I agree with @Lurk41 - when we take a car in for service, we expect at the minimum an oil and filter change and an inspection with estimate of things needing attention.
That said, when we buy a used car and the previous owner says “it’s just been serviced”, we ask for the paperwork- why would this be any different with a watch.
I think here it was sold by a professional. In that case I do not expect any paperwork about the service he did (same for a car if it was only oil and filters)
But yeah, between 2 private individuals, "service" means nothing without the paperwork 😉
Here's what Swiss Time Services UK describe as a service:
They cleaned the case and bracelet as well.
No, "serviced" means serviced, not "full service" Now, I agree that "serviced" can mean different things to different people, and we could probably get close to what would be the minimum actions taken to constitute a "service", but on the other hand, just how far would you expect a "service" to go. A basic inspection and cleaning/(competent) lube? A full Archer strip down/rebuild? An Omega full strip down/refurb/restore and rebuild?
I think the wording "Serviced and ensured to be working on point once received." should have been queried prior to buying - to me, it tells virtually nothing of substance. But I suppose it's easy to be wise after the event.
Caveat Emptor.
Of course, I approached the seller with my complaint about the lack of a service. His answer was that "the watch was also serviced mainly for time-keeping" whatever that means...
...snip...
"The service performed was to ensure time-keeping, meaning the watch was inspected to see if there were any faulty pieces etc. to be replaced that would harm the movement. We understand you were expecting a fully lubed up, restored movement, but do understand there was no dishonesty here. This piece was serviced by an in-house watchmaker to ensure time keeping. "Fully functional and serviced about 8 months ago in-house to ensure time keeping" A service doesn't technically mean the full treatment, especially from in-house watchmakers unless stated to do so. The only people who would do such without questioning would be Zenith themselves for an uncharged price, but of course it is service from a certified Zenith location."
...snip...
I would love to hear your thoughts.
Certainly buyer beware is standard advice, but the idea that "serviced" doesn't mean "fully and properly serviced" is very odd. Not sure why you think this term is so vague, as there really is no debate regarding what a service is.
A service includes a full disassembly of the movement, cleaning, inspection of parts, replacement or repair of parts as needed, assembly, lubrication, and adjustment/regulation to ensure that the timing is within specs. If all that is not done, it's not a service.
Omega would refer to anything less than this as a "partial service."
The issues of what's done on the external parts of the watch is a different story, since there are concerns related to originality, patina, etc. for vintage watches, but there's no uncertainty about what service means for the movement.
There are certainly plenty of watchmakers out there who don't do a service properly, but that doesn't mean that the definition of a service is somehow not defined.
As many have said here, unless you have documentation that proves that a watch was serviced by a known good service provider, then factoring the cost of a service into the pricing is a good idea. If it ends up not needing a service, then consider it a bonus.
Cheers, Al
I consider that the definition you have given would probably satisfy 99% of people on this forum as it stands (pressure testing and guarantee/warranty terms aside),
And I think that’s the big issue here, the OP bought it from a dealer who clearly has a very loose definition of the word “serviced”, which makes “serviced” subjective- and that’s a problem as a buyer.
I note none of the manufacturers I refer to above simply say "service" - they add the words "complete" or "complete maintenance". Words matter.
Maybe I am mistaken but I think the invoice will just show "service" without any detail (at least the few ones I have for my matches are like this), so the issue would have be the same... :/
I think it is kinda the same here: what a "service" is, is learned at school and there is no room for interpretation.
Yes, when in watchmaking school we didn't use the marketing terms that watch companies use. Keep in mind they want to make it sound as complex as possible in order to make you feel better about paying the money they charge.
But as someone who services watches for a living, no one emails me asking for a "complete maintenance service" or a "complete technical revision" which are the two most common marketing phrases used to describe a service. They simply ask to have their watch serviced, and I reply with a note that shows what that includes so there's no doubt, and of course I ask them to follow up with any questions they might have. Those are usually more about shipping, payment, etc. than the scope of work.
If anyone were to ask me, I'd point them to @Archer as an exemplar of how to carry out a service. The important point to me is "I reply with a note that shows what that includes so there's no doubt, and of course I ask them to follow up with any questions they might have." No room for misunderstanding and no need for either party to make assumptions as to what is or is not included in an Archer service. If only all "watchmakers" kept to this standard, there would be no room for debate, but sadly, unless everyone adopts the "Archer Standard" then all you can do is ask for documented proof of what has been undertaken as part of whatever is passed off as a "service" in the wider world.
That was really my point - there is no legally enforceable standard definition, and assumptions and expectations do not per se constitute enforceable rights and duties.
No, "serviced" means serviced, not "full service"
What the scope of a service includes really is not up for debate in the industry. If you use "complete maintenance service" or "full service" or "archer service" or just "service" it all means the same thing in the industry. Watchmakers and watch companies know what is meant by the term service.
Of course how individual watchmakers communicate what is included in a service, and how closely they may adhere to that standard is variable - but the standard itself isn't.
Then why do individual watch companies have slightly different descriptions of what they undertake as part of a (complete/full) service? I've done a bit of a trawl, and nowhere can I find a legal case where the term "service" has been judicially considered in the context of horological trade usage. I cannot find anything on the website of the BHI or NAWCC defining watch servicing standards. Neither the British Standards Institute nor ANSI returns anything when searched. The Illustrated Professional Dictionary of Horology has no entry for "service" or "serviced"
If you can point me towards a widely accepted standard or publication where what constitutes a watch service is defined without caveats or exceptions, then I'll gladly take it on board and consider myself better educated. What you assert, is, without extrinsic support just that - an assertion.
Your assertion that when someone says "service" it's not a "full service" and allows for someone to just inspect the watch and call it good being accepted in the industry is false. If you can provide documentation that shows that your definition of service is accepted in the industry, then please do so. Otherwise it's just an assertion.
Cheers, Al
Read back. Despite your accusation, nowhere do I state that. If that is your interpretation, then so be it.
Yeah, fraudulent advertising. Serviced means full service. If not, then don't say it.
No, "serviced" means serviced, not "full service" Now, I agree that "serviced" can mean different things to different people, and we could probably get close to what would be the minimum actions taken to constitute a "service", but on the other hand, just how far would you expect a "service" to go. A basic inspection and cleaning/(competent) lube? A full Archer strip down/rebuild? An Omega full strip down/refurb/restore and rebuild?
I consider that the definition you have given would probably satisfy 99% of people on this forum as it stands
Then why do individual watch companies have slightly different descriptions of what they undertake as part of a (complete/full) service? I've done a bit of a trawl, and nowhere can I find a legal case where the term "service" has been judicially considered in the context of horological trade usage. I cannot find anything on the website of the BHI or NAWCC defining watch servicing standards. Neither the British Standards Institute nor ANSI returns anything when searched. The Illustrated Professional Dictionary of Horology has no entry for "service" or "serviced"
If you can point me towards a widely accepted standard or publication where what constitutes a watch service is defined without caveats or exceptions, then I'll gladly take it on board and consider myself better educated. What you assert, is, without extrinsic support just that - an assertion.
