Recently I had to have my vintage IWC repaired. A serious flying injury, a "broken balance staff" apparently! it ultimately had to go back to the factory at Shaffhausen. I viewed it then, and still do so, as an example of restrictive practice by a Swiss manufacturer. I was told that IWC wouldn't supply the part to my watchmaker of choice. This meant that to have it repaired I would have to have the part machined or find a 60 year old spare in someone's saved parts box. No luck there. To machine it, I was reliably informed, would cost me far more than the Watch was worth, not just financially but also in that it would no longer be fully original, which to me is no better than it not working for a vintage piece like this. So off it went to IWC and 12 weeks later it came back refreshed and obviously at a cost much less than I was ever quoted for having the part machined and repaired in Australia. I just put it down to the cost of doing business with a 60 year old watch. I usually factor such things as service into a watch when buying, but rarely give much thought to a future repair. I will now though.
Anyway, would I have loved to have had it repaired by Nick Hacko or James Robinson or another of the half dozen horological master repairers here in Aust? Of course! No doubt about it! But the manufacturer had me by the short and curlies and that's where my mind had to follow. I understand that it is a choice though, but to maintain the integrity of the watch I had to choose a functioning original over a non- functioning or non-original watch. Not even my watchmaker begrudged me my choice in the end.
In the end, I didn't feel as though I was directly putting any watchmaker in Australia out of work, though indirectly I was participating. I did, and still do, feel an enforced collaboration with the dark side of uncomfortableness. But for me I couldn't see a satisfactory alternative.
I am not sure if this policy of restriction will work in the long term. I wonder if it won't aid other movement makers who will be grateful for the business that will be thrown their way. I doubt if The Swatch Group would care, really. Be careful here, hubris is a bitch. Still, Selitta must be Laughing all the way to the bank as the Swatch group of companies get out of movement parts market.
I hear that quality Chinese movements are already appearing onto the market? The SWIC and Sea-gull movements are improving in quality and heading for more expensive and complicated pieces. The Sea-Gull ST3600 movement, used in the M222s, is known to be very similar to the Unitas 6498, I believe.
I am sure That your average throw-away consumer doesn't give a toss if their Omega, Rolex, Longines or even their Fossil has an ETA, a Sea-gull, Selitta or Unitas movement. Omega obviously knows this and I suppose that's why the largest part of their catalogue is still devoted to Quartz watches. It's all about the image outside of a dedicated market of enthusiasts.
Gatorcpa has said it succinctly "this issue of "brand perception" is a red herring thrown out there by the watch companies to justify the restrictions"
Parts restriction can only ever be about revenue raising. They can't argue it's about quality if they aren't prepared to train and certify watch repairers who can then receive parts and repair their brands. I am sure watchmakers would be agreeable to follow such training regimes if they were offered. Wouldn't that be a win win for all?
The restrictive parts policy by Swiss watch companies effects all of us. I note that Offrei now includes a message in its web pages. Nick Hacko is not alone in bringing this to the attention of consumers and others.
http://www.ofrei.com/page1568.html
I can only say, be careful of biting the hand that feeds you Rolex, Swatch, IWC, et al.
Anyway just putting it out there as I have had 20 minutes to shoot. On my way to annoy my Omega service centre about why my expensive SMP is running -10 secs a day after 10 years without a service
😀
