I agree. I think many people do not service their watch until they experience an issue with timekeeping. That type of thinking can get dicey pretty quickly with vintage watches.

 

my watchmaker always says to not service watches for the hell of it
he looks at it and puts it on the machine and decides from there!

 

Try running your Toyota for 10 years without service...

 

I finally made my way through this thread, and the viewpoints are more diverse than I expected. Really interesting reading. Personally, I don't mind buying an unserviced watch, since then I am aware of its need for servicing, and I can have it serviced by a specific watchmaker that I trust. If a stranger advertises a watch as serviced, it may or may not be true, and even if it was serviced, it may have been serviced by a hack.

For context, I currently own roughly 50 vintage wristwatches (not including parts watches and PWs that are mainly display pieces), and I am aware of the service history of all but three of them. That means that I have either had them serviced myself, or I have very convincing evidence from the previous owner, and all have been serviced within the past 8 years, most within 5 years. The three outliers are watches that I have not really committed to keeping, although in one case I have already kept it long enough that I should probably face the facts. It is just my personality to want to maintain mechanical things properly (maybe it's an occupational hazard as a scientist/engineer). I enjoy knowing that my watches are serviced, and it's worth the expense ... to me. But I would not judge anyone for feeling or doing differently. Since I rotate through my watches, each one doesn't really experience a lot of wear and tear, so one might argue that I have overly invested in servicing them. But that's my comfort zone.

I will add one more point here, which actually seems at odds with my comments above. The worst things that have ever happened to my watches have happened during a service. Minor things have occasionally been broken or lost. Sometimes these things just happen because old watches are delicate, e.g. some lume may fall out of old hands or be lost from a plot on a dial. On a few occasions, the watch seemed to be fully functional before a service, and a watchmaker had a great deal of trouble getting it back into that same functional state after a service. On a couple of occasions, the watch never really worked perfectly again, despite multiple attempts, and I ended up selling them as needing repair. I am currently dealing with a situation like that right now, where one watchmaker that I use is really struggling to get a particular chronograph function to work right, and he has had the watch for a year. I have no doubt that these watches are cleaner and better lubricated than before their service, but they are definitely less collectible. This is painful when it happens, but I try to roll with the punches.

 

Take a look at most Toyota trucks in 3rd world countries...those things aren’t being serviced by dealers.

 

ah! the old adage surfaces!

 

Or this one:

 

Sure works for Seikos and Citizens...

 

Not by dealers, but someone is doing service.

 

I have to second all @Dan S ’s observations.

I currently have about 50 vintage wristwatches. All the valuable ones have been serviced in the past five years, most of them in the past year. When I buy a watch, I assume I’ll have it serviced. Some of them have had to be serviced because the trauma of international shipping threw them out of adjustment, including one that came with a recent Simon Freese invoice.

I also have about 40 vintage pocket watches. None of them have been serviced in the last twenty years. But none of them have been wound more than once or twice in that time frame. (Other than this one, which I sometimes carry and recently had serviced

(I’m adding these photos to overcome the OF prohibition against threads with insufficient watch photos.)



Anything I’m going to wear more than once a year will be serviced. @Archer ’s comments and photos are so true, but ought to be obvious to all of us. These are mechanical things. There’s no mystery to this.

For me too, sadly, the vast majority of damage done to watches in my care has come from watchmakers, including reputable, long time, experienced ones. Glue on a pocket watch dial, a redial without notice, chronograph registers that don’t work properly, wrong crystals, marks on movements etc etc. And some watches never recover from their servicing. Still, a watch that’s worn will be serviced.

I respect vintage things, particularly those that are uncommon or notable. It’s not that I respect the object, per se, but that I respect what that object represents. That respect is part of what causes me to want to help preserve them for subsequent generations. Yes, I possess some watches that I elect to ‘consume’, to wear regularly and place at risk. But others, I’m trying to preserve them, although I might wear them twenty times in a year.

 

Yes, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it." I understand that philosophy.

But in this context, I'm not willing to do the experiment to see how much damage will occur in the long run if I don't service my "unbroken" watches. Common sense tells me that they will inevitably suffer.

 

DUDE!!!! WTF are you doing bringing COMMON SENSE talk on the internet! Are you nuts? THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THAT KIND OF THING!

 

Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking.

 

Some people take shit way too literally.

Watch the episode of Top Gear about killing a Toyota Hilux...

 

If a good watchmaker has looked over a watch properly, I think that is better than simply saying "keeps good time...". I've taken a purchase to a trusted watchmaker who opened it up, took a quick inspection, put it on his timing machine and confirmed that the amplitude was good. In no way was he certifying it as not needing a service, but it made me feel better wearing it for a few years before getting it serviced.

I think the dilemma is in the big differences between watchmakers and not knowing what level of watchmaker it was nor how thorough they are.

 

That hits close to home... I'm definitely in the 'Oh shiny' phase.

 

This also sounds like what I'm starting to do...

 

Au contraire! I've purchased several vintage watches lately and none were serviced. It didn't stop me from buying them.

I love many of the watches you share here on OF and on IG, the only factor that would keep me from buying a watch from you is that they are generally smaller than I like to wear (I prefer >37mm...). I know my preference is sacrilege to many on OF, but it is what is is...

This kind of comment (if made) would make me feel a little better. It at least shows the seller has made some effort to ensure any winding/wearing of the watch didn't cause any obvious damage. (and yes, I know many watch issues are not 'obvious'...)

Yes, this mindset is what I've noticed more and more. I was under the impression that generally accepted best-practice was to have vintage watches serviced if they were intended to be worn. As I've been buying several vintage, the upcoming service costs are stacking up and I had assumed everyone would simply expect that I bite the bullet and pay the price. I'm now realizing that what I assumed was 'best-practice' isn't so 'generally accepted' after all.

At the point someone decides to sell a watch, I fully understand not getting it serviced first. The reason for this thread was how frequently I've noticed people sell a watch they've had for many years without servicing. Now, if they admitted they bought with the intent of flipping, I would understand why they hadn't serviced it. However, the 'FS' post often starts by claiming something like "hate to sell this one..." or "never thought I'd sell..." and then going on to admit say they "had it for 'x' years..." (ie: longer than 2..) and at the same time "never had it serviced...".

Fair points indeed.

 

I had not realized how prevalent this mindset was in the veteran OF community. I wasn't aware of this mindset before, but the many responses similar to yours make me realize a different point of view.

 

I would like to say I would be willing to pay more for a trustworthy serviced watch, but after having a few serviced and knowing the total cost (purchase + service) I realize I tend to want to pay the lesser amount regardless of service history.

I agree, an honest and fully disclosed FS post makes any situation okay. What I didn't understand before reading the responses to this thread was that the triple combination could be true whereby: 1. owned for many years 2. never had it serviced and 3. didn't plan to sell.

Understood and agree.

Hear hear! ... and thanks for the dump, made perfect sense to me!