Vintage Watches : Service or Not ?

[RoadRunner73]

Well Guys,
It's probably been discussed here already, but I am new on the Forum, and not yet very familiar with the searches so I haven't been successful in finding a topic on that so I'll give it a try now :
I'm still very new in the vintage watch things, and one of my main topics is whether vintage watches should undergo a regular (every 5-6 years ?) service or not ; I questioned many different specialists, read a lot, and it's still not clear to me;
My local watchmaker says that as long as a watch is working accurately, one should avoid unnecessary case openings and manipulations of the movement - parts - dial - hands, etc... in consideration of the potential risk of harming some parts; So does the watchmaker of one of the reputed Swiss watch brands whom I talked to recently, who says that as long as the watch is working properly, why should a service be made?

On the other hand, Desmond, well known for his passion for the Connies, has had a very straightforward position on that : high precision movement need to be cleaned, oiled, and of course regulated to guarantee a smooth functioning and avoid wear of some parts to affect other parts, and thus increase the amount of repairs. Another official watchmaker found on the OMEGA website, and who has restored a Chopard "Tank" recently considers that a service every 5-6 years on a mechanical movement is necessary ; of course, he's official, of course it's in his interest to lead people to spend money on watch services, but is that all ?

In the Industry where I have worked for nearly 40 years, it says that preventive maintenance is essential, as it will reduce the risk of unexpected failure ; I can very well understand that in a world that does not work together well with loss of production or of turnover, but what about watches ?

I can understand that dust, lack of proper lubrication may affect the performance of a watch, but why doing it if the watch is accurate ? My 25 years old Moonwatch for example, bought about 1 year ago, has probably never been serviced according to several "experts" who have checked it; it's been regulated though after I bought it, and accuracy rate is back from a past +50 sec/day to an approx. -2/+4 sec/day, closely followed-up now nearly every day since 4 months. And since it's got Tritium hands in pristine condition, I am very reluctant to have it serviced, for fear that something wrong might happen to them...

So where's the right way of acting ? What about the collectors, who own 10-20 or more vintage watches ?
And me projecting buying a 60 or 70 year old Connie : should I trust the guy claiming that the watch has been fully serviced, or should I rather look for a watch that hasn't been serviced for ages, and get a full service for the price difference ?

I know nothing about how to keep vintage watches in good conditions, so your opinions, pros/cons are highly welcome on this delicate topic !

 

[felsby]

Get a timegrapher and check for proper amplitude. Only service if the value drops below the limit.
Of course, the limit may vary between movements.

 

[p4ul]

My understanding is that the older the watch the more difficult it is to obtain replacement parts so best you look after them by servicing/lubricants regularly.
Oils dry and become less effective with time, your 25 year old will be subject to friction and wear.

Personally, preventative measures as you mention.

oh, and unless you have specific written evidence of a service Caveat Emptor.

 

[gbesq]

As good as the modern lubricants for watch movements are, they don't last forever. I think of watch movements as being similar to the engine in my car. Lubricants are to the watch movement as oil is to the car's engine. You wouldn't go 10 or 20 years without changing your engine oil so as not to disturb the parts of your car's engine, would you? Whether it's your car or your vintage watch, regular maintenance will prevent more expensive issues down the road. For vintage watches, I think that a movement service every 6-7 years is sufficient.

 

[Davidt]

I fall somewhere between the two. For example I had my Ed White Speedmaster fully serviced by STS in 2014. It’s now 8 years since that service but I don’t plan on sending it in again for at least a few more years unless it starts playing up.

On the other hand, when I buy a vintage watch for my collection, unless I know for certain when it was last serviced (with proof, not just the say so of the seller unless I know them), I send it for a full service even if it’s keeping good time. It might be dry as a bone inside and full of dirt, possibly not serviced for 40 years.

So effectively I want to know when my watches were last serviced and if I don’t know I send them in. I then make a judgement call as to when to have them re-serviced based on frequency of use, time keeping, whether I get them wet etc.

 

[janice&fred]

Welcome to the vintage watch arena! You have already gotten good advice in the above replies and for me my answer is "it depends".

How much the watch is worth might be a factor. No one would want to spend a lot of money to overhaul a simple 60's Bulova or Benrus often, so if one really likes the watch then get it cleaned and oiled and run the thing periodically in rotation with others in your collection. Of course if it's some sort of valued heirloom that's different. However, if we are talking about your moonwatch, I would say get her serviced regardless of it's current performance. This is where the reply by @gbesq applies most. You don't want to run a valuable and complicated chronograph on old lubricant.

Of course budget and how often the watches are worn weigh in as factors too. This is a kind of an individual choice but I will say that for myself I would cringe wearing an old watch not knowing if she needs a cleaning and lube job. The last factor that has already been mentioned is parts availability. I might be tempted to roll the dice for a while and wear something for a while longer between services, for instance with a watch with a common model ETA movement as spare parts are no biggie.

 

[Donn Chambers]

It depends. If your vintage watch collection is one where you pull out the watch every so often, look at it and think, “Damn, that’s a cool watch,” then put it back, you don’t need to service them at all.

On the other extreme, if you wear your vintage watch every day (or often), then you will be better off in the long run having it serviced every 5 years or so. You are more likely to damage hard-to-get movement parts from operating it with low (or no lubrication) than from a qualified watchmaker taking it apart and servicing it.

if you are in between, and wear the watch only occasionally, you can likely go to longer intervals, but probably should do it every decade or so.

 

[gbesq]

janice&fred

Welcome to the vintage watch arena! You have already gotten good advice in the above replies and for me my answer is "it depends".

How much the watch is worth might be a factor. No one would want to spend a lot of money to overhaul a simple 60's Bulova or Benrus often, so if one really likes the watch then get it cleaned and oiled and run the thing periodically in rotation with others in your collection. Of course if it's some sort of valued heirloom that's different. However, if we are talking about your moonwatch, I would say get her serviced regardless of it's current performance. This is where the reply by @gbesq applies most. You don't want to run a valuable and complicated chronograph on old lubricant.

Of course budget and how often the watches are worn weigh in as factors too. This is a kind of an individual choice but I will say that for myself I would cringe wearing an old watch not knowing if she needs a cleaning and lube job. The last factor that has already been mentioned is parts availability. I might be tempted to roll the dice for a while and wear something for a while longer between services, for instance with a watch with a common model ETA movement as spare parts are no biggie.

I think that Fred makes some good points here. While regular maintenance intervals are ideal, it makes sense to take into account the value of the watch and the availability of parts.

 

[STANDY]

RoadRunner73

I can understand that dust, lack of proper lubrication may affect the performance of a watch, but why doing it if the watch is accurate ? My 25 years old Moonwatch for example, bought about 1 year ago, has probably never been serviced according to several "experts" who have checked it; it's been regulated though after I bought it, and accuracy rate is back from a past +50 sec/day to an approx. -2/+4 sec/day, closely followed-up now nearly every day since 4 months. And since it's got Tritium hands in pristine condition, I am very reluctant to have it serviced, for fear that something wrong might happen to them...

This watch needs to be serviced……

 

[Dan S]

The topic has been discussed in some previous threads, and there are diverse opinions. It's a matter of personal preference. With new watches, some people prefer to let a watch break before having the manufacturer service it because the cost is the same either way. With vintage watches, some people are more afraid that the watchmaker will damage their watch than the damage that may occur from wear and tear. Other people have so many watches and wear them so infrequently, that it's just not practical to service them all. Yet other people prefer to perform regular preventative maintenance and keep their watches running properly. One thing that's becoming a major issue is the lack of watchmakers capable of repairing vintage watches.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/selling-of-watches-that-are-unserviced.79470/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/to-service-or-not.96355/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/servicing-how-necessary.60736/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/watches-for-sale-with-unknown-service-history.23367/

 

[Vintage Lemania]

Dan S

The topic has been discussed in some previous threads, and there are diverse opinions. It's a matter of personal preference. With new watches, some people prefer to let a watch break before having the manufacturer service it because the cost is the same either way. With vintage watches, some people are more afraid that the watchmaker will damage their watch than the damage that may occur from wear and tear. Other people have so many watches and wear them so infrequently, that it's just not practical to service them all. Yet other people prefer to perform regular preventative maintenance and keep their watches running properly. One thing that's becoming a major issue is the lack of watchmakers capable of repairing vintage watches.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/selling-of-watches-that-are-unserviced.79470/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/to-service-or-not.96355/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/servicing-how-necessary.60736/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/watches-for-sale-with-unknown-service-history.23367/

I completely agree that it is getting harder to find competent watchmakers to work on vintage watches. I am almost more concerned that a dial scratch or some other form of damage will occur during a service.

 

[Archer]

RoadRunner73

of course it's in his interest to lead people to spend money on watch services

Well, speaking for myself and every other watchmaker I know, no one is busy looking for work. We are all buried in work, and turning away work daily. The idea that there's a need to "encourage" people to spend money on servicing is just not reality.

RoadRunner73

I can understand that dust, lack of proper lubrication may affect the performance of a watch, but why doing it if the watch is accurate ?

Accuracy is not a reliable indicator of the condition of the movement. Before the watch shows any accuracy issues, parts are already wearing out. Then it comes down to the cost of parts, and for vintage, it can vary significantly, depending on the same movement. Parts can easily double the cost of a service, or more.

 

[RoadRunner73]

Thanks to all of you Guys for these very valuable opinions ; my impression is that everybody sort of tends to hold a piece of truth ! I would quite agree with the fact that a rule should be found depending on age and value of watch ; I personnaly did not hesitate to put 600€ in a proper restoration of the movement of an odd but nice 19th century pocket watch, simply because it was my grand-father's !


On the other hand, the idea of sending my 1997 Tritium Moonwatch to service gives me a headache !


What if something happen to the hands during the disassembling ? I read many bad testimonials from people who got theirs back with "Service hands", or some of the Tritium had gone, and though it seems that it is not possible to get new Tritium hands, the only answer was : I'm sorry !
And even officially approved Omega watchmakers I've come across so far said they do not accept any liability in case of damage on the hands, repeating what Omega in Bienne says that Tritium hands are no longer valid, and would eventually be replaced by Luminova hands in case of damage : in the best case, it seems they would now agree to put them back broken... Pressure from Vintage Omega collectors I suppose ? That's at least what I managed to gather so far.

 

[Archer]

I have removed and replaced hands on hundreds of Speedmasters without having lume fall out. The risk is there certainly, but it is vastly overblown in your posts...

 

[RoadRunner73]

But looking at many of your comments, it seems that I have to have my Moonwatch serviced... Need now to find an adequate pro !
Any idea as to the criticality of taking out the Tritium hands of a Speedie ? I've been told that they would be easier to take out as compared with other brands (seems quite difficult on a Rolex...)

 

[RoadRunner73]

Archer

I have removed and replaced hands on hundreds of Speedmasters without having lume fall out. The risk is there certainly, but it is vastly overblown in your posts...

So seems to confirm what I was writing when you were posting !! Good point ! Thanks

 

[p4ul]

RoadRunner73

But looking at many of your comments, it seems that I have to have my Moonwatch serviced... Need now to find an adequate pro !
Any idea as to the criticality of taking out the Tritium hands of a Speedie ? I've been told that they would be easier to take out as compared with other brands (seems quite difficult on a Rolex...)

Say where you live and you’ll get some recommendations (probably).

 

[smorrisonmd]

Dan S

The topic has been discussed in some previous threads, and there are diverse opinions. It's a matter of personal preference. With new watches, some people prefer to let a watch break before having the manufacturer service it because the cost is the same either way. With vintage watches, some people are more afraid that the watchmaker will damage their watch than the damage that may occur from wear and tear. Other people have so many watches and wear them so infrequently, that it's just not practical to service them all. Yet other people prefer to perform regular preventative maintenance and keep their watches running properly. One thing that's becoming a major issue is the lack of watchmakers capable of repairing vintage watches.

https://omegaforums.net/threads/selling-of-watches-that-are-unserviced.79470/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/to-service-or-not.96355/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/servicing-how-necessary.60736/
https://omegaforums.net/threads/watches-for-sale-with-unknown-service-history.23367/

Despite our personal differences of opinion on this well beaten subject, I think your summary is spot on.

Also I find it interesting that while opinions voiced historically are often polar opposites, there does seem to be somewhat of a consensus emerging that the decision should be based a several factors:

1) Value of the watch
2) Rarity of the watch, and in particular the movement. The assumption being that the more rare ones will be harder to source parts
3) Intentions of the owner. Wear often? Never? Reselling?

There is no obviously no clear correct answer

 

[p4ul]

smorrisonmd

Despite our personal differences of opinion on this well beaten subject, I think your summary is spot on.

Also I find it interesting that while opinions voiced historically are often polar opposites, there does seem to be somewhat of a consensus emerging that the decision should be based a several factors:

1) Value of the watch
2) Rarity of the watch, and in particular the movement. The assumption being that the more rare ones will be harder to source parts
3) Intentions of the owner. Wear often? Never? Reselling?

There is no obviously no clear correct answer

1) Sorry, but you are omitting the insanity of this hobby. (Probably just me?)

The service and work cost as much as the watch, but I just liked it and wanted it better.

 

[pdxleaf]

RoadRunner73

In the Industry where I have worked for nearly 40 years, it says that preventive maintenance is essential, as it will reduce the risk of unexpected failure ; I can very well understand that in a world that does not work together well with loss of production or of turnover, but what about watches ?

My response is a wee bit off topic, but perhaps not entirely.

I worked briefly for a place that maintained the electrical distribution equipment for 29 buildings, things like circuit breakers, relays, switches, transformers. When I joined the shop they were changing their maintenance method. The old process was to swap out gear based on an average life expectancy.

There was a newer thought of running to failure. The idea was that itvwas too costly to change perfectly running gear. Also, something with an average life of 25 years might fail in the first year while another one might still be running 60 years later. You just couldn't know.

This only worked because we had ready spares sitting in reserve. That, plus double fed buildings and three feeder lines, which meant a failure would quickly switch to another live line.

Bringing it back to your watch, you don't have spare parts and you only have one system. You also value your vintage watch for its originality. Swapping out worn parts even if you could find them would impact how you feel about your watch. It's possible that if you had a modern watch with plentiful spare parts you could just run it to failure. But not so for something old.

This may be an exaggerated analogy. It's something that has been on my mind as of late, which is what will happen to vintage watch collecting in 10, 20 years if there are no parts or options for service. Not there yet but it is concerning.

Thanks for your interesting thread.