Just saw this on ABTW, and it seems to be a pretty big deal: http://www.ablogtowatch.com/rolex-5-year-warranty-all-new-watches-10-year-service-intervals/ Would love to hear what Al Archer has to say about the news. It doesn't seem like Rolex is doing any upgrades to the movements themselves, so extending warranties is great but the 10 year intervals between service seems like it could be problematic as components will have that much more time to wear down due to time, usage and lubricant disintegration, thus needing replacement.
The question that strikes me immediately is whether the lubricants are actually going to protect against wear for that full 10 years, or if Rolex are just willing to let those parts wear and replace more at each service given that the parts cost is insignificant to them anyway compared to the labour. Given the regular service is often the only time many owners have their seals changed I've got a feeling the number of "I paid $8000 for my Rolex and it leaked, my $80 G-Shock doesn't leak" posts will go up given that ADs are still utterly hopeless at advising owners of the importance of regular gasket changes to maintain WR.
The extended warranty thing has been floating around for a bit now - to me this is a logical move for Rolex to make since Omega now has 4 years warranty on the co-axial movements. Neither company is likely risking much really by extending the warranties. With regards to the service intervals, I have been pondering this rumour. I say rumour because until I see something from Rolex on this, I take it with a very large grain of salt. So I did see what is supposed to be an official letter from Rolex posted on TRF: http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=420425 If you read the key sentence: "The length of our service warranty will remain at two years. However the typical time frame between service intervals has grown to approximately ten years." So many have interpreted this to mean that they are recommending a 10 year service interval. I'm not so sure this is what that sentence really means. To me it looks more like an observation of what happens typically, and not really a recommendation. But having said that, we don't really know if Rolex has changed anything inside the watches - they are much less transparent about these things than say Omega is. If you think the 3135's rolling off the assembly line today are the same as they first were in 1988, well that just isn't the case. Upgrades are made often behind the scenes where no one sees them. Who knows what changes in lubrication, or materials, or heat treatment might have been made on these movements. Now do I really think there has been some change that allows the watches to now somehow run 10 years without service and no damage is done? Not a chance. In my view when you take any watch to the brand for service, they charge you for replacing a lot of parts that may not really need it. Now maybe those parts will actually need replacing if you let the watch run 10 years. To Rolex, those parts are dirt cheap, so replacing a few extra parts is not a big deal to them. In my view even if this is their new recommendation (and I highly doubt it is right now) this is not some giant leap forward in a technical sense, just a change of philosophy. To me if they do recommend 10 year service intervals, it's just reflecting what people actually do now. So that's my take on it based on what I know right now - subject to change of course if new facts become available. Cheers, Al