that is extreme as a statement, and no disrespect to watch makers and professionals. I too like to have my watches serviced by preferred professional, but there is a line to be drawn somewhere.

My feelings on this change from time to time. Part of me says the brands should supply parts to whoever wants to buy them (the way things used to be years ago essentially) and the market will sort out who is the successful watch service provider and who is not. I would support that model personally, but I doubt we are ever going back there.

Another part of me sees all the hack work done by other "watchmakers" that I have to fix and poor practices shown on line by places people adore for their servicing needs, and I get angry that people are taking short cuts. One example is a message board of watchmakers I belong to - someone very recently complained that when they did a repair on a Rolex, they found that buying the parts from Cousins was going to cost them about twice what the parts would have cost from Rolex, and they had not put that in their quote. Rather than eating it and doing the job correctly, which would have cost them an extra $50 on the job, they modified a part to remove the worn section of a pivot, installed a smaller jewel, and then basically boasted about it (and complained about parts at the same time) on this message board. Someone called them on leaving a mess for the next watchmaker who will service the watch, and they were berated by others who blame Rolex and defend this hack watchmaker.

Well yes Rolex could be blamed I guess because they don't sell parts directly for less money than what Cousins charges, but honestly this guy fecked up on his estimate and rather then do the right thing, he's doing what I consider to be a hack repair since he didn't want to make $50 less on this job. This one example is not about lack of parts, but greed. Greed on the part of a watchmaker who didn't want to pay for his error when he did the quote. Sometimes watchmakers are our own worst enemy, and yes the brands follow the posts on that board (and others to be sure), and now have more ammunition for restricting parts to hacks like this guy.

The greed here goes both ways - these brands are all corporations, and their only purpose for being is to make money for shareholders. And the Rolex guys can spare me the charitable trust speech - this is a for profit corporation owned by a charitable trust so the profit motive is alive and well at Rolex no doubt.

Cheers, Al

Nobel Prize · Jul 22, 2015

Archer
Another part of me sees all the hack work done by other "watchmakers" that I have to fix and poor practices shown on line by places people adore for their servicing needs, and I get angry that people are taking short cuts. One example is a message board of watchmakers I belong to - someone very recently complained that when they did a repair on a Rolex, they found that buying the parts from Cousins was going to cost them about twice what the parts would have cost from Rolex, and they had not put that in their quote. Rather than eating it and doing the job correctly, which would have cost them an extra $50 on the job, they modified a part to remove the worn section of a pivot, installed a smaller jewel, and then basically boasted about it (and complained about parts at the same time) on this message board. Someone called them on leaving a mess for the next watchmaker who will service the watch, and they were berated by others who blame Rolex and defend this hack watchmaker.

Well yes Rolex could be blamed I guess because they don't sell parts directly for less money than what Cousins charges, but honestly this guy fecked up on his estimate and rather then do the right thing, he's doing what I consider to be a hack repair since he didn't want to make $50 less on this job. This one example is not about lack of parts, but greed. Greed on the part of a watchmaker who didn't want to pay for his error when he did the quote. Sometimes watchmakers are our own worst enemy, and yes the brands follow the posts on that board (and others to be sure), and now have more ammunition for restricting parts to hacks like this guy.

Great insight, as always. And herein lyes the paradox. Because imagine 5 or 10 or a hundred of these hack jobs and then imagine a number of Rolex, or Omega or whatever brand performing poorly as a result. Not keeping time well....loosing hands...not having the proper sealing and getting water damaged at 5 meters when it's supposed to go down to 1000 m etc....and before you know it that brand is no longer reliable, no longer great, everyone will "know" there are mechanical and structural issues with this or that line of watches...and then the brands are left on the defensive trying to explain unreliable or unscrupulous watchmakers did not follow protocol or did a poor job. But they will be on the defensive which is not the right place to be on a marketing battle and the damage will be incremental as other brands and brand ambassadors repeat the legend in order to promote their own brands over Omega, Rolex etc. People will no longer accept the premium and cost of the brand, because they will no longer trust it's performance...OR...you limit who, why and when your product is services by, touched by or tampered by, and yes, you piss of a few people that have the legitimate frustration of not being able to get a screw for their bracelet etc, but, if anything, you increase the perception of unparalleled quality and performance because those that buy your brand or desire your brand will do so precisely because there is a sort of guarantee of quality, service, performance and maintenance.

When you take a Rolex to the Rolex center here in New york, even if it's just to get it certified or re-sized they look at it thoroughly, seek the service history and will even tell you if the spring bars holding your bracelet are genuine or original. I know if my watch goes in there when it comes out I have a complete idea of what it is....do I want a 40 year old vintage watch re-dialed by them? no. looked at? yes.

Archer · Jul 22, 2015

Nobel Prize
Great insight, as always. And herein lyes the paradox. Because imagine 5 or 10 or a hundred of these hack jobs and then imagine a number of Rolex, or Omega or whatever brand performing poorly as a result. Not keeping time well....loosing hands...not having the proper sealing and getting water damaged at 5 meters when it's supposed to go down to 1000 m etc....and before you know it that brand is no longer reliable, no longer great, everyone will "know" there are mechanical and structural issues with this or that line of watches...and then the brands are left on the defensive trying to explain unreliable or unscrupulous watchmakers did not follow protocol or did a poor job. But they will be on the defensive which is not the right place to be on a marketing battle and the damage will be incremental as other brands and brand ambassadors repeat the legend in order to promote their own brands over Omega, Rolex etc. People will no longer accept the premium and cost of the brand, because they will no longer trust it's performance...OR...you limit who, why and when your product is services by, touched by or tampered by, and yes, you piss of a few people that have the legitimate frustration of not being able to get a screw for their bracelet etc, but, if anything, you increase the perception of unparalleled quality and performance because those that buy your brand or desire your brand will do so precisely because there is a sort of guarantee of quality, service, performance and maintenance.

If the brands were any more competent at servicing watches, I would probably be more inclined to agree with the basis of your thoughts here, but there is ample evidence they are not.

Rolex does a decent job, but not without issues for sure. The others are not all that good at all. Some of the hack work I have repaired has come from the brand service centers here people have sent the watch to me to fix the problems the brand created after several attempts to get the brand to do it right.

So you have basically summarized the reasoning these brands give for cutting off parts. So the question is, has this solved the problem of hack work being done on watches, or has it made the situation worse? Do you think the hacks will stop hacking just because they can't get genuine parts?

People throw around various ideas of how watches will be serviced in the future, including things like 3D printing and generic parts. I have seen generic parts that were virtually indistinguishable from the originals, and I have seen generic parts that in no way would I put inside a watch movement I was working on. Which ones do you think the hacks are going to choose? The cheap crappy parts, or the good quality and expensive parts? The guy I described above apparently used to work for VC, so has pretty decent watchmaking credentials...

There is no simple answer here.

Cheers, Al

Nobel Prize · Jul 22, 2015

Archer
If the brands were any more competent at servicing watches, I would probably be more inclined to agree with the basis of your thoughts here, but there is ample evidence they are not.

Rolex does a decent job, but not without issues for sure. The others are not all that good at all. Some of the hack work I have repaired has come from the brand service centers here people have sent the watch to me to fix the problems the brand created after several attempts to get the brand to do it right.

So you have basically summarized the reasoning these brands give for cutting off parts. So the question is, has this solved the problem of hack work being done on watches, or has it made the situation worse? Do you think the hacks will stop hacking just because they can't get genuine parts?

People throw around various ideas of how watches will be serviced in the future, including things like 3D printing and generic parts. I have seen generic parts that were virtually indistinguishable from the originals, and I have seen generic parts that in no way would I put inside a watch movement I was working on. Which ones do you think the hacks are going to choose? The cheap crappy parts, or the good quality and expensive parts? The guy I described above apparently used to work for VC, so has pretty decent watchmaking credentials...

There is no simple answer here.

Cheers, Al

For sure, no simple answer, and you bring the conversation into a deeper and related issue, that of quality control and performance and individual skill (or lack there-off) versus policy.

Will this system avoid hacks? no, but at least the brands can say: "if a third party hacked it, you got what you paid for, if we hacked it then we are responsible (as repairs are normally under warranty) it's not a matter of avoiding 100% of the errors, it's about owning ONLY those errors committed by the brand itself.

I do agree that if one is going to take that high road then one better improve on quality system and training of their technicians, but that is a separate issue from the need to protect the work done and the brand perception which is linked to performance. In other words, just because some technicians still may not do a good job on the repair does not discount a need to police and control the process from the brand perspective....I would argue that it could suffice to get certification to some watchmakers (as you have it for Omega) and impose performance records linked to any watch touched by that technician...in other words, consolidate a service history and if one or two or ten guys always create errors they get de-certified...but that's one option and a large brand may just wonder why go through the added work and cost if they can just limit service to in-house techs.

So I would take the individual out of the equation for now...on that, alone, i understand the policy...add great watchmakers that cannot go to a certification center for whatever reasons and be certified and crappy ones that can get certified but then look for solutions like you mentioned and those are the unfortunate exceptions to the rule.

Nick Hacko rant about Swiss watch companies not selling parts to independent watchmakers

watchtinker

dsio

CanberraOmega

ulackfocus

g-boac

watchtinker

dsio

davidswiss

Nobel Prize

Sgt_Bilko

Nobel Prize

Sgt_Bilko

Nobel Prize

watchyouwant

Nobel Prize

Archer

Archer

Nobel Prize

Archer

Nobel Prize

Similar threads

Interesting Ebay's seller rant about being shortchanged with the payment method Pay

Broken part or just patina :) Small rant about the used parts market

Blue dials, what do you know about them? (not selling my watch!)

Nick Hacko needs watchmakers.

Norman Snubbed by a Swiss Watch Company ;)