Speedmaster service intervals

Retro_Rabbit · Oct 22, 2019

Some watches lead a life that means they'll need serviced early, could be because they're sitting around not being used or because they're on the arm of someone who never takes it off and like me, works in an environment that's not really good for delicate things like watches and mobile phones. I tend to swap between a few watches depending on what I fancy on a given day.
I've never had an issue getting any watch serviced a little early. They put a tag on your watch, send it to the service center, watch gets opened, inspected, stripped, cleaned and lubricated and then put back together and sent back to the dealer (or whoever sent it to them). I think they're happy enough that someone is prepared to actually look after their watch, so they're happy to do it.
I've had a part replaced during an early service and paid for them separately at the time and I believe that saved me a more expensive bill that I'd have gotten a year or two later as a worn spindle on one wheel could easily lead to further damage a year or two down the line.

I think they would know when your first service is due because they check it in using serial number etc. The info is then added to the watch history in the Omega database and that's the info you can request, for a fee, when you're buying or selling an Omega watch.
I suppose a full service history, like with a car, could hold the value of your watch better.
Ifit wasn't so expensive and frankly pointless (as I'm not selling any of my watches) I'd request the history of one, just to see what it's like... I could easily be overstating how detailed the information held is, based on the information I store in my own line of business.

I recently found out that as part of a normal first service, if you send in a Submariner to Rolex, they change the crystal for one with an 'S' at the engraved crown... Which I thought was weird and pointless on a completely unmarked watch crystal. Most manufacturers will put some kind of engraving inside the case after a service... As a wee lie detector, when you claim your properly serviced watch is keeping terrible time or at least, that's why I think they do it...

Archer · Oct 22, 2019

Retro_Rabbit
I was in the Omega boutique the other day, I'm struggling to decide between the blue Seamaster 300P and the grey dial. As part of her sales pitch, the sales associate told me the recommended service intervals are currently 10 years on the Master Co-axial models.

Few things to keep in mind...

1 - Sales people will say things that are not true to get you to buy something.

2 - Service interval recommendations are not always based on hard data.

Here is the service interval recommendation that Omega had on their web site for a number of years:

Note that it says the interval os 4-5 years depending on use. Now here is the current service interval suggestion from Omega:

You will note that now it's 5-8 years. What changed in the watches themselves so extend the service interval by another 3-4 years? Absolutely nothing.

Service intervals are based on a number of things, and marketing is a big factor. They changed the numbers when Omega extended the warranty to 5 years, because it obviously didn't make sense to be recommending service before the warranty was even up.

So the bottom line is, the sales associate was not correct telling you the service interval is 10 years...

Cheers, Al

saulgoodman · Oct 22, 2019

Archer
Few things to keep in mind...

1 - Sales people will say things that are not true to get you to buy something.

2 - Service interval recommendations are not always based on hard data.

Here is the service interval recommendation that Omega had on their web site for a number of years:

Note that it says the interval os 4-5 years depending on use. Now here is the current service interval suggestion from Omega:

You will note that now it's 5-8 years. What changed in the watches themselves so extend the service interval by another 3-4 years? Absolutely nothing.

Service intervals are based on a number of things, and marketing is a big factor. They changed the numbers when Omega extended the warranty to 5 years, because it obviously didn't make sense to be recommending service before the warranty was even up.

So the bottom line is, the sales associate was not correct telling you the service interval is 10 years...

Cheers, Al

So, in your experience what is the average cost difference between service at 5 years and service every 10? Is there empirical evidence out there that definitely shows waiting a few more years to service a watch will cost more due to the deterioration of the movement? Clearly, sometimes breakdowns will occur on a case by case basis, but if a hard and fast rule (5 years) is going to be established, it should come with data that proves waiting 6 years or more will be more costly, or so negatively affect the movement it makes service at 5 years a no-brainer. I say this because it seems that the watch companies are recommending longer service intervals these days. I can only assume as the manufacturers that they are basing these recommendations on some insider‘s perspective, although nothing has been put out to back that up. Bottom line, is a 5 year service interval a prophylactic measure, or is it really saving us money?

Archer · Oct 22, 2019

saulgoodman
So, in your experience what is the average cost difference between service at 5 years and service every 10? Is there empirical evidence out there that definitely shows waiting a few more years to service a watch will cost more due to the deterioration of the movement? Clearly, sometimes breakdowns will occur on a case by case basis, but if a hard and fast rule (5 years) is going to be established, it should come with data that proves waiting 6 years or more will be more costly, or so negatively affect the movement it makes service at 5 years a no-brainer. I say this because it seems that the watch companies are recommending longer service intervals these days. I can only assume as the manufacturers that they are basing these recommendations on some insider‘s perspective, although nothing has been put out to back that up. Bottom line, is a 5 year service interval a prophylactic measure, or is it really saving us money?

There's no easy answer to these questions. It depends on many factors...this has been covered many times in many places.

There's no doubt that parts will wear if you don't service often enough, but when you ask the question as you have, only related to costs, it makes things tricky. My answer for a brand new Cal. 1861 based Speedmaster that is getting serviced at the factory, will be different than for a vintage Cal. 321 Speedmaster that is getting serviced by a good independent watchmaker.

In a service center setting, often parts required in service of modern watches are included in the service price, if they are needed or not. In these cases letting the watch run until it stops may be the best economical decision, but it depends on the specific policies and prices of the brand in question. Typical wear parts are generally not too expensive, but Omega has been jacking up parts prices substantially over the last couple of years, so eventually the service pricing will reflect that.

For vintage watches, in particular those where parts are long discontinued, hard to find, and very expensive, the goal is to keep the parts inside the movement in good shape so they don't need replacing. I've bought vintage parts like a simple train wheel (something that for a modern watch may cost $40), and have paid $150 for it on the open market. It doesn't take too many of those to make the price of parts exceed the price of labour in a service.

Cheers, Al

saulgoodman · Oct 22, 2019

Archer
There's no easy answer to these questions. It depends on many factors...this has been covered many times in many places.

There's no doubt that parts will wear if you don't service often enough, but when you ask the question as you have, only related to costs, it makes things tricky. My answer for a brand new Cal. 1861 based Speedmaster that is getting serviced at the factory, will be different than for a vintage Cal. 321 Speedmaster that is getting serviced by a good independent watchmaker.

In a service center setting, often parts required in service of modern watches are included in the service price, if they are needed or not. In these cases letting the watch run until it stops may be the best economical decision, but it depends on the specific policies and prices of the brand in question. Typical wear parts are generally not too expensive, but Omega has been jacking up parts prices substantially over the last couple of years, so eventually the service pricing will reflect that.

For vintage watches, in particular those where parts are long discontinued, hard to find, and very expensive, the goal is to keep the parts inside the movement in good shape so they don't need replacing. I've bought vintage parts like a simple train wheel (something that for a modern watch may cost $40), and have paid $150 for it on the open market. It doesn't take too many of those to make the price of parts exceed the price of labour in a service.

Cheers, Al

I think most people make these decisions based on achieving the best deal possible, don't you? The forums are filled with members looking for the best purchase deal, service deal, etc. Your answer is interesting and makes a good deal of sense. If I read you correctly, those of us looking to service a modern watch at the official service center are statistically better off using longer service intervals. If we chose to service with an independent watchmaker it depends on the issues that the watch may present beyond requiring routine service, since those parts/repairs would add to the cost. This might indicate that those of us using independent watchmakers for service might be better off using shorter service cycles to avoid additional, and potentially costly repairs. But is this true?

Using today's prices, sending a standard Speedmaster to Omega for service costs $750. If we extend the service cycles from five to eight years, three service cycles at the eight year, sixteen year, and twenty-four year marks would cost $2250 (in today's dollars) and provide one with thirty two years of use. The cost of owning the watch would be about $70 per year for thirty-two years.

Using the logic that using an independent watchmaker would probably necessitate five year service intervals, and assuming a $600 service cost in today's dollars, sending the watch for service at the five year, ten year, fifteen year, twenty year, and twenty five year marks would cost $3000, so the cost of owning the watch would be $100 per year for thirty years.

So, you are correct, in a scenario where nothing else goes wrong with the watch, extending service cycles and using the official service center may be the most cost effective method. This theory does assume quite a bit, to include that the OSC didn't go nuts and raise their prices through the roof. However, something tells me that if that happend, independent watchmakers would follow suit with a proportional increase of their own.

As for older watches, like you said, all bets are off if the parts become scarce or unavailable. This is why I really like what Grand Seiko is doing by establishing a parts center that guarantees parts will be available for all models for twenty years after the model is discontinued.

Archer · Oct 22, 2019

saulgoodman
I think most people make these decisions based on achieving the best deal possible, don't you?

I can speak for "most people" but what I can say is that many people I work with value things differently. They value the level of service, being able to speak or email directly with the one single person that is handling your watch, being able to make special requests to do extra work or leave things alone, rather then just basing things on pricing. I've had people send me watches that were still under manufacturer's warranty, because they trusted me more than the manufacturer, so not everyone is focused purely on what things cost.

People have to weigh the options and decide for themselves how to handle servicing, but a rarely get watches in for scheduled maintenance. Most of the watches I see are in dire need of servicing, and already have problems that the customer wants resolved. With watch companies pushing warranties out, and pushing suggested service intervals out, I don't expect that to change.

saulgoodman
As for older watches, like you said, all bets are off if the parts become scarce or unavailable. This is why I really like what Grand Seiko is doing by establishing a parts center that guarantees parts will be available for all models for twenty years after the model is discontinued.

Grand Seiko, at least in my experience, is not great for keeping spare parts on hand. I can get movement parts for Omegas back a very long way, where GS movement from the 70's you might as well forget it. 20 years isn't that long...

Cheers, Al

saulgoodman · Oct 22, 2019

Archer
I can speak for "most people" but what I can say is that many people I work with value things differently...not everyone is focused purely on what things cost.

I see.

Retro_Rabbit · Oct 22, 2019

Archer
Few things to keep in mind...

1 - Sales people will say things that are not true to get you to buy something.

2 - Service interval recommendations are not always based on hard data.

Here is the service interval recommendation that Omega had on their web site for a number of years:

Note that it says the interval os 4-5 years depending on use. Now here is the current service interval suggestion from Omega:

You will note that now it's 5-8 years. What changed in the watches themselves so extend the service interval by another 3-4 years? Absolutely nothing.

Service intervals are based on a number of things, and marketing is a big factor. They changed the numbers when Omega extended the warranty to 5 years, because it obviously didn't make sense to be recommending service before the warranty was even up.

So the bottom line is, the sales associate was not correct telling you the service interval is 10 years...

Cheers, Al

I came to that conclusion myself...
I'd checked the website for recommendations as far as warranty, servicing and care before I visited the boutique, I actually said to her "funny, I thought it was closer to 5 years...".
I never buy anything without researching it first... Although I should probably have found someone more local that can service my f300 before I bought it... Omega did offer to send it off for a service and regulation but their price estimate window was almost as wide as the Atlantic... Lol.

Duckie · Oct 22, 2019

Way way back in the day when the oils weren't as good as they are now it was 3-5 years and watchmakers were fairly plentiful.
Way back in the day the oils evolved and watchmakers were starting to die out and service intervals were recommended to be around 5 years. With some saying 5-7 years at a push
These days with the warranty and service wars between Omega and Rolex the oils really haven't got all that much better but we see the talk changing yet again.
First Omega brings out Co-axials and starts talking of pushing it out to about 7-8 years, but a Co-axial doesn't take into consideration everything else that needs lube.
Then Rolex starts talking about 10 years as a "typical service interval". Then they bring out a new escapement. Then they start declaring a 10 year interval as a firm recommendation.
It's the first time I can recall Rolex making a firm recommendation.
We see people having to send their relatively new Rolex watches back under warranty to be re-lubed because the timekeeping is going off with amplitude issues being symptomatic.

The line is very blured with some people reporting they have gone 20 years or more on a daily wearer Rolex with nothing out of the ordinary being reported in terms of extra attention at service. But that's with an old school escapement.

We can't account for individual wearing habits which vary wildly.
To that, a watch will normally give one a bit of an indication as to when it needs looking at if one is paying attention.

I see GS getting a special mention in this thread.
From memory the current service interval is recommended as 5 years. I believe this is in line with just about all the other mechanical watch manufacturers out there as well.

Personally I usually go at around 5 the years mark out of necessity because it's leting me know something is off with it.
This is on a daily wearer with no outrageous issues being reported at service.
On a less frequently worn watch I have gone out to anywhere between 7-13 years without issue to date.

There is no hard and fast rule and one must use their discression and wear the consequences either way.
It's as simple as that.

rainking · Oct 22, 2019

Archer
Grand Seiko, at least in my experience, is not great for keeping spare parts on hand. I can get movement parts for Omegas back a very long way, where GS movement from the 70's you might as well forget it. 20 years isn't that long...

I was gonna say, a whole 20 years? That's not something to blow a horn about. Al, doesn't Omega's stock go back many decades for a lot of models? I know the company touts its restoration service for watches dating prior to 1940. Just out of curiosity, have you had many instances of struggling to get parts for 30-plus year old Omegas that land on your bench?

saulgoodman · Oct 22, 2019

rainking
I was gonna say, a whole 20 years? That's not something to blow a horn about. Al, doesn't Omega's stock go back many decades for a lot of models? I know the company touts its restoration service for watches dating prior to 1940. Just out of curiosity, have you had many instances of struggling to get parts for 30-plus year old Omegas that land on your bench?

I would beg to differ. Promising to stock every part of every watch for 20 years after the watch is discontinued seems to be an excellent effort to me. I’m not sure that there are many other watch companies that can claim the same thing. If there are, good for them. However, it is my understanding that the swatch group is actually heading in the opposite direction and has made it more difficult to obtain their parts unless you are under their umbrella.

PS I only heard of the above on a podcast interview of Grand Seiko’s head of North America sales. I have no other confirmation that this is actually the case.

PPS Full disclosure, I don’t own a Grand Seiko nor do I plan to. I am not a Seiko fan boy. I have owned one Seiko in my life and I flipped it.

rainking · Oct 22, 2019

saulgoodman
I would beg to differ. Promising to stock every part of every watch for 20 years after the watch is discontinued seems to be an excellent effort to me. I’m not sure that there are many other watch companies that can claim the same thing. If there are, good for them. However, it is my understanding that the swatch group is actually heading in the opposite direction and has made it more difficult to obtain their parts unless you are under their umbrella.

PS I only heard of the above on a podcast interview of Grand Seiko’s head of North America sales. I have no other confirmation that this is actually the case.

PPS Full disclosure, I don’t own a Grand Seiko nor do I plan to. I am not a Seiko fan boy. I have owned one Seiko in my life and I flipped it.

You're more than welcome to differ, it's no thing to me either way. Personally, I'm just not overly impressed to hear that a company selling watches for thousands and thousands of dollars is going to support those watches for 20 years. To me, that should be a given. Is there anyone out there who bought an Omega or Rolex or whatever back in 1999 that is now running into trouble getting those watches serviced? I don't think so. I could be completely wrong but I'm pretty sure Omega and Rolex, as just two examples, will service watches a lot older than that.
Now, making parts more difficult to come by for people outside of the official umbrella is a related but different issue. They might be moving toward forcing customers to come to them for the service, but those customers will be able to get them serviced, they just won't have as many options for who does it. Omega talks on its website about its watches lasting people a lifetime if maintained properly. That implies they'll be happy to service them for way more than 20 years.

saulgoodman · Oct 22, 2019

rainking
You're more than welcome to differ, it's no thing to me either way. Personally, I'm just not overly impressed to hear that a company selling watches for thousands and thousands of dollars is going to support those watches for 20 years. To me, that should be a given. Is there anyone out there who bought an Omega or Rolex or whatever back in 1999 that is now running into trouble getting those watches serviced? I don't think so. I could be completely wrong but I'm pretty sure Omega and Rolex, as just two examples, will service watches a lot older than that.
Now, making parts more difficult to come by for people outside of the official umbrella is a related but different issue. They might be moving toward forcing customers to come to them for the service, but those customers will be able to get them serviced, they just won't have as many options for who does it. Omega talks on its website about its watches lasting people a lifetime if maintained properly. That implies they'll be happy to service them for way more than 20 years.

Like I said, more watchmakers should openly stand by their product without reservation or obfuscation. If some do, good for them. The fact is that most don’t, so let’s not shite on those that do, even for a meager 20 years. It’s a great start. This is not about my dad can beat up your dad. It’s about applauding the companies that actually do something to support their consumer. Unlike what Rolex has disgracefully done in the past few years.

Pun · Oct 22, 2019

saulgoodman
Like I said, more watchmakers should openly stand by their product without reservation or obfuscation. If some do, good for them. The fact is that most don’t, so let’s not shite on those that do, even for a meager 20 years. It’s a great start. This is not about my dad can beat up your dad. It’s about applauding the companies that actually do something to support their consumer. Unlike what Rolex has disgracefully done in the past few years.

I’ve read somewhere that Rolex announced some time back that it won’t guarantee parts replacements for the calibers before 1980. Patek Philippe guarantees watch repairs and replacement without any time limits. There are other top brands in Switzerland that promise to maintain their watches without any time limits.

There are normally few basic movements used for the huge majority of watches produced by any given brand including Seiko and Grand Seiko. Therefore keeping parts in reserve for future requirements don’t pose such great hurdles as we envisage here in discussion. Moreover newer calibers too are just incremental modification, here and there, except for perhaps 1% top line complications. If one looks at the watch movements in last 80 years, there are very few radical changes, if at all, that happened. IMO keeping spares for them should not be an issue so long as the company keeps doing profitable business. Just my 2 cents.

Archer · Oct 23, 2019

saulgoodman
I would beg to differ. Promising to stock every part of every watch for 20 years after the watch is discontinued seems to be an excellent effort to me. I’m not sure that there are many other watch companies that can claim the same thing. If there are, good for them. However, it is my understanding that the swatch group is actually heading in the opposite direction and has made it more difficult to obtain their parts unless you are under their umbrella.

You are confusing two completely different subjects. One is about the company producing/keeping spare parts for a given time frame, and the other is who has access to those parts.

For the first subject, a 20 year time frame is not at all unusual in the industry, and if anything it's a bit on the short side. For Omega here's a good example - the Cal. 550 series (would include the 55X, 56X, 600's, and 75X series). The 550 was introduced in 1959 I believe (at least that's the date on the earliest parts list I have for this movement) so 60 years ago, and every part is still available for this movement. Case parts are tougher, because this movement family was used in thousands of different models, with different cases, dials, hands, crown, crystals, etc. But it's rare that a suitable (if not identical) part can't be found for one of these watches.

To look at another brand, take the Rolex Cal. 3135 - it was introduced in 1988, and is in millions of watches worldwide, and most certainly Rolex still supports this movement, as they do the 3035 that came before it. They still support the 1570 series also, that came before the 3035. So putting 20 years in that perspective, it's minimal.

The second subject is who has access to those parts, and that is a very different thing altogether. Many brands have clamped down on parts sales, but Swatch group from Omega on down the watch hierarchy, still sells parts to independent watchmakers (I have my second parts shipment this week coming today). The only people that were cut off were the people who bought parts, marked them up, and resold them - so the middle men.

I used to service quite few Seiko watches, including King and Grand Seikos. One reason I stopped is because I was always hunting for parts, and they were often discontinued and no longer available. I'm not sure why this is the case, maybe it's something cultural, but Asian brands in general tend to not keep parts as long as the Swiss brands do.

Cheers, Al

Duckie · Oct 23, 2019

Archer
You are confusing two completely different subjects. One is about the company producing/keeping spare parts for a given time frame, and the other is who has access to those parts.

For the first subject, a 20 year time frame is not at all unusual in the industry, and if anything it's a bit on the short side. For Omega here's a good example - the Cal. 550 series (would include the 55X, 56X, 600's, and 75X series). The 550 was introduced in 1959 I believe (at least that's the date on the earliest parts list I have for this movement) so 60 years ago, and every part is still available for this movement. Case parts are tougher, because this movement family was used in thousands of different models, with different cases, dials, hands, crown, crystals, etc. But it's rare that a suitable (if not identical) part can't be found for one of these watches.

To look at another brand, take the Rolex Cal. 3135 - it was introduced in 1988, and is in millions of watches worldwide, and most certainly Rolex still supports this movement, as they do the 3035 that came before it. They still support the 1570 series also, that came before the 3035. So putting 20 years in that perspective, it's minimal.

The second subject is who has access to those parts, and that is a very different thing altogether. Many brands have clamped down on parts sales, but Swatch group from Omega on down the watch hierarchy, still sells parts to independent watchmakers (I have my second parts shipment this week coming today). The only people that were cut off were the people who bought parts, marked them up, and resold them - so the middle men.

I used to service quite few Seiko watches, including King and Grand Seikos. One reason I stopped is because I was always hunting for parts, and they were often discontinued and no longer available. I'm not sure why this is the case, maybe it's something cultural, but Asian brands in general tend to not keep parts as long as the Swiss brands do.

Cheers, Al

That certainly puts things into perspective.

I have a GS and parts availability is not an issue for me at my age as I fully expect that time frame will pretty much see me out.
Also the 9S64 movement in it is still well and truly current.
If we are talking about retaining parts for 20 years after production ceases I should imagine that it may be good for another life after mine.

In terms of GS parts availability to independents.
I understand my only option to routinely service or repair the watch is to actually send it back to Japan, which in a way I am quite looking forward to.
Sending it back to the Mothership for servicing has it's appeal to me.
I can't do that with my current Omega watches but I have arranged it for one of my Rolex watches in the past with an outstanding result.

Evitzee · Oct 23, 2019

Jiffy Lube-type places usually push for engine oil changes every 3,000 miles and that's a holdover from the 70's when oils weren't as good and engine technology was more primitive. Guess what? Most of these outfits still tell you to change your oil at 3,000 miles. Why? Because it is good for business and some of these joints are owned (or used to be) by oil companies. Conflict of interest. Everytime I bring my wife's Lexus RX350 into the dealer for its oil change they slap a sticker on the windshield with a 5,000 mi change interval even though the service manual says 10,000. Again, it's good for business.

I will wear a watch until it gives me a problem, and that's always longer than the recommended interval. There are not as many qualified repairers any more which means services are getting more expensive and taking longer to get done.

rainking · Oct 23, 2019

Archer
You are confusing two completely different subjects. One is about the company producing/keeping spare parts for a given time frame, and the other is who has access to those parts.

For the first subject, a 20 year time frame is not at all unusual in the industry, and if anything it's a bit on the short side. For Omega here's a good example - the Cal. 550 series (would include the 55X, 56X, 600's, and 75X series). The 550 was introduced in 1959 I believe (at least that's the date on the earliest parts list I have for this movement) so 60 years ago, and every part is still available for this movement. Case parts are tougher, because this movement family was used in thousands of different models, with different cases, dials, hands, crown, crystals, etc. But it's rare that a suitable (if not identical) part can't be found for one of these watches.

To look at another brand, take the Rolex Cal. 3135 - it was introduced in 1988, and is in millions of watches worldwide, and most certainly Rolex still supports this movement, as they do the 3035 that came before it. They still support the 1570 series also, that came before the 3035. So putting 20 years in that perspective, it's minimal.

The second subject is who has access to those parts, and that is a very different thing altogether. Many brands have clamped down on parts sales, but Swatch group from Omega on down the watch hierarchy, still sells parts to independent watchmakers (I have my second parts shipment this week coming today). The only people that were cut off were the people who bought parts, marked them up, and resold them - so the middle men.

I used to service quite few Seiko watches, including King and Grand Seikos. One reason I stopped is because I was always hunting for parts, and they were often discontinued and no longer available. I'm not sure why this is the case, maybe it's something cultural, but Asian brands in general tend to not keep parts as long as the Swiss brands do.

Cheers, Al

That's all exactly what I was saying as well. Twenty years seems like nothing to me, even though it's half my life LOL. I would've thought GS parts were already available far beyond that. Wacky they don't support their watches for as long as the Swiss, or the big Swiss names do, anyway. If I was in the market for a GS, this would certainly give me serious pause.

SpeedyPhill · Oct 25, 2019

janw23 · Oct 25, 2019

SpeedyPhill

🍿

Speedmaster service intervals

Retro_Rabbit

Archer

saulgoodman

Archer

saulgoodman

Archer

saulgoodman

Retro_Rabbit

Duckie

rainking

saulgoodman

rainking

saulgoodman

Pun

Archer

Duckie

Evitzee

rainking

SpeedyPhill

janw23

Similar threads

Advice regarding botched Speedmaster service

Vintage Seamaster 1020 service interval?

Service interval

Speedmaster service bezels; Pulsations & Telemeter (Miles)

Vintage speedmaster advice, family passed down

Omega Speedmaster Racing Review