I've recently been given conflicting advice about the worth of having a vintage watch serviced prior to a sale, in this case a couple of 60's rolex - a 1016 and a 1675, both in good working order but without recent service history. So would a service make a sale easier and and to the value, or would most prospective buyers prefer to have a watch looked at by their preferred watch-maker? One Rolex-accredited watch-maker advised me not to bother having seen the watches, given the cost and time. Any thoughts appreciated.
I'm the opposite, if I was buying a vintage Omega had it been services and receipts shows the work I'd be more likely to pay a higher price and be more confident in buying it. OmegaSean
The collectors who pay the top prices will generally prefer to buy 'as is' and have their preferred watchmaker service/restore.
Always depends on who is doing the service also. Say he pays $750 each to service. He has to compete with watches at the same bench mark unserviced so many will go the unserviced as they are cheaper. Most like us do factor in freshly serviced but a lot don't. To me it's like servicing a car you are trading in on a new car.
Having collected for many years, and having seen many watches offered for sale that have been “recently serviced”, I never believe they’ve been serviced. Unless I see a receipt from the manufacturer showing serial numbers and a list of the work done, being with the watch. When most collectors are considering a watch, they are seldom prepared to pay extra for purported repairs.