It's amazing how much effort can be put into a crap repair...

 

Now we have discussed that when someone advertises a watch for sale as "freshly serviced" that it should be taken with a grain of salt, but what about if the guy doing the selling is a watchmaker and services what he sells?

So this Seamaster with a Cal. 552 was sent to me as a new purchase (shipped to me right after the buyer received it), and it was bought from what appeared to be a reputable seller who sold vintage watches, who also is a watchmaker and services everything he sells himself. So theoretically, this should be a good one.

A look under the microscope reveals a mixed bag - so oiling of this cap jewel is fine:



This jewel is dry:



Once again escapement oiling appears to be a major challenge for some:





Took this shot after I removed the escape wheel - again an extraordinary amount of oil and not where it should be located:



This is not just the proper amount of oil creeping away for some reason, which can happen if for example the wheel was not cleaned well, but this is again a huge amount of oil.

So once I ran it the parts through the cleaning machine, I put the parts back under the microscope to check condition, and I do see wear:





And wear with rust:





In addition the pinion for the rotor was worn, so that had to be replaced and reamed to the proper size:











So not a great service job in terms of the application of oils, etc., but there is another problem here that brings up something I have been thinking about for a while now. Several parts in this watch were clearly worn and rusted, and needed replacing. Now in this case the parts that should have been replaced when the watch was just serviced by the seller amounted to about $160 or so - not earth shattering by any means. But it could have been much worse, and this makes me wonder about the inherent conflict of interest involved when you are the seller of watches as your primary business, and you are servicing the watches you are selling yourself.

Now I'm sure that there are people who service what they sell, and do the job right, bringing the watch up to spec. in every way. But I can also see that if someone is doing a service on a watch they have bought for resale, and they are deciding what parts need replacing, they must be thinking about the money they already have into the watch and what they are likely to sell it for, and if replacing those parts will eat into or possibly eliminate any profit they would see.

Now I don't sell vintage or used watches, but in the past I did use some vintage US pocket watch movements as a base movement for a series of watches I made and sold, so I have some direct experience at making these sorts of decisions. Of course anything not 100% up to spec was replaced or repaired. However the costs to get them running to my specs made it time consuming and unprofitable, so I simply discontinued that line.

Now is a seller that uses his "special" watchmaker that does a great job for a few bucks any better? Well our old buddy ev3rclear comes to mind, so sending a watch out to a "trade" watchmaker who does work for stores, etc. is not necessarily a good thing either. Again I'm sure there are some great ones doing this work (I know some I would recommend without hesitation actually), but the pressure is on to keep costs down, and turn watches around very fast, while getting paid a fraction of what your work is worth. Not a recipe for ensuring good work usually.

Now this isn't the first (or the last I suspect) watch in my shop that is "freshly serviced" that was far from being in good shape, so this begs the question about paying a premium for a serviced watch. I would say unless you know the watchmaker who worked on it, and know they do very good work, it's likely not worth paying any premium for a serviced watch.

I have another example of a similar situation coming up...

Cheers, Al

 

Interesting. What are all the speckles on the cap jewel?

The oil you're showing on that one escape tooth looks much more than you'd use on the whole pallet oiling.

Three of the wear photos look terrible but, and it's probably just the picture, I thought the second one didn't look too bad so I will review my "acceptance criteria". These are all parts of the auto mechanism I think and I wonder whether in the past, people did some Duncan Swish style servicing on that... I just realised that the dry jewel is also part of the winder, perhaps the last service didn't include the auto mechanism? Is that what's known as a "basic service"

By the way, those special reamers are very neat!

Interesting point about how much money to put into a watch if you're selling it. I suppose in the case of the auto winder people might think "it's an old watch so the winder is not so efficient" and accept that as part of owning something vintage? You could see sellers getting away with that. Not very satisfying work to do though and a real shame for whoever buys that sort of serviced watch.

Cheers, Chris

 

Hi Chris,

Those "speckles" are dirt of course. The movement wasn't terribly clean when I opened the watch.

Okay so the first worn wheel is a train wheel actually (3rd wheel), but the rest are automatic winding parts. The second photo doesn't look all that bad, but considering that small satellite pinion costs $10, for me replacing it is sort of a no-brainer. Sure I could clean it up, but by the time I get the Jacot tool out, and get it set-up, I've spent the $10 before I even start on burnishing it. This isn't a rare antique...it's a plain old 552.

As we have discussed before, when to call a part bad enough to warrant replacement is somewhat of a judgment call, and someone may not feel that particular part was bad enough to replace (the others were not a question at all in my mind). But as we have also discussed before, the automatic winding system in a watch is an incredibly hard working part of the watch, and the wear you see there can turn into this fairly quickly in my experience:



And as things get worse and the wheels start to drift off axis, you get secondary wear effects, like this:



If you are looking at similar wear on a watch for yourself, in particular in an area that is easily accessed without taking the whole watch apart again like the automatic, you might consider leaving it. But when I ship this off to wherever in the world it's headed, and my warranty and reputation are on the line, the decision becomes easier for me.

Cheers, Al

 

Damn son ! You're like the CSI of watches only 10 times more effective and observant.

 

I have to admit that I am replacing more parts in my watches since I bought myself a microscope.

It is also an interesting observation Al makes about the cost vs the impact on profit for a seller. A colleague of mine recently asked me to have a look at a 1961 Seamaster he bought from a well known vintage watch shop on The Strand in London. He bought it one year ago with a two year warranty and the watch "would not wind." As it turned out, the mainspring was broken at the arbour end (serviced a year ago, supposedly) but worse still, the reversing wheel was so loose that it had separated enough to trap the wheel that connects it to the winding mechanism and there were bits of that wheel everywhere. The oiling of the jewels was good but I had to strip it down to replace the spring anyway and to clean out the swarf. My colleague didn't want to spend the extra £120 for a new reversing wheel so I did what I could with that and told him that he should really consider it as he wears the watch most days.

 

Thanks Al, some good advice there. I suspected the speckles were dirt and that’s a bit worrying as well. As my time comes free (well, sort of…) I can spend some time burnishing pivots although I won’t be doing a clock again as that seemed to take an age but, at that sort of price, it would just be easier to replace. I think that is either 5501453 or 5501454 so about $20 from Cousins all in for me if I remember correctly the last time I bought one. Might be a bit higher now.

It is a difficult call for me which parts are not up to spec but it becomes clearer as I move forwards so, these posts are a big help.

That's a lot of money Stewart but I suppose it is a seven part assembly, assuming it's a 56x series.

Thanks, Chris

 

Well I am going to show your watch in this thread after all (sorry!) but it's not a particularly bad example in terms of damage, just very strange...

We all know about the marks that are sometimes inscribed inside the case back of a watch, where a watchmaker has put a date, job number, or their individually assigned code to indicate that they have worked on this watch. That practice was quite normal at one time, but is pretty much frowned upon these days, because scratching up a customer's watch is just doing damage for no real reason. I don't use any marks on the watch, but keep detailed photographic records of each service.

Anyway, in addition to marks on the case, you will occasionally see marks on the movement itself. I can't imagine this was even considered a proper practice at any time, but I still see it often. Usually it's a number scratched into each major part (plates and bridges), and I usually imagine some watchmaker taking apart 3 or 4 of the same watch at a time, and marking each one with a number so the major parts don't get mixed up. But this example is a bit more strange than that...

Here is the barrel drum - it has some marks on it put there by a watchmaker at some point that might be a date or job number:



On the barrel lid though, it's not numbers, but a pattern scratched into the lid:



When you look at the assembled barrel, it becomes clear that the pattern scratched in was for the friction spring that drives the pinion (this pinion in turn drives the hour recorder runner for the chronograph):



Okay, so that's odd. But that was not the only example of the watchmaker "tracing" out various parts on other parts of the movement, so looking at the barrel and wheel train bridge, you can see another part traced out:



And here with some parts assembled on the movement, I have highlighted the part that was traced in the previous photo - the operating lever hook spring:



So why did the watchmaker need to do this? Was he or she bored one afternoon while working on the watch, and wanted to "doodle" on it with sharp tweezers? Was this their first ever Cal. 321, and they weren't confident they would be able to put it back together without making these marks? Who knows, but it is very weird!

Cheers, Al

 

So this is another example from someone who is primarily a reseller of watches that he services himself. But in this case the owner of this watch took his prized Constellation to this watchmaker just for a service. The owner of this watch has had it since it was new actually, and had all prior services done by Omega, until he went to this local guy.

The local watchmaker did the service, but 3 weeks after, when the owner was walking in a light rain, the watch fogged up quite badly - this is a photo of it at that time (not mine of course):



No mention of water resistance testing was made when he had picked the watch up. He immediately took it back to the watchmaker, who simply opened it up and let it dry out. He then gave it back to the owner, but he stopped wearing it within a few weeks because it wasn't keeping time well. When the owner had taken the watch to the watchmaker initially, he was told that to rotor was rubbing the case back because the seal that had been installed by Omega was not correct, and it allowed the case back to screw down too far. Well this watchmaker's diagnostic skills are a bit lacking...here is a video that shows how worn out the pinion (bushing) on the rotor is, and how much play the rotor has as a result:

There was clear evidence on the rotor that it had been rubbing for a while:



And inside the case back there was a wear ring also:



So looking at the movement under the microscope, I can see we are likely going to need some parts even before I disassemble and inspect then:



Cap jewel dry:



Dry jewel and there was a fair bit of debris in the movement as well:



Another big issue was the plan to just let the watch dry out after it had suffered so much condensation. It's pretty clear that was poor judgment based on the rust I can see:



As I start to disassemble it, more rust in the setting parts:



With the watch disassembled, cleaned, I can now inspect everything under the microscope and determine what needs replacing - it's not a short list:











Some need replacing for simple wear, and some because the rust is quite extensive:



So a few things that can be considered from this one in particular...

If a watch has a lot of condensation, then just drying it out is clearly not going to solve the problem. In most cases, the watch really should be fully disassembled, cleaned, and serviced again. Also, if your watchmaker doesn't mention water resistance when they give you a watch back, then ask! I am often in a position where collectors don't want to have parts with seals changed for the sake of originality, but even though they know this means the watch won't be water resistant, I still tell them multiple times to be sure they understand this.

Many parts in this watch needed replacing for wear, and were not related to the condensation issues. The watchmaker who made silly excuses for not replacing the pinion on the rotor, also didn't replace a good number of worn train and automatic wheels. Why I can't say for sure, but I expect that with parts being less available than they used to be, the problem of not replacing worn parts may get a lot worse.

In this case since this watchmaker is used to servicing and reselling watches (so replacing worn parts will impact his profits) I do wonder if this same thinking has spilled over into all his service work. Watchmaking is very much about routine, and good practices must be religiously maintained...for example keeping your bench clean and tidy...if you let things like this slip, they become habit, and it will impact your work negatively. If this watchmaker is used to looking at parts in watches he is selling, and even if they are worn saying "good enough" it could be difficult for him to break out of this habit when working on a watch he is not involved in selling.

In any case, the watch turned out quite well - in final timing checks now:



Cheers, Al

 

Just a case of this guy taking up a new hobby:

 

Al - I add my thanks for your great commentary and photos. My only question (and I'm not arguing with you, among other things, you are an expert in this area and I know nothing about it): If a professional dealer in antique or vintage collectibles cannot be trusted to properly repair and restore items in his inventory (understanding that antiques often should be and are left untouched), then how can he be trusted at all? In the art world, a proper restoration can greatly increase value, and you won't often see major pieces in top galleries or auction houses with repairable condition problems. With musical instruments, this is even more commonly the situation, as an instrument usually has little value unless it's in playable condition, and the relatively valuable ones (those worth over $5,000, certainly those over $10,000) are seldom sold as is by dealers.
One would think there would be trusted dealers somewhere, however high-priced their offering are. OTOH, some here seem not to trust Omega itself or its authorized dealers to deal with their vintage watches, so maybe not.

 

Is this a rhetorical question? Because I think I did say that I was sure there are places that do the job right...yep here it is...

So my main point in this is...

I don't think what I'm saying here is particularly ground breaking - advice is commonly given here that unless you have proof (other than a sellers word) that the watch was serviced by a watchmaker or company that knows what they are doing, you should count on doing a service. So doing your homework is a good idea as always...

Cheers, Al

 

I say this is good general life advise too

 

Thanks, Al. BYW, I do use a trusted independent watch repairer (like you) who has a significant waiting list (like you, no doubt). And I'd be happy to buy something "as is" from someone with a good reputation here, for example. But I am curious, especially with the dealer horror stories I often read here, not just from you, or even mainly from you. They wouldn't get away with that in the areas I mentioned. Word travels fast among collectors when there is a bad apple.

 

At least your colleague was able to make an informed decision based on your diagnosis. What is more insidious is when a watch is "serviced" but the owner is not aware the watch may still have issues because the watchmaker decided to forego expensive repairs.