Watchmaker’s graffiti on my ‘66-CB

Did you ask him why?

Yes, if you are certain that they weren't there previously, you should be outraged.

It was a ridiculous thing to do 75 years ago, and even less excusable today.

This is a slippery slope and I would be interested in hearing the advise from veterans here. The way I see it, unless you can be absolutely sure it wasn't there before, I would hold on expressing your outrage. The simple ask in a benign tone of "did you inscribe numbers on the lugs of my watch" may yield the answer.
After that point my question is to what benefit would throwing a tizzy get you (I would be tizzy inclined myself)? Is there any possible recourse for the devaluation and if so, how do you get that appraised? And after all that, your watch is still inscribed. would it be worth polishing it out or just leaving it as-is?

Historically watchmakers used to scratch mark their own codes into the case whenever they did work on a watch. I had a Breguet Souscription watch from 1813 and it had many such marks during its long life. But for the last 25 years or so it is not considered good practice to do this. Unfortunately there are some older watch repairers that still scratch mark the cases. (Tiffany used to scratch mark their items, including watches, with a small number prior to sale but I don't know if they still do this. On a watch it was done on a lug). I sent a completely unmarked Gubelin triple date moonphase from 1951 to RGM in Lancaster, PA for a complete cleaning about ten years ago and it came back with scratch marks on the former pristine inner pearl sheened case. I called Roland Murphy directly and complained and was told 'well, some repairers still do this' although he admitted it wasn't best practice. I wasn't happy and vowed not to use them again.

You can't undo what is done but I would suggest that everyone confirm with a repairer that NO scratch marks are to be made anywhere on the case or movement. Most will comply, and if they don't, call them out.

In this case I would not try to polish them out, they are discrete and don't devalue the watch. It's just another mark of use on a utilitarian item although it shouldn't have been put there.

I took my well loved and worn, but unpolished GMT to my local watchmaker about 10 years ago (he is an awesome guy and a great tradesman), and when I got it back I was horrified that he gave the watch a nice polish, crystal was gleaming and the brushed surfaces were a little less brushed and more shiny. I didn't think to say anything before hand as it didn't occur to me, but his "making it shiny" was part of his normal routine and he didn't think it would devalue the watch.

I know this is apples to oranges but I guess this illustrates the importance of vetting the watchmaker (do they work with vintage high dollar watches much or do battery replacements for Zales?), and being very descriptive with them about how you want your watch handled. I have gone back to my watchmaker several times since and each time I say "do not polish or touch the case in any way". He looked at me funny when I first made that request but now knows that's what I want. Most people want it shiny, and most never would have noticed that etching.

Are you 100% certain they were not there prior to taking the watch in?

I can tell you that watch owners will often look the watch over more closely after it comes back from service than they typically do before it goes for service. They then "notice" things that were already there, which is why I take photos of the watch when it's received. Again not suggesting that anyone is trying to pull something, but honest mistakes do happen.

Ideally if you have photos taken before the watch was sent in for this work, that would be ideal to prove your case with the watchmaker. Since you don't appear to want it polished, I'm not sure what recourse you would be seeking though.

As I've noted many times, the practice of scratching up a customer's watch is no longer considered appropriate, but I still see it happen. More common today is marking the case back with a marker, but I'm not personally in favour of that either (concerns about off-gassing). I know people often say they want to find an "old school" watchmaker, but sometimes the old school wasn't so good...

Cheers, Al

It happens!

By the way my own 1971 Speedmaster has similar markings under the lug - doesn't really other me as it can't be seen, and is another reminder that the watch has "history" even though I would prefer it wasn't there.

Markings inside the case are one thing, but I've also seen the "old school" watchmakers mark the movement parts - often it seems they were doing so in order to make sure they put the watch back together correctly, so not exactly confidence inspiring to say the least.

X marks the spot on this 861 - on the spring and the movement so the watchmaker knew where the spring went (for the record it's impossible to mix these up with the other parts in the area):



On this one (same watch) not only marked the parts and the bridge to ID where it went, but also traced the screw so he knew which screw went back on in this location:



On this 1861, someone decided to scribe their code right near the balance:



Another here:



And here:



On this 321 someone scribed where the spring went:



Here it is assembled with the spring highlighted - again this spring can really only go in one spot, so this sort of thing is puzzling:



Although scratching the case with a code is something that has been out of favour for a number of years now, scratching the movement up was never something that was accepted, but I know there are watchmakers working on watches right now who do this kind of thing...one I know of actually scratches his initials in the movement..."DL"...🤦