Thanks for your respected input and yes I do understand this. I personally am of the opinion that a modern gasket that must be EPDM or similar should last 10 years yes. The fact that it has now passed to 300m gives some reassurance that it should be ok for another couple of years or so at minimal free diving depths. I'll probably look to get it re-tested next year.
My 2500C is 11 years old this year, It's only been serviced once. I had it serviced at Omega about 6 or 7 years ago, when the full service was still 拢300GB. It's running great at the moment, do I really have to send back again now do we think, It doesn't see much water at all, if that's a factor, but in your professional opinion, is it long overdue now, despite that one service?
watches? Nothing.
So the watches went one day from needing service every 4 to 5 years, to the next day miraculously only needing service every 5 to 8 years.
It's very possible I'm missing a nuance here, nonetheless: for the sake of argument, let's say a company is accumulating data on wear patterns of parts, and how that relates to service intervals. At a certain juncture, if they feel they would have enough evidence to make a policy change, why, theoretically, would they have to change the watches to change the policy?
Here's what Omega says now...
Here's what Omega said last fall, before they announced the change in warranty to 5 years...
What changed about the actual watches? Nothing.
So the watches went one day from needing service every 4 to 5 years, to the next day miraculously only needing service every 5 to 8 years.
What is really needed? Based on this, your guess is as good as mine. In my experience, going past 7 years is certainly risking damage to parts, and in fact I've seen 5 year old PO's that the movements was completely messed up inside. Now does that mean you should service it? It depends on what you value and when you consider the "need" for service to be.
Simple question...complex answer...
Here's what Omega says now...
Here's what Omega said last fall, before they announced the change in warranty to 5 years...
What changed about the actual watches? Nothing.
So the watches went one day from needing service every 4 to 5 years, to the next day miraculously only needing service every 5 to 8 years.
What is really needed? Based on this, your guess is as good as mine. In my experience, going past 7 years is certainly risking damage to parts, and in fact I've seen 5 year old PO's that the movements was completely messed up inside. Now does that mean you should service it? It depends on what you value and when you consider the "need" for service to be.
Simple question...complex answer...
Thus, we are left with the conclusion that Omega extended the service interval with the hope that the owners follow that, wear out their movements, and can then reap that lost revenue by hitting the owners with part replacement costs.
That's probably it right there...
Omega charges the same price whether they replace no parts or 30 parts. They charge extra for new dials, cases, sapphire crystals etc, but the internal mechanics have always been included in their service fees.
Sure, that's probably it right there...
Omega charges the same price whether they replace no parts or 30 parts. They charge extra for new dials, cases, sapphire crystals etc, but the internal mechanics have always been included in their service fees.
Or, Omega wants us to wait long enough for a service that it's guaranteed to need parts, and so we'll have to send it to Omega for service instead of an independent, since Omega includes movement parts with the service.
Guess I should have waited to finish reading the thread before posting something for the hundredth time...
You should probably follow this. Here's why: you should be aware, that as a company, Omega have no competent watchmakers to accurately assess the wear to their watches when they come in for service. And, apparently, even if they did, they could not legitimately make a policy change on service intervals to their watches unless they made a corresponding change to the watches themselves. In other words, if the bulk of watches that came on the previous, shorter service cycle showed less problems or wear than the company originally anticipated, since they didn't change anything to the watch, these observations are void.
And, since it's been said many times that Omega exist to satisfy their shareholders, if they extend the service interval, they would ultimately be getting less revenue, not more. Thus, we are left with the conclusion that Omega extended the service interval with the hope that the owners follow that, wear out their movements, and can then reap that lost revenue by hitting the owners with part replacement costs.
That's probably it right there...
We can conclude that someone has made a marketing decision, and the company has run the numbers and found it won't have a significant negative impact on the bottom line immediately, and by the time it does service prices will rise enough to cover the additional expenses they might incur.
So here's a real situation - customer of mine who I serviced a watch for years ago needs it serviced again, but I'm too busy. He emailed me yesterday to let me know he has taken it to a boutique to have it sent to Omega for service. The watchmaker at Omega may look at the condition of the watch and when it was last serviced by them...
"Wow these pivots are in great shape! Hardly any wear on the parts, so I'll report this up the chain that these watches are lasting way longer than expected!" Of course he has no idea that I've serviced it in the interim, and have already replaced all those wear parts at that time.
Here's another situation - watch gets sold, and comes back to Omega for it's first service. No wear in the parts, but the watchmaker reporting his observations at Omega has no idea that for the most parts it has been sitting in a drawer since it was bought, so has had very little use. This is why the "observations" theory is problematic when you get down to the practical side of it.
As for the life testing theory, when I was working as an engineer the company I worked for did all kinds of life testing on new products, and that process often affected my project schedules so I was well aware of what went into it. It was something I was curious about so I did specifically ask about this when I was at Omega for training. They did say that some 8500's were assembled with the silicon balance springs and given to people tow ear for a couple of years, but that was all that they knew of. While it's possible that they do life testing that the people I spoke to were not aware of, all I can say is that based on how poorly the 2500 roll out was done, and how much Omega had to play catch up to solve problem after problem on those, the testing they did wasn't very good.
Omega knows that they will win some and lose some when it comes time to perform a service, and to them that's not terribly important. Looking at the parts that are returned and sheer level of waste in the way they do things tells me they aren't that concerned if another wheel or two that retail for $14 are worn or not. All they need to ensure is that at the end of the day they balance out and they don't lose more than they win on.
I guess for me there's nothing that had been stopping Omega from increasing the service intervals for years, so the fact that this happened at the same time as they moved the warranty to 5 years to keep up with Rolex, tells me this is more about marketing than about the engineering of the movement or the observations of watchmakers at the service center.
