Should I not wear vintage Speedy before service?

Archer

If you have never had or seen this happen, you are incredibly fortunate. I see watches that lack of regular servicing causes problems all the time. How much of a problem varies of course, and it can be minor certainly, but it can also be very bad...a watch that is flooded and rusted into a solid mass because it leaked in the ocean:

A fascinating clip of your restoration....thank you for sharing.
Having just purchased a 3520.50 mark 40 speedmaster, and as a certified newbie, I find myself in a similar position to the original poster, making a service now or run until it plays up decision.
I have no timegraph data, only the daily worn accuracy at about -10s.
Wondering if you might be able to advise on roughly what percentage of the movements you servie end up costing the owner an appreciable lot more due to delay. Apologies for what is of course a highly subjective question.😵‍💫






It required a completely new movement...



If this had been a valuable vintage watch, well the cost would have been even higher. This is a $1,400 movement.

But more along the lines of what the OP has, here's a 1978 Speedmaster that "just" had a leak in the crown...

There is extensive rust damage, requiring many new parts, and a lot of additional labour.

For wear, well that can be easy, or it can be difficult - it really depends on how available parts are for vintage watches. It may also depend on what your standards are for performance. If you don't care about specific things, or your watchmaker doesn't inform you of them, they might be irrelevant to you but still be there. For example wear on the ends of the balance staff from lack of servicing is common. This can sometime be corrected by burnishing the pivot on a Jacot:



To take it from this, where the end has flattened from wear:



To this, where the pivot is properly rounded:



You would only know this is you have positional information from your watchmaker (or had your own timing machine) to see that the balance amplitudes or timing were different dial up and dial down. But if the staff is really worn, then it requires replacement - some staffs are very difficult to find, and when you do, they aren't cheap. Most watch companies don;t sell staff anymore -= I recently bought out the entire supply from one material house of Omega 861 staffs. I also bought some generic staffs for the caliber, but they are not good enough quality to use. One could have a staff made but that would likely cost more than a complete standard service.

If neither of those are options, then a new balance complete would be needed - these can be $500+

If you don't see any value in doing maintenance, so be it. Not here to change your mind, but really just pointing out that shit does happen, and sometimes it's bad.

Archer

How closely are you looking? ... In my experience, it's rare to have a watch come in for service that doesn't have at least 1 worn part inside...

Archer

Okay, so I guess this means that you have seen it then...

Dan S

My experience so different from yours, it's almost hard to comprehend that in all those years of collecting you have never even heard of a single situation where someone had to replace one or multiple expensive and hard-to-find parts.

I'm really not inclined to write up detailed case histories to satisfy your curiosity, but I'll give a general overview. On at least half a dozen occasions, a watch has needed multiple parts replaced, doubling (or more) the cost of a routine service. Many vintage parts cost $50 or more from a supplier, and some can climb as high as $200 (e.g. balances or rare chronograph parts), so the costs can add up. I can recall at least two watches where it was more effective to purchase a parts movement. On one occasion, it was necessary to fabricate a part and replace several other parts. And I can remember at least two watches where it simply wasn't cost effective for me to repair a movement and I abandoned it. Amazing that you have never experienced, or even heard of, any of these scenarios.

Dan S

My experience so different from yours, it's almost hard to comprehend that in all those years of collecting you have never even heard of a single situation where someone had to replace one or multiple expensive and hard-to-find parts.

I appreciate your examples, but I am not sure that is what I am referring to. Did the problems you encountered result from not servicing the watch? Would the need to replace them been precluded by preventive maintenance? Absent a crystal ball, there is of course no way to know the answer to these questions.
I of course have heard of "situations where someone had to replace one or multiple expensive and hard-to-find parts", but never have seen this attributed to lack of serving.
IMO, for the vast majority of vintage Omegas, the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach is prudent. As I have mentioned before, watches that are very valuable (real or sentimental) or ones where part sourcing will be difficult, would be exceptions.

Bernhard J

Yes, slight marks like the ones you showed. It is routine to polish marks like that, without any need to do anything more.

But nothing beyond that, or comparable with that in the other post. Such wear would imo seem to have its cause in inferior pivot material. Normally, long before such wear can commence the amplitude will be below 90°. If some funny guy "cures" his by replacing the main spring with a stronger one, so that the movement rather works as a grinder, then I would understand how pivots in that other post can occur.

By the way, I also never had the need to replace a main spring.

Dgercp

Back to OP question. If watch running fine I would guess 99% no problem winding and wearing it. And if you have a Timegrapher showing good numbers probably no need for immediate service. But it you don’t have a timegrapher than it just makes good sense to at some point soon just have a watchmaker check it out. These are delicate and complicated (yes, rocket science) machines and a little prevention is prudent.

When you own 50-70 watches, servicing on a strict 5 year cycle can get crazy expensive and I am not convinced it is necessary. Good results on a timer give me some feeling of security that urgent service may not be necessary but I have a trustworthy watchmaker who will sometimes just visually do a check on these to be sure they are not dry. An honest watchmaker will not automatically say that you need a full service.

IMO there is no one right strategy for watch servicing, but NO strategy is a bad choice.
Completely agree. And this would apply to not just the OP watch, but the vast majority of watches for which this question is posed.
Happy New Year to all!

Dan S

So now you expect me to prove that worn and/or broken parts are due to lack of regular maintenance? You remind me of a climate change denier. According to your rules, nobody can ever prove that worn or broken parts are due to deferred maintenance, therefore de facto, you will never hear of an example where expensive repairs could have been averted by regular servicing. By this illogical reasoning, you confirm your desired result. If I had known the game you were playing, I'd never have engaged with you. What a waste of time.

You're welcome to choose NOT to have your watches serviced regularly, and pay for repairs at a later date (or let the next owner do it), that's a choice. I don't have every one of my watches serviced either. But to claim that this will not result in greater wear, requiring replacement of parts that otherwise would not need to be replaced, is just a fantasy.

Fortunately, most people reading this thread are capable of logical reasoning, and will understand that the most plausible reason for the vast majority of worn parts needing replacement is deferred maintenance.

Bernhard J

I always wonder how such damage like the one in this post can occur.

Bernhard J

Well, wear indeed beginns immediatly from new 😉. Same with car components. As soon as you have fitted new pads, the statement " The brake pads are approaching the wear limit" is ..... absolutely correct 😁.

Dan S

Troll me once, shame on you. Troll me twice ... shame on me. 🤨

Archer

Slight marks? Really?





Not really. The line is drawn when material is missing, so there's a change in pivot diameter. The only one of those that would apply in the examples I've shown, is likely the escape wheel. The others are most certainly in need of replacement.



Wear like has been shown is common. Not sure if you are really recognizing it though. More examples - none of these used mainsprings that were extra strong, by the way...new reversing wheel on the left for comparison:



Again, new reversing wheel on the left:



Worn post - this watch was 5 years old:



Worn pivots - you can't polish this sort of wear away:














I could go on for pages withe examples. Pivots aren't the only things that wear - worn main plate:



Worn barrel bridge:





Worn jewels:



Worn cap jewels are very common:



Worn barrel bridge in 2 locations:

Lower arrow:

Upper arrow:

The entire watch industry disagrees with you, but you do you...

Cheers, Al