Never serviced after it left the factory.
All I'm saying is that, if you talk to 4 different watchmakers, and each one of them has a totally different view on a basic matter (servicing intervals), maybe there's not a higher truth, but it's more of a matter of opinions, based on experience ?
EDIT for full disclosure: I don't wind the vintage watches that I know haven't been serviced yet. I'm just thinking out loud on a forum as I still haven't formed an intelligent opinion about the matter.
There are certainly opinions that vary on when a watch should be serviced, but you have to take them in their appropriate context.
The key thing I've always said is that there is no single answer that is appropriate for every situation. My answer when someone asks me how often to service a watch is always "it depends."
For example would I advise servicing a Seiko 5 with a 7S26 movement in it? Not at all - let it run until it craps out, and replace the movement. It would make zero financial sense to service that movement in my view because replacement movements can be bought very cheaply (at least the last time I swapped one I suppose).
Would I apply that same logic to any highly collectible vintage watch where replacement parts are scarce? Hell no!
So the watch that was "never oiled" after leaving the factory, that your watchmaker said don't bother oiling...
It could be that this watch left the factory 4 years ago, so it's a relatively new watch, and he's not only put it on a timing machine, but has performed a detailed visual inspection under a microscope, and has determined the oils are fine, and it doesn't need service. In that case I would agree with him completely.
It could be that this is a vintage watch that had good amplitude on the timing machine, but was completely dry inside. If the watch has no real value, and is not worth the money put into servicing it, then he still may be right, at least from a monetary point of view if parts are readily available, and you don't really care that it will cost you a bit more when it does come time for service (presumably when it stops running).
It could be that you only plan to wear this watch once a year on a special occasion - if that's the case then you won't be doing a lot of extra damage, so service may not be needed right away.
So as you can see, there are a lot of circumstances that may lead a watchmaker to tell you not servicing it is fine, and they may not necessarily be contradictory to when a watchmaker may tell you a watch needs servicing before it's used. When people post statements made by their watchmaker without context, they are often misconstrued by people as the way forward for all situations. So your watchmaker telling you what he did may be perfectly sensible, or completely out to lunch - no way to know based on what you have shared with us about the watch, it's value, and how you plan to use it. Not picking on you here, just using your post as an example, as this sort of thing happens frequently on forums.
One thing that is for certain "not opinion" is physics, and that is what it at play when a watch runs dry. No amount of justifying in someone's head is going to change that fact that when the watch is running and it's dry, it will cause wear. Even then, if it's a modern watch and you plan on using the company service center to maintain it, then letting the watch run until it dies may make the most financial sense, because the service centers have a fixed price (with a lot built in to cover replacement parts if they are needed or not) so it likely won't cost you anything extra if you service it regularly, or run it until it stops.
So when you say this is a very basic matter, in terms of the physics of what will happen without service, you are completely correct. But taking in all the other factors that can affect the decision making process, it becomes a lot less clear. Again there is no one size fits all answer here....like many things in life.
Cheers, Al
