# How often to service a watch - a watchmaker's view



## Archer

As a watchmaker I am am often asked what is the correct interval for service, and my response it always the same - it depends.

I have answered this question before in several threads here, but I thought starting a new one might help keep this information where it can be seen, and not buried in another thread. It's also an opportunity for me to consolidate some points that I have posted in various places.

Just a disclaimer to start with - for those who are convinced that there is no need for regular service, please note that I am not trying to change your mind, and I'm just giving my perspective here. I know someone out there will either think or write "Yes but as a watchmaker, you have an interest in getting more business!" If you saw my backlog of repairs, you would realize how ridiculous that idea is. If you are a good watchmaker, getting business is not ever a problem - having far more than you can handle is.

In my opinion, there are many things that can come into play regarding how often one should service a watch. Is the watch modern, or vintage, and how available are parts? Do you take it to a service center, or use an independent? My answer for a specific watch can be different depending on those factors listed. Also, it's a personal decision, and some people will be confortable leaving the watch until it stops, and some won't.

So let's look at a few common things that are regularly talked about, and some factors that I think are important, in detail:

1 - "Because I only wear my watch 50% of the time, I should be able to double the time between service." If the watches are actually stopped for X% of the time, then yes the service interval can be extended. However it's not a completely linear relationship, because eventually oils will break down (yes even modern synthetic oils) regardless if the watch is running or not. So if the normal service interval is 5 years, and you wear the watch 33% of the time, the service interval does not now become 15 years. The oils will dry out long before that. In fact most brands require that the oils I use at my bench are no more than 2 years old - yes they will check this during shop inspections. Now this does not mean oils are only good for 2 years, but that 2 years, added to the recommended service interval, is all that they feel comfortable with in terms of the age of the oils.

2 - "As long as my watch keeps good time, there no need for service." Timekeeping is not a reliable indicator that a watch is in need of service. I see watches often that keep great time, but are a mess inside as there are many components inside a watch that are not directly related to the timekeeping function. Certainly if your watch suddenly begins to lose or gain time, this can be a sign it needs service, but the absence of a change, which is what some use as an indicator of "everything's fine inside" is certainly not true.

So what do I mean when I say the watch is a mess inside? Here are some examples:

Rolex Cal. 3000 that came into my shop "running well and keeping great time"

Balance jewel is completely dry:










Oils dried and crystalized:



















Here is another dry pivot - you can see products of wear in the jewel:










Panerai 005 with excessive wear on the main plate and barrel bridge from the winding pinion:




























Debris through the movement:










Wear on the barrel bridge of an ETA 2824-2 - I see this wear often on this movement:










The main plate was also worn, requiring the whole plate to be replaced - not an insignificant expense:



















Wear in a Rolex Cal. 1575 barrel - deep groove worn on the inside wall of the barrel - worn barrel on the right, new barrel on the left:










Worn bushing (hole was oval shaped) for the chronograph runner in a Tag chronograph (ETA 7750):










I replaced it with a jewel:




























I could go on, but you get the picture I hope.

If the oils are dry, then the rate of wear is accelerated. If that wear is significant enough to require replacement of parts is something that has to be judged at the time of service. Certainly in some of the cases above, parts had to be replaced, but even parts that are not worn completely will potentially affect the performance of the movement over time.

So the watch may run and run okay, but over time the performance will degrade, and the parts will eventually need replacing. In some cases excessive wear that will happen when the lubrication dries out will not result in a huge additional expense at service. In other cases, it may more than double the cost of the service. If the wear is on a spot where the part is small and is easily replaced, then the cost is likely to be low. If the wear is on a larger piece like the main plate, then those are never inexpensive. For example a jeweled main plate for a Cal. 1128 is a $250 item - far different than replacing a wheel that is only $15 or $20.

3 - Modern or vintage? If you have a modern watch, it's not something really rare, and parts are readily available and not expensive, then wearing the watch until a problem appears is not necessarily a bad idea. It really depends on what the movement is, and where the weak spots are. For vintage watches, my advice is quite different. Now to use a vintage Omega example, if you have a Cal. 321 Speedmaster, then you probably know that most of the parts inside this movement are discontinued (no longer sold by Omega), and some are very difficult to find. If you do find them, the people selling know they are rare, and these parts are very expensive. In a case like this, the priority should be on regular service in order to preserve the parts inside the watch as much as possible. So if someone asks me how often to service their Speedmaster, my answer will be different if it's a Cal. 1861 watch, compared to a Cal. 321.

4 - Service center, or independent? -One of the issues with using a manufacturer for service is their "take it or leave it" attitude with what they feel has to be done. They in effect hold you hostage, and if you don't agree with all that they recommend, they will refuse to do the service. There are reports of things like a watch that needed a new crown getting a complete service that would seem to be completely unnecessary. Be aware that built into the cost of every factory service are the exchange of parts that are replaced whether they need it or not. This is one reason why factory service can be much more expensive than using an independent who replaces only what needs to be replaced. So if you plan on using the factory, you are already paying a premium for parts replacement that is built into the service cost, so if some parts are worn, they won't charge you any extra. However you are already paying much more to start with.

5 - Is water resistance a factor? - One thing to keep in mind is that there is more to maintaining a watch than it's movement. For a watch that has water resistance built into it, seals will degrade over time even if the watch sits in a drawer or safe. Part of servicing a watch is the checking and replacing of seals, and pressure testing the watch to check it for water resistance. I always recommend that anyone who gets their watches wet regularly, also has pressure testing performed on them regularly, even if you don't get a full service done. If the watch fails the testing, at the very least get the seals changed.

So what to conclude from all of this? One is that you need to be comfortable with whatever approach you choose. Some people view this from a purely economic standpoint, and don't really mind the idea of parts inside their watch wearing away. If you want to let the watch run until it stops, that is your choice and I personally have zero problems with that. Just don't be under the illusion that because a watch performs well, it does not need service or that parts are not wearing inside.

Others don't like the idea that the watch is wearing itself out, so they prefer to service more regularly, and that's perfectly valid too.

My key point here is that applying a single set of rules for all circumstances is not necessarily the best approach.

I hope this helps.

Cheers, Al


----------



## J.JUN

As usual, informative stuff from archer!! Great reading material and reference for future watch lovers!


----------



## Raff

Interesting read, thanks.


----------



## Phil_P

Many thanks Al for sharing your perspective - makes for a very interesting read.


----------



## GravityZ

nice photo's Al,

i get the part about the oil getting dry
How do you explain that omega claims that with a coaxial movement the service interval will double due to the low/no friction on the escapement.
Since the watch is not completely oil free i believe the escapement will keep on running(exept for my watch) but eventually something else along the way using oil will stop thus stopping everything.
so is the coaxial a novelty just made for marketing to give omega a unique feature or does it indeed have a longer service interval?


----------



## copperjohn

Love your posts, Al. Very informative. Thanks.


----------



## 92gli

Another great post Al. You swayed me a bit ;-)


----------



## Archer

GravityZ said:


> nice photo's Al,
> 
> i get the part about the oil getting dry
> How do you explain that omega claims that with a coaxial movement the service interval will double due to the low/no friction on the escapement.
> Since the watch is not completely oil free i believe the escapement will keep on running(exept for my watch) but eventually something else along the way using oil will stop thus stopping everything.
> so is the coaxial a novelty just made for marketing to give omega a unique feature or does it indeed have a longer service interval?


There is more to a watch than the escapement, that's for sure.

Cheers, Al


----------



## KringleKriss

As much as I hate to admit, this post has changed my view on watch service intervals.


----------



## Zidane

Always appreciate your posts, Al. Some good food for thought.


----------



## joeuk

Thanks for taking time out and writing this information and always great to see pics from your work.


----------



## RogerP

Most excellent post, Al.


----------



## hoppes-no9

Thanks for your insights and other contributions to this forum, Al. 



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## iinsic

Our resident treasure enlightens us yet again. Thanks, Al, for sharing so generously! :-!

Rob


----------



## Vertec

This is why we love your posts around here. I can't tell you enough how much I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us.


----------



## audz95

Subscribed and like everyone has said above, thanks for your knowledge/insight. Great read there.


----------



## puchelaar

Thank you for the clear and concise way you expressed some thoughts I've never been able to express this way myself.

Thumbs up!


Sent through Tapatalk


----------



## NMGE17

Thanks for a fascinating and informative post Al.

Nigel


----------



## Perseus

Thank you Al. I really appreciate an experienced and informed opinion!


----------



## oris diver

Hi Al
How long would you expect the oils in watch to last before it starts to dry up. As you mentioned 5 years before a service is typical ,but a new watch might be sitting in a shop window for few years before it's sold.


----------



## DaBaeker

I never was one to really argue that a watch did not need regular service because it was running well. In fact-i should admit the truth-I am a total cheapskate in this respect which makes absolutely no sense since I have have some rather pricey old watches. In other words-penny-wise/dollar stupid. But the most recent experience I had has convinced me that its in my own best interest to maintain the old (and new) watches I have as per a "watchmakers" recommendation. 
I have a 1963-4 Rolex gmt master with a semi-rare dial and hands. When I found out how its value to collectors had appreciated you would have thought I would immediately have it serviced but I didnt. Instead-I wore it off and on for over 25yrs without a regular service until it finally started to lose a few seconds a day (after running within cosc since 1985) Naturally I assumed the worst and figured a rolex auth. service would be well over $1000usd. I foud out my vintage Seiko watchmaker also happened to do a lot of the vintage work Tournneau needed done. I shipped it off still expecting the worst.
So-after Als scary pics of the filthy rolex parts you would think at 20+yrs w/o a service I would have at least that much damage. Well-I did not and got away with a standard clean and service along with a tightening of the pinion and its now back on my wrist at +1sec per day. 

The moral? That I finally realized how I lucked out and could have been telling a very different story. I have no illusions about how much parts for a '63 rolex would cost and i will now have the thing serviced at regular intervals to preserve all its original bits and pieces. The other moral? If you think you can get away with finding exquisite vintage watches and avoid the costs associated with keeping them all healthy and happy-your in the wrong hobby.

I would like to know what Al thinks about vintage watches that are never worn and simply stored (sad, I know, but true with a few). Since we can assume the oils will dry out is it really necessary to service them before such time as they will be put into service again and worn? In other words-is there any harm in having a watch dry out its lube if its just sitting and not running?


----------



## JimInOz

Yep, just a standard post from Al:

Easy to understand!
Informative!
Just brilliant!

Should be a sticky


----------



## incontrol

Thank you for a very informative post Archer!


----------



## aardvarkbark

Archer said:


> There is more to a watch than the escapement, that's for sure.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Tactful, as always, Al.

Your contributions are the rare gems that provide us all with a greater understanding of the function of these things and, along with those from a handful of others, keep this from becoming purely a watch shopping forum.

The one thing I might add in defense of factory service centers and their insistence on the replacement of parts is their claim, whether one believes to be sincere or not, that these replacements are required in order for them to offer a two-year warranty on the work, and that none are required for purely cosmetic improvement, but rather for restoration of the integrity of the piece.


----------



## UCrazyKid

Great read Al, thanks!
AA


----------



## luxor

Great posting!!! Thanks for your insight.


----------



## NT931

Great read, esp for newbies like me. Thanks Al! After reading what you said about the cost of a main plate for the cal 1128, I was mightily relieved that I recently had mine serviced.

I'm wondering - should we make this a sticky for future forumers? It is a detailed yet succinct summary, with nice illustrative pictures. What do you guys think?


----------



## mt1tdi

Great post Al. It would be interesting to have some info on each of those watches in the pictures, # years without service, % time worn in rotation with other watches.

I'm a little worried about a few that I have, and which I have no idea if they've ever been serviced.


----------



## Machine Head

Many thanks for your time spent assembling this post- defintiely a good read!


----------



## yande

Al,
Comparatively it was much easier for me to think (and say) "if it works, don't fix it," so I really appreciate the time and energy you have taken to enlighten me, to the weaknesses of that thought, (and as is your norm) in such a gentle, descriptive, professional and conclusive manner.

Thank you and I wish you the very best for the New Year.


----------



## Archer

oris diver said:


> Hi Al
> How long would you expect the oils in watch to last before it starts to dry up. As you mentioned 5 years before a service is typical ,but a new watch might be sitting in a shop window for few years before it's sold.


I'll try to answer this the best I can, but realize that being stored in a cool dry place, and under the hot lights of a display cabinet, will cause some differences in the lengths of time a the oils will still be sound. I have not done any direct experiments to say conclusively how long oils will last, but as I stated most watch companies have a 5 year service interval recommendation, and they require my oils to be no more than 2 years old. Doing the math, that would mean 7 years. Now, I have seen watches less than 7 years old with dried oils in them, but have also seem watches go longer.

It's not just completely drying out that is the issue, but loss of lubricating properties would happen before the oil is dry I suspect.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer

mt1tdi said:


> Great post Al. It would be interesting to have some info on each of those watches in the pictures, # years without service, % time worn in rotation with other watches.
> 
> I'm a little worried about a few that I have, and which I have no idea if they've ever been serviced.


Unfortunately most people do not provide me with that sort of history when they send me a watch for servicing. Many people have purchased these watches second hand, and don't know the service history of them, like the 2824-2 with the worn barrel bridge and main plate. In fact the person who sent me that watch sent me 2 of the same model at the same time, and they both had to have the main plates and barrel bridges replaced.

The Panerai was serviced at the factory only 3 years before it came to me, but I have no idea if some of that wear had been there before that service was done. Based on the debris in the movement it had certainly worn some since that service had been done or there would not be brass bits all over the movement.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer

DaBaeker said:


> I would like to know what Al thinks about vintage watches that are never worn and simply stored (sad, I know, but true with a few). Since we can assume the oils will dry out is it really necessary to service them before such time as they will be put into service again and worn? In other words-is there any harm in having a watch dry out its lube if its just sitting and not running?


No running means no wear, so if the lubrication dries out with the watch just sitting, no harm is done (provided it's stored in a dry place and does not get moisture inside). But before it's put into use, I would certainly recommend having it serviced.

Cheers, Al


----------



## BigSeikoFan

That was a great read, Al. Thanks for taking the time to assemble your thoughts and sharing them with us.

Thanks!


----------



## Toothbras

Great info from with an inside perspective base on experience, not just guessing. Thanks for the write up Archer.


----------



## natesen

Very informative!! Appreciate all the info. The analogy I always heard was that a movement is like a car engine. Better to do preventative maintenance like oil changes to keep it running rather than waiting until the engine stops and breaks because you never got an oil change. 

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## masbret

Thanks Al, very informative. I look forward to you nexr thread!

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## georges zaslavsky

Every five-ten years, a good servcie is recommended. On some movements, spare parts are no more available that is why it is better to take care of them. Thanks for the read al


----------



## camb66

Fantastic-again


----------



## SealLover

Al 
As a new omega owner, what would you recommend the service interval for the 9300 calibre? 5 yrs?
Thanks


----------



## g-boac

Hi Al - this was a terrific post!! Thank you!!

cheers,
Mark


----------



## ukpony

Great read Al - thanks


----------



## Beckerman

This is great stuff. First time I have come across someone on a watch forum with such a high level of knowledge who is willing and able to share their experience in a non patronising manner. One of the main issues for me is that preventative maintenance is hugely important in the long run. Coming from the motor industry I have been baffled a few times by colleagues who own a nice watch but refuse to get them serviced because of the cost, it wouldn't even cross their mind not to get a car serviced so why not look after a watch that cost them thousands or even a few hundred quid.


----------



## hchj

Thanks for sharing! I agree this post should be archived and pinned as a sticky! 

Happy holidays, guys : )


----------



## pikeman

Hi Al,
A question for you sir,
Will running my watch on a winder wear out the watch quicker (or bring on the need for a service) or will the constant movement cycles aid the placement of the lubricants? 
Thanks


----------



## HiggsBoson

This is why i like spending my time here....i learn stuff. :-!
Cheers for posting Al.


----------



## Archer

pikeman said:


> Hi Al,
> A question for you sir,
> Will running my watch on a winder wear out the watch quicker (or bring on the need for a service) or will the constant movement cycles aid the placement of the lubricants?
> Thanks


A winder is a convenience that does nothing to aid the movement or the placement of lubricants (they are held in place by capillary action in the jewels). Compared to letting the watch run down and stop when you are not wearing it, yes the winder will cause wear and the need for service sooner.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer

SealLover said:


> Al
> As a new omega owner, what would you recommend the service interval for the 9300 calibre? 5 yrs?
> Thanks


The 9300 is new enough that I have no experience with it yet, so I would recommend sticking with whatever Omega recommends for now.

Cheers, Al


----------



## RogerP

Archer said:


> A winder is a convenience that does nothing to aid the movement or the placement of lubricants (they are held in place by capillary action in the jewels). Compared to letting the watch run down and stop when you are not wearing it, yes the winder will cause wear and the need for service sooner.
> 
> Cheers, Al


I wish we could make THIS post a giant sticky somewhere - if I had a dollar for every time I've heard that winders keep the lubricants more evenly distributed..... I also think WUS should set aside some place where the original post, and ones like it, could be grouped and stored for future reference. Kind of like Timezone did in placing Walt Odets' post in the 'Horologium'.


----------



## pikeman

A winder is a convenience that does nothing to aid the movement or the placement of lubricants (they are held in place by capillary action in the jewels). Compared to letting the watch run down and stop when you are not wearing it, yes the winder will cause wear and the need for service sooner.



Cheers, Al

Many thanks for your answer Al
Andy


----------



## charlieboy89

psst, that 3000 cal. (first 4 photo) is my watch lol.

As I was scrolling down I panicked that all the photos were taken from my watch and was concerned about the severity of its condition but was relieved when I realized that it was complication of different examples.

Phew


----------



## IAMsterdam

Thanks for this great post again. I must admit that I'm not that thorough on the service intervals but this post shook me up again. So I decided I have to plan it more securely to be sure I don't forget it. Because of the long intervals it's easy to forget or to postpone another couple of months. Having 10 different watches I think I'll set up a separate calendar just to be safe :-d


----------



## Citizen V

Thanks for the information! I had read this earlier but didn't post so I had a really hard time finding it again (was looking on a completely different forum)! Now I can go back through my posts to find it again .


----------



## bzspanner

Thank you Mr. Archer!

This is a very informative thread, I really appreciate you sharing your insight in such a detailed manner.


----------



## timenut

Hi Al, many thanks for the information.

Got a question for you.. which I have been pondering for awhile. I noticed that when an Omega automatic watch leaves the factory (in the transparent plastic box), the crown is left in position 2 with the movement hacked. Not sure why this is the case. Perhaps by hacking the movement, it reduces potential shock effects while the watch is being shipped. 

If the watch is not put on display, the dealer will usually store it in this same manner. Presumably, if it is a slow moving model, it may be stored that way for years. Isn't it bad to leave the crown open instead of closed? Wouldn't this lead to the oil drying up sooner and the possibility of moisture / dirt entering the watch? Why not store with the crown wound down instead?


----------



## Blunderact

Archer said:


> A winder is a convenience that does nothing to aid the movement or the placement of lubricants (they are held in place by capillary action in the jewels). Compared to letting the watch run down and stop when you are not wearing it, yes the winder will cause wear and the need for service sooner.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Al, please enlighten me. Which can cause more wear: the watch winder's continuous rotation or the constant pulling/pushing/turning of the crown to adjust time? And which among the two (wear caused by watch winder or constant use of the crown) will cost higher repair?

From your answer, I could easily determine what options to choose. It's not about convenience but its about what causes more wear and more cost in the long run. 
Thanks in advance and happy Yuletide Season.!!


----------



## Blunderact

timenut said:


> Hi Al, many thanks for the information.
> 
> Got a question for you.. which I have been pondering for awhile. I noticed that when an Omega automatic watch leaves the factory (in the transparent plastic box), the crown is left in position 2 with the movement hacked. Not sure why this is the case. Perhaps by hacking the movement, it reduces potential shock effects while the watch is being shipped.
> 
> If the watch is not put on display, the dealer will usually store it in this same manner. Presumably, if it is a slow moving model, it may be stored that way for years. Isn't it bad to leave the crown open instead of closed? Wouldn't this lead to the oil drying up sooner and the possibility of moisture / dirt entering the watch? Why not store with the crown wound down instead?


Good question.


----------



## munmanstk

timenut said:


> Hi Al, many thanks for the information.
> 
> Got a question for you.. which I have been pondering for awhile. I noticed that when an Omega automatic watch leaves the factory (in the transparent plastic box), the crown is left in position 2 with the movement hacked. Not sure why this is the case. Perhaps by hacking the movement, it reduces potential shock effects while the watch is being shipped.
> 
> If the watch is not put on display, the dealer will usually store it in this same manner. Presumably, if it is a slow moving model, it may be stored that way for years. Isn't it bad to leave the crown open instead of closed? Wouldn't this lead to the oil drying up sooner and the possibility of moisture / dirt entering the watch? Why not store with the crown wound down instead?


I too was wondering about the same issue. I've read similar advice before for both quartz and mechanical watches. The threat of moisture seeping through is definitely a cause for concern. Looking forward to your reply Al.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mhjw33

Hi Al. Thanks again for your insight and the manner this information was displayed. Very informative and easy to understand. My sincerest thanks.


----------



## Lavaine

Al, thanks for this very informative post. A good reminder that I don't know the last time my 7750 based watch was serviced. I think you've convinced me to have it attended to in the new year. I don't know the service history of my SKX 007 either, but I think a drop-in replacement movement might be cheaper than a service on the 7S26.
I'll be sitting down and creating a a spreadsheet of my watches with the purchase / service dates recorded in order to keep better service intervals in the future.

Chris


----------



## ACW

Al, great info as always!


----------



## Archer

Blunderact said:


> Al, please enlighten me. Which can cause more wear: the watch winder's continuous rotation or the constant pulling/pushing/turning of the crown to adjust time? And which among the two (wear caused by watch winder or constant use of the crown) will cost higher repair?
> 
> From your answer, I could easily determine what options to choose. It's not about convenience but its about what causes more wear and more cost in the long run.
> Thanks in advance and happy Yuletide Season.!!


It really depends on the watch in question. If the crown and case tube on the watch are particularly prone to damage from cross threading or wear, and they are not easily replaced, then the winder is the better option. If the tube and crown are very robust or easily replaced, then there's no need for the winder other than conveneince.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Blunderact

Archer said:


> It really depends on the watch in question. If the crown and case tube on the watch are particularly prone to damage from cross threading or wear, and they are not easily replaced, then the winder is the better option. If the tube and crown are very robust or easily replaced, then there's no need for the winder other than conveneince.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Thanks Al. Best regards!!


----------



## Archer

timenut said:


> Hi Al, many thanks for the information.
> 
> Got a question for you.. which I have been pondering for awhile. I noticed that when an Omega automatic watch leaves the factory (in the transparent plastic box), the crown is left in position 2 with the movement hacked. Not sure why this is the case. Perhaps by hacking the movement, it reduces potential shock effects while the watch is being shipped.
> 
> If the watch is not put on display, the dealer will usually store it in this same manner. Presumably, if it is a slow moving model, it may be stored that way for years. Isn't it bad to leave the crown open instead of closed? Wouldn't this lead to the oil drying up sooner and the possibility of moisture / dirt entering the watch? Why not store with the crown wound down instead?


I can't really say why they hack the movements on the mechnical watches - quartz is to save the cell, but there's really no benefit to hacking a mechanical in my view in terms of shipping, etc. I ship watches all over the world running and have never had a problem.

With regards to leaking issues, I was pressure testing some watches today (have a bunch to get back to the owner's before the new year) and I ran a little test on this 25382000...note that this is basically a brand new watch, and these results may not apply to watches with wear and tear on the seals and sealing surfaces, so this should not be taken as an endorsement to leave your crown open when swimming, showering, etc.

I shot these a bit out of order, but the watch was hacked during the test....

Here the crown is unscrewed and the watch is hacked:










In the dry testing machine:










Here the dive watch program is selected - first test is a -0.7 bar vacuum, then a +10 bar pressure:










The machine measures the deflection of the case in each test to determine if the watch is leaking - even with the crown unscrewed and pulled out to hack the movement, the watch passes both tests:










Many watches have some water resistance even with the crown pulled out. Again I don't recommend pushing your luck and swimming, showering, etc. with the crown unscrewed, but when the watch is new it is still sealed.

Cheers, Al


----------



## jsarche

Great information here. Thank you!


----------



## jzpjzp

Awesome thread great stuff thanks


----------



## dj00tiek

Thanks for the informative post!


----------



## OhDark30

Thanks for this - your pictures really got the point across!
I'd already realised that buying NOS Russians is a mixed blessing - they look great, but definitely need to factor in a service to the purchase cost


----------



## GETS

Just been pointed to this thread from the Public Forum. An excellent read. 

I really think this should be a sticky in a few other forum sections too.

Regards,


----------



## jpohl402

Great documentation & photos... Thanks for sharing!!


----------



## jlconferido

Very informative! Thanks for making this thread and it will be beneficial for new watch enthusiasts like me. 

Sent from my MT11i using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SuperleggeraTricolore

Thank Al for this informative post!

By the way admins, I suggest this post should be pinned for future references. Much appreciated. Thanks


----------



## WatchFan650

Very much appreciated. Always good to hear the opinion of a watchmaker.


----------



## sillykid

Thanks for the info


----------



## shootermcgavin

great info, especially for someone pretty new to watches that one would want to keep for a while.


----------



## cciesquare

The section on vintage watches is spot on. I had to get a balance replace for omega 861. Watch repair shops were saying the part was going to cost $500-$600 alone not counting labor. I was floored. I was shocked.

It took me almost a month to search the internet for one guy that had one listed, his very last one, and sold it to be for $150 new old stock...just the balance, mind you. 

I now have the 861 service with a smaller interval than my newer watches. Probably every 2-3 years.


----------



## powerband

Perhaps the most informative thread I've ever read on WUS.


----------



## Anthony Rocco

Excellent post. Really informative.


----------



## Matthew Jones

Here's a question...if you have your watches in winders but not stopped...is that essentially like wearing them constantly or less so?


----------



## wildcat

Fabulously informative, thank you!

I'm about the buy PO 8500 and one of the determining factors was that (according to Omega) the service intervals were 7-9 years, rather than 3-5 years of the 2500. I would then expect to pay the £340 (current price) for the full service in 7-9 years and that would be it. Am I over simplifying it?

They say 7-9 years but only give a guarantee of four years strangely.


----------



## Zidane

Matthew Jones said:


> Here's a question...if you have your watches in winders but not stopped...is that essentially like wearing them constantly or less so?


I would think it's essentially like wearing them. The movement is still wound and running.


----------



## asingh1977

Zidane said:


> I would think it's essentially like wearing them. The movement is still wound and running.


True.

It is simulating usual wear, for the internal machinery of the watch. The gear train is moving, the mainspring is winding/unwinding.


----------



## Matthew Jones

Zidane said:


> I would think it's essentially like wearing them. The movement is still wound and running.





asingh1977 said:


> True.
> 
> It is simulating usual wear, for the internal machinery of the watch. The gear train is moving, the mainspring is winding/unwinding.


Ok I wasn't sure I figured if I wear it 12 hours a day, if I would be winding more than 650 TPD...if that makes sense.


----------



## Iliyan

Awesome thread. Thanks for all the info.


----------



## Ramblin man

Archer said:


> It really depends on the watch in question. If the crown and case tube on the watch are particularly prone to damage from cross threading or wear, and they are not easily replaced, then the winder is the better option. If the tube and crown are very robust or easily replaced, then there's no need for the winder other than conveneince.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Al, is Omega Seamaster Pro 300m with cal. 1120 mvmt. considered to have a robust crown and tube?

regards,

RM


----------



## Archer

Ramblin man said:


> Al, is Omega Seamaster Pro 300m with cal. 1120 mvmt. considered to have a robust crown and tube?
> 
> regards,
> 
> RM


I don't see many of these with stripped threads, so if you are careful I would say they are fine.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Ramblin man

Archer said:


> I don't see many of these with stripped threads, so if you are careful I would say they are fine.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Okay, got it Al. Thanks.


----------



## Mathew J

Archer said:


> I don't see many of these with stripped threads, so if you are careful I would say they are fine.
> 
> Cheers, Al


out of curiosity what is the most problematic crown system you have seen Al?

Thanks


----------



## coaxmetal

I recently bought a Speedmaster with an 861 movement (from 1993), since it has no service history I figure I should take it in to someone, would most watchmakers be able to tell me if they think it needs servicing? Or should i just go ahead and send it to the omega service center just to be safe?


----------



## manofrolex

coaxmetal said:


> I recently bought a Speedmaster with an 861 movement (from 1993), since it has no service history I figure I should take it in to someone, would most watchmakers be able to tell me if they think it needs servicing? Or should i just go ahead and send it to the omega service center just to be safe?


I was in the same boat with mine cal 1861 from 1999 so I sent in to well respected service folks (Nesbits in Seattle) not the Omega service center and the work is warrantied 30 months, new pushers, new crystal, movement cleaning, oiling......so I would say go for it.


----------



## coaxmetal

jmanlay said:


> I was in the same boat with mine cal 1861 from 1999 so I sent in to well respected service folks (Nesbits in Seattle) not the Omega service center and the work is warrantied 30 months, new pushers, new crystal, movement cleaning, oiling......so I would say go for it.


thanks. I went ahead and took it in for service at a place here in SF. They are doing a regular service, plus replacing the crown and crystal.


----------



## Archer

I know this thread has received a lot of views, and it pops back up from time to time. I hope that people have learned something from it.

One other thing I'd like to include in this thread is how a watch is worn can make a difference on how often it requires service. Last year I service this co-axial watch, and it was a daily wearer - the owner ran a woodworking company, so it wasn't a desk job for sure. The watch had stopped when he sent it to me. *Note that this watch was only 5 years old.*

Here are some case condition photos before I refinished it:













Clearly this owner did not baby the watch. Once I opened it up and looked at the movement, it was pretty obvious it was in rough shape, as there was debris all over the place:



This is brass dust from movement wear - it did not come from outside the watch:







You can see the underside of the barrel bridge had some damage where the steel pinion simply tore out of the brass wheel:



In addition to replacing some wheels, I had to replace the entire bridge since the post that the damaged wheel rides on fell out:



I was going to try staking it back in place, but knowing it has to be absolutely perpendicular, I didn't want this to cause problems, so replaced it.

So where was all that brass dust coming from? Well some from the automatic winding system - one wheel riding on a brass post had worn the post quite a lot:



Side view shows the extent of the wear:



Of course that bridge was replaced, as well as several wheels in the automatic winding system. Even the teeth on the co-axial wheel (the one that people say has no friction!) were worn pretty badly, so it had to be replaced. The teeth on the upper wheel from the watch are quite a bit shorter than those on the new wheel that I have placed below it:



So as I've said, how the watch is worn makes a difference with regards to service intervals. There is a big difference from a watch worn 5 years by someone working at a desk job, then someone who does any sort of manual labour.

Cheers, Al


----------



## GrouchoM

OMG!! That's a startling amount of degradation from 5 years of rough usage given the ruggedness claims that that watch is alleged to have!


----------



## iinsic

GrouchoM said:


> OMG!! That's a startling amount of degradation from 5 years of rough usage given the ruggedness claims that that watch is alleged to have!


Ain't that the truth! And it makes me wonder if that might be due to the movement, rather than the usage pattern. My father bought a new DJ in 1992 from an AD that was manufactured in '91. He did lots of manual work, from working on the engines in his boat, to snorkeling for lobsters, to rigging baits, to some wood work, to repairing his dock bulkhead, to ... well, you get the idea. He died in 2001, having never serviced the watch. When I had it serviced about six months later, the watchmaker showed me - with the pride I have come to know is typical of the Rolex watchmakers I have known - how nearly pristine the movement was after 10 years of hard use (the case was as chewed up as Al's example, and the edge of the sapphire crystal was so chipped it nearly matched the fluted bezel ;-)). He replaced the gaskets and mainspring, but nothing due to wear. It has been serviced once since, and will be again later this year before I give it to one of my sons for his 40th birthday.

I'd hate to think that my AT 8500 might look like Al's example if I do a lot of physical work whilst wearing it. :think:


----------



## Vlance

I'm curious as to what activity would cause such an increased amount of wear. Is it vibration of the woodworking saw? 
I don't get how the movement got that destroyed. 

Can you explain what sort of strenuous activity can lead to pinions tearing out wheels?


----------



## TimePieceObsessed

Vlance said:


> Can you explain what sort of strenuous activity can lead to pinions tearing out wheels?


I'd be curious to get some insight into this as well. There is a lot of speculation on these boards regarding the "wear" caused by winders. Could you expect the same kind of wear & tear to be caused by regular use on a watch winder or was it really "strenuous" activity that caused this. With built in regulators to stop over winding ... Why did this happen?


----------



## Archer

Well the watch was not on my wrist, so I can't give you details, only what I have already posted as told to me by the owner. It was worn daily, and he did not mention using a winder.

When one part in a watch fails, say that post that started to wear in the automatic winding mechanism (I can't tell you what the precipitating event was here) then it spreads dust around the movement as it wears. It also causes the centerlines of the wheels associated with it to shift. As time goes by, dirt builds up, forces required to turn things increase, and eventually exceed the strength of connections like the pinion in that one wheel under the barrel bridge. 

Based on the function of that pinion torn out from the wheel, the failure was a result of the automatic winding, not the watch running. That wheel has no direct role in transmitting power from the mainspring barrel to the escape wheel to make the watch tick, but it is involved in winding the mainspring (both by the crown and by the automatic winding system). The oscillating weight is heavy compared to many parts in the watch, and it has a significant mechanical advantage, so if for some reason that wheel was blocked from moving, it could apply enough force to start working on the staked connected between the pinion and the wheel. Eventually that connection fails, and the pinion tears out of the wheel.

I will say that wear to this extent in a 5 year old watch is not common, but I have seen that pinion torn out of that wheel before on Cal. 1120 movements also. I have also seen wear to that same post in the automatic winding system.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Archer

WatchWerx said:


> Ain't that the truth! And it makes me wonder if that might be due to the movement, rather than the usage pattern. My father bought a new DJ in 1992 from an AD that was manufactured in '91. He did lots of manual work, from working on the engines in his boat, to snorkeling for lobsters, to rigging baits, to some wood work, to repairing his dock bulkhead, to ... well, you get the idea. He died in 2001, having never serviced the watch. When I had it serviced about six months later, the watchmaker showed me - with the pride I have come to know is typical of the Rolex watchmakers I have known - how nearly pristine the movement was after 10 years of hard use (the case was as chewed up as Al's example, and the edge of the sapphire crystal was so chipped it nearly matched the fluted bezel ;-)). He replaced the gaskets and mainspring, but nothing due to wear. It has been serviced once since, and will be again later this year before I give it to one of my sons for his 40th birthday.
> 
> I'd hate to think that my AT 8500 might look like Al's example if I do a lot of physical work whilst wearing it. :think:


If your implication here is that a Rolex can take, it where an Omega can't, well I can show you pictures of Rolex movements that are trashed as well mate. 

Cheers, Al


----------



## iinsic

Archer said:


> If your implication here is that a Rolex can take, it where an Omega can't, well I can show you pictures of Rolex movements that are trashed as well mate.


I wasn't so much implying that Rolex movements are more hardy than Omega as much as I was expressing my shock at the wear you documented by contrasting my father's well-used DJ at a 10-year service.

I think your preceding post #97 puts it more in proper perspective: The movement had a failure that started a cascade of wear that was accelerated over what normally would be seen in a movement of that age.

Certainly, I have had my poor experiences with Rolex movements, albeit in the 80s. The only problem I have experienced with any of my Omega movements was the stoppage issue in a cal. 2500C, and it was flawless after being corrected per the current protocol.


----------



## GrouchoM

Thanks, Al,

Can we pin every post by Al atop this subforum so he doesn't need to spend as much time reiterating his older posts? That way, he can focus on (1) his life (2) his watchmaker work (3) only answering newer questions (like those regarding newer movements) and showing his latest observations?


----------



## iinsic

GrouchoM said:


> Thanks, Al,
> 
> Can we pin every post by Al atop this subforum so he doesn't need to spend as much time reiterating his older posts? That way, he can focus on (1) his life (2) his watchmaker work (3) only answering newer questions (like those regarding newer movements) and showing his latest observations?


This is why: :-d

*Watch Forum*

noun, plural _*watch fora
*_
1.an online community inhabited primarily by those who do not read more than 10 percent of the content previously written before posting their own remarks (see: "reinventing the wheel").


----------



## TimePieceObsessed

WatchWerx said:


> an online community inhabited primarily by those who do not read more than 10 percent of the content previously written before posting their own remarks (see: "reinventing the wheel").


If only there were a tool that could provide quick, key-word access to that other 90% of content... ;-)

All kidding aside, this has been a great read, Al. Thanks for keeping the thread alive.


----------



## bas9

I am glad this thread was revived--as I hadn't seen it before. 
Very informative info from Archer, much appreciated!


----------



## puddlep1rate

Thanks for the informative post Archer. Great pictures.


----------



## Kimber45

Thanks for all the info Archer! I'm a newbee who needed it.


----------



## rdoder

Al, thank you very much for the informative thread! I have a question. If a mechanical watch is allowed to run until it breaks, typically what are the watch parts that break, and typically how much more does it cost to replace the broken parts?

Thank you!


----------



## Archer

Sorry this is an impossible question to answer. Not every watch will fail in the same way, and parts for different watches cost different amounts. 

Cheers, Al


----------



## Buchmann69

Hi Al,
First, thank you for the information you provide in this thread.

I have several automatics that I hand wind once a day (30-40 winds) to keep them all running. Is this ok to do long term? Am I potentially wearing out the crown and case tube?

Thanks in advance,

Rob

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I. Munda


----------



## Archer

This is not really a good thing to do in my view, as it places unnecessary wear on the crown and case tube, and also on parts of the movement that may not be designed to take this sort of constant wear. Some movements can tolerate hand winding better than others.

Why do you feel the need to keep the watches running all the time? Unless they don't have a quick set date, or have complications that would be difficult to reset, I would suggest letting them sit when not being worn, or maybe get a winder.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Buchmann69

Understood, I'm glad I asked and I will stop this immediately!
Thanks Al,
-Rob



Archer said:


> This is not really a good thing to do in my view, as it places unnecessary wear on the crown and case tube, and also on parts of the movement that may not be designed to take this sort of constant wear. Some movements can tolerate hand winding better than others.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to keep the watches running all the time? Unless they don't have a quick set date, or have complications that would be difficult to reset, I would suggest letting them sit when not being worn, or maybe get a winder.
> 
> Cheers, Al


----------



## Proenski

Interesting read!

Just wondering; how long before the oil dries out on a more modern watch? Anything produced after 2010 for argument sake.

And, in your experience, are the particulair movements that are more resistant to wear and tear than others? I'm just thinking about the claim Vostok makes with their movements not needing service for about 10 years.


----------



## gsirles

This is a fantastic read - thank you! IMO this should be a sticky in at least one forum, since it applies to watches of all sorts.


----------



## rst1121

Wow! I just read 12 pages and what a post from the OP. Thanks for the information!


----------



## awildermode

Archer said:


> This is not really a good thing to do in my view, as it places unnecessary wear on the crown and case tube, and also on parts of the movement that may not be designed to take this sort of constant wear. Some movements can tolerate hand winding better than others.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to keep the watches running all the time? Unless they don't have a quick set date, or have complications that would be difficult to reset, I would suggest letting them sit when not being worn, or maybe get a winder.
> 
> Cheers, Al


This, along with your other posts, is good stuff. Thanks for the information.


----------



## asadtiger

Great stuff..thanks for sharing your excellent knowledge and experience with us Archer.

Sent from my SM-N920S using Tapatalk


----------



## New_World

just wanted to say thanks to Al for taking the time to do all of this for the WUS community. 

Very much appreciated Al!


----------



## KtWUS

Hi all, this is my first post on this forum since plunging into the deep waters of mechanical watches. 

Just wanted to say thanks to Al for contributing this thread - it is an invaluable resource for newcomers! 

I wish more discussion was given to ease/price of servicing when watches are being discussed (on top of all the great debates regarding cosmetics!)


----------



## BarracksSi

KtWUS said:


> Hi all, this is my first post on this forum since plunging into the deep waters of mechanical watches.
> 
> Just wanted to say thanks to Al for contributing this thread - it is an invaluable resource for newcomers!
> 
> *I wish more discussion was given to ease/price of servicing when watches are being discussed (on top of all the great debates regarding cosmetics!)*


Hear hear.

Although I still sometimes get into threads about what a watch looks like (the new Rolex Air King being a recent example), I've been getting more and more numb -- or ambivalent -- about threads where the only topic is the style of a watch.

I mean, really, the style is SO subjective, and there is never enough info about what happens when the ***t hits the fan and the watch needs repair, or _why_ a particular movement needs a certain kind of attention.


----------



## iinsic

KtWUS said:


> Hi all, this is my first post on this forum since plunging into the deep waters of mechanical watches.
> Just wanted to say thanks to Al for contributing this thread - it is an invaluable resource for newcomers!
> I wish more discussion was given to ease/price of servicing when watches are being discussed (on top of all the great debates regarding cosmetics!)





BarracksSi said:


> Hear hear.
> Although I still sometimes get into threads about what a watch looks like (the new Rolex Air King being a recent example), I've been getting more and more numb -- or ambivalent -- about threads where the only topic is the style of a watch.
> I mean, really, the style is SO subjective, and there is never enough info about what happens when the ***t hits the fan and the watch needs repair, or _why_ a particular movement needs a certain kind of attention.


It always has been the proverbial elephant in the room. I think the reason it is not discussed more frequently is because a lot of us have lots of mechanical watches and we simply don't want to tote up just how much we're looking at in maintenance costs in the next few years. Out of sight, out of mind.

And a lot of us treat close-at-hand watchmakers like a good tailor: One never reveals his identity. We'd be better off by creating a network of known watchmakers who are authorized by Omega and Rolex, to provide us alternatives to corporate service centers (where outcomes can be both expensive and not always satisfactory).


----------



## noyboy

Fantastic thread!!


----------



## mikegoldnj

Archer said:


> This is not really a good thing to do in my view, as it places unnecessary wear on the crown and case tube, and also on parts of the movement that may not be designed to take this sort of constant wear. Some movements can tolerate hand winding better than others.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to keep the watches running all the time? Unless they don't have a quick set date, or have complications that would be difficult to reset, I would suggest letting them sit when not being worn, or maybe get a winder.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Glad to see this.

I've usually just let my currently, unworn automatic watches sit and then, when I am going to wear them, wind and reset.

I had been told by some friends that, this was not good for automatic watches and that they need to be kept running to keep them in good shape. Sounds like I don't necessarily need to invest in winders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OmegaSpeedmaster

Archer said:


> As a watchmaker I am am often asked what is the correct interval for service, and my response it always the same - it depends.
> 
> I have answered this question before in several threads here, but I thought starting a new one might help keep this information where it can be seen, and not buried in another thread. It's also an opportunity for me to consolidate some points that I have posted in various places.
> 
> Just a disclaimer to start with - for those who are convinced that there is no need for regular service, please note that I am not trying to change your mind, and I'm just giving my perspective here. I know someone out there will either think or write "Yes but as a watchmaker, you have an interest in getting more business!" If you saw my backlog of repairs, you would realize how ridiculous that idea is. If you are a good watchmaker, getting business is not ever a problem - having far more than you can handle is.
> 
> In my opinion, there are many things that can come into play regarding how often one should service a watch. Is the watch modern, or vintage, and how available are parts? Do you take it to a service center, or use an independent? My answer for a specific watch can be different depending on those factors listed. Also, it's a personal decision, and some people will be confortable leaving the watch until it stops, and some won't.
> 
> So let's look at a few common things that are regularly talked about, and some factors that I think are important, in detail:
> 
> 1 - "Because I only wear my watch 50% of the time, I should be able to double the time between service." If the watches are actually stopped for X% of the time, then yes the service interval can be extended. However it's not a completely linear relationship, because eventually oils will break down (yes even modern synthetic oils) regardless if the watch is running or not. So if the normal service interval is 5 years, and you wear the watch 33% of the time, the service interval does not now become 15 years. The oils will dry out long before that. In fact most brands require that the oils I use at my bench are no more than 2 years old - yes they will check this during shop inspections. Now this does not mean oils are only good for 2 years, but that 2 years, added to the recommended service interval, is all that they feel comfortable with in terms of the age of the oils.
> 
> 2 - "As long as my watch keeps good time, there no need for service." Timekeeping is not a reliable indicator that a watch is in need of service. I see watches often that keep great time, but are a mess inside as there are many components inside a watch that are not directly related to the timekeeping function. Certainly if your watch suddenly begins to lose or gain time, this can be a sign it needs service, but the absence of a change, which is what some use as an indicator of "everything's fine inside" is certainly not true.
> 
> So what do I mean when I say the watch is a mess inside? Here are some examples:
> 
> Rolex Cal. 3000 that came into my shop "running well and keeping great time"
> 
> Balance jewel is completely dry:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oils dried and crystalized:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another dry pivot - you can see products of wear in the jewel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panerai 005 with excessive wear on the main plate and barrel bridge from the winding pinion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Debris through the movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wear on the barrel bridge of an ETA 2824-2 - I see this wear often on this movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main plate was also worn, requiring the whole plate to be replaced - not an insignificant expense:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wear in a Rolex Cal. 1575 barrel - deep groove worn on the inside wall of the barrel - worn barrel on the right, new barrel on the left:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worn bushing (hole was oval shaped) for the chronograph runner in a Tag chronograph (ETA 7750):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replaced it with a jewel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could go on, but you get the picture I hope.
> 
> If the oils are dry, then the rate of wear is accelerated. If that wear is significant enough to require replacement of parts is something that has to be judged at the time of service. Certainly in some of the cases above, parts had to be replaced, but even parts that are not worn completely will potentially affect the performance of the movement over time.
> 
> So the watch may run and run okay, but over time the performance will degrade, and the parts will eventually need replacing. In some cases excessive wear that will happen when the lubrication dries out will not result in a huge additional expense at service. In other cases, it may more than double the cost of the service. If the wear is on a spot where the part is small and is easily replaced, then the cost is likely to be low. If the wear is on a larger piece like the main plate, then those are never inexpensive. For example a jeweled main plate for a Cal. 1128 is a $250 item - far different than replacing a wheel that is only $15 or $20.
> 
> 3 - Modern or vintage? If you have a modern watch, it's not something really rare, and parts are readily available and not expensive, then wearing the watch until a problem appears is not necessarily a bad idea. It really depends on what the movement is, and where the weak spots are. For vintage watches, my advice is quite different. Now to use a vintage Omega example, if you have a Cal. 321 Speedmaster, then you probably know that most of the parts inside this movement are discontinued (no longer sold by Omega), and some are very difficult to find. If you do find them, the people selling know they are rare, and these parts are very expensive. In a case like this, the priority should be on regular service in order to preserve the parts inside the watch as much as possible. So if someone asks me how often to service their Speedmaster, my answer will be different if it's a Cal. 1861 watch, compared to a Cal. 321.
> 
> 4 - Service center, or independent? -One of the issues with using a manufacturer for service is their "take it or leave it" attitude with what they feel has to be done. They in effect hold you hostage, and if you don't agree with all that they recommend, they will refuse to do the service. There are reports of things like a watch that needed a new crown getting a complete service that would seem to be completely unnecessary. Be aware that built into the cost of every factory service are the exchange of parts that are replaced whether they need it or not. This is one reason why factory service can be much more expensive than using an independent who replaces only what needs to be replaced. So if you plan on using the factory, you are already paying a premium for parts replacement that is built into the service cost, so if some parts are worn, they won't charge you any extra. However you are already paying much more to start with.
> 
> 5 - Is water resistance a factor? - One thing to keep in mind is that there is more to maintaining a watch than it's movement. For a watch that has water resistance built into it, seals will degrade over time even if the watch sits in a drawer or safe. Part of servicing a watch is the checking and replacing of seals, and pressure testing the watch to check it for water resistance. I always recommend that anyone who gets their watches wet regularly, also has pressure testing performed on them regularly, even if you don't get a full service done. If the watch fails the testing, at the very least get the seals changed.
> 
> So what to conclude from all of this? One is that you need to be comfortable with whatever approach you choose. Some people view this from a purely economic standpoint, and don't really mind the idea of parts inside their watch wearing away. If you want to let the watch run until it stops, that is your choice and I personally have zero problems with that. Just don't be under the illusion that because a watch performs well, it does not need service or that parts are not wearing inside.
> 
> Others don't like the idea that the watch is wearing itself out, so they prefer to service more regularly, and that's perfectly valid too.
> 
> My key point here is that applying a single set of rules for all circumstances is not necessarily the best approach.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Much appreciated


----------



## TikTokClarice

A fantastic post, and pictures, and some excellent advice from someone who obviously knows from experience what he's talking about, and doesn't have a problem with people having a different view to his own.

I am lucky enough to have a small collection of nice watches, they are, (with the exception of my two best ones, which are never worn) worn around once a month or so.
I have always been of the opinion that because of limited wrist time that they will run for years without the caseback being removed, this view is mainly brought on because there is a serious problem around my area of finding a GOOD watchmaker, there are plenty of blacksmiths with a blunt screwdriver and a can of solvent to "clean the movement" and although I have afforded to buy my watches, I am very much against the cost of Service Centre servicing, with, as you say, their attitude of "we will do this and this or nothing," and then return your watch roughly thrown back together if you decide to not go ahead with the service.

Your pictures are pretty good at showing what can be happening inside a watch even when it is running fine. We've all heard the stories of someone's 1970's Rolex Oysterdate that has been worn every day since new and never had the caseback off, and still holding +2 a day, I'm sure it's all true, but your pictures are pretty scary at showing what could be going on inside ANY of our watches as we read this!

Thanks again for this excellent information.


----------



## azjb

bas9 said:


> I am glad this thread was revived--as I hadn't seen it before.
> Very informative info from Archer, much appreciated!


+1. Thanks! Great info.


----------



## litbruin

Really appreciate this post. I've always been curious about the oils issue, and appreciate your candor about the ability to extend service intervals for watches that are not in constant use.


----------



## GregBe

iinsic said:


> It always has been the proverbial elephant in the room. I think the reason it is not discussed more frequently is because a lot of us have lots of mechanical watches and we simply don't want to tote up just how much we're looking at in maintenance costs in the next few years. Out of sight, out of mind.


I try to keep this thought hidden in my mind. I just did a quick calculation and now I am scared of my collection.


----------



## iinsic

GregBe said:


> I try to keep this thought hidden in my mind. I just did a quick calculation and now I am scared of my collection.


For three-handers, if you're setting aside $10 per month per watch, you should be okay. Of course, if you've set nothing aside and a watch is four or five years old, then you'll have some catching up to do. ;-)


----------



## AaronMckay

Bump for a great read and a brilliant WM


----------



## McLenin

Very interesting read, thank you for it 
And a friendly bump.

MM


----------



## Bigdaftboy

Thanks for reviving this thread, great read and good information for noobs, keep up the good work!


----------



## Poydras12

This is a great article and should be a sticky. Also, I wish Archer was located in the U.S. I have an Omega and a couple of inherited Rolexes that need service.


----------



## MJM

Great info. Omega says 10 years, I think that's a timeframe to shoot for unless you have excessive exposure to harsh environments or obvious issues with your watch. I knw some folks say to send it for a checkup before the warranty expires.


----------



## Archer

MJM said:


> Great info. Omega says 10 years, I think that's a timeframe to shoot for unless you have excessive exposure to harsh environments or obvious issues with your watch. I knw some folks say to send it for a checkup before the warranty expires.


Omega may have stated 10 years at some point in time for co-axial watches, but they certainly do not now...their recommended service interval is 4-5 years, depending on use.



I took this from the Omega web site to highlight that pressure testing should be done frequently, but above the section I've underlined it clearly indicates the service interval recommended is 4-5 years, again depending on use. If people follow that is up to them, but Omega doesn't currently recommend a 10 year service interval.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Mondo Shizmo

Wow, this is really really really good to know, I always thought it worst to just let your watches sit rather than keeping them wound all the time.


----------



## MJM

Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware of that.


----------



## CTesta

Awesome information. I have a completely different opinion now. The pictures said it all for me!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## brmott

Very informative. Thank you!


----------



## WhatIAmDoingHere

The watch I got is at least 5 years old sitting in the warehouse. It was a new in box. But as per the manufacturer it should get serviced because of those naughty oils which choose to dry up no matter what. And the funny thing is that it is equal to what I paid for the watch itself. It is a mechanical hand wind and I spent 350 AUD getting it. And servicing will cost 350 AUD. 
I guess I should have done my homework. Mechanical never again.


----------



## dimsoug

Nice thread, thank you very much


----------



## iinsic

WhatIAmDoingHere said:


> The watch I got is at least 5 years old sitting in the warehouse. It was a new in box. But as per the manufacturer it should get serviced because of those naughty oils which choose to dry up no matter what. And the funny thing is that it is equal to what I paid for the watch itself. It is a mechanical hand wind and I spent 350 AUD getting it. And servicing will cost 350 AUD.
> I guess I should have done my homework. Mechanical never again.


If you learned this valuable lesson on a relatively inexpensive watch, then you're ahead of the game. One should always do his or her "homework" before spending significant funds on anything. To do otherwise is not much different than standing over a toilet and flushing your cash down the drain. :think:


----------



## WhatIAmDoingHere

iinsic said:


> relatively inexpensive watch


I think I am poor by the forum standards then. 

There is no point in spending 400 bucks for servicing when the watch is not at least 10K in cost. Now I understand the success of Timex.


----------



## WhatIAmDoingHere

iinsic said:


> relatively inexpensive watch


I think I am poor by the forum standards then. 

There is no point in spending 400 bucks for servicing when the watch is not at least 10K in cost. Now I understand the success of Timex.


----------



## iinsic

WhatIAmDoingHere said:


> I think I am poor by the forum standards then.
> 
> There is no point in spending 400 bucks for servicing when the watch is not at least 10K in cost. Now I understand the success of Timex.


While I'm not sure Oscar Wilde was a watch aficionado, I still think he would take exception to your narrow view on the worth of certain watches (for obvious reasons).

Go into any watchmaker's workroom and you will see them repairing watches that are "worth" less than the cost of the overhaul. That's because there is much more to the value of a watch than what it's worth in a sale. Watches don't just mark time. They record memories. Wearing a watch in times that can never be repeated makes them a witness to our own lives. A watch that has "been in the trenches" with you is a boon companion, jogging your memory of adventures endured and pleasures enjoyed with every dent and scratch.

Recently I had my very first watch - a Croton Aquamatic acquired on my ninth birthday - serviced. The watch is worth very little as 58-year-old watches go, and the overhaul was not cheap. But it was a very small price to pay to have a watch I wore daily for the next eight years, and have kept safe in the many years since, restored to prime working condition.

There are others on this forum who feel as you do; that an overhaul of a watch should be a small fraction of its actual value. But thank heavens that is a minority view, not just here on WUS, but everywhere I've ever been.


----------



## a_carkhuff

My question is, how can you tell when a problem appears with, say, a three handed watch. Just if it starts losing/gaining a significant amount of time? Or something more serious?


----------



## Archer

a_carkhuff said:


> My question is, how can you tell when a problem appears with, say, a three handed watch. Just if it starts losing/gaining a significant amount of time? Or something more serious?


Timekeeping is not a reliable indicator of the need for service - I define the need for service as when the lubrication has failed and parts are now wearing out.

A watch that shows a dramatic change in timekeeping, or power reserve, or shows some other fault may very well be in need for servicing. However the absence of such symptoms doesn't mean that everything is still okay inside. Sometimes you have to judge when service is needed based on the time since the last service and how the watch has been used.

Cheers, Al


----------



## westywatch

I just had my 1991 automatic Omega Seamaster serviced for the second time. $550 for the complete overhaul from Omega, which includes cosmetic work on the case, dial, hands, bracelet in addition to working on the movement. The watch is worth more than that service cost, but not by a huge amount. But it is a sentimental piece that I plan to hand down. 

Omega recommends 5 years. I probably went 6-7 years before the first service and the watch operated with no problems. Stretched it out a lot longer the second time. By the time of the second service, there was a big drop off in the power reserve and in the timekeeping. So it was clearly overdue. Watch was worn 24/7/365. Never had a problem with the WR.


----------



## westywatch

While quite expensive, the Omega service is worth it for a piece you want to keep for decades. 

It's like getting an almost new watch.

If you just want the movement serviced, I'm sure there's much less inexpensive ways to go.


----------



## Humbucking

Man, I just sent one of mine off & was quoted $675 for the service. I sent my other Planet Ocean off in 2016 & that was $550 for the full factory service. Both were working fine, but noticeable drops in the power reserve. 7-10 weeks until it returns...


----------



## leedingle

I am new to watches and I wanted to thank everyone. This thread has been very thought provoking. I have an Omega Aqua Terra with the 8500 movement that I think is about 7 years hold. I wear it almost everyday and it is keeping great time, about +1 seconds per day. I was hesitant to send it in for service as I am very happy with its performance and I didn't want to get it back at -6 seconds per day which would still be within COSC. But after reading this thread I think it would be wise to take the move proactive approach and send the watch in for service. I think I am going to skip re-finishing though. The little scratches are my scratches and I know that it will just get scratched again soon after getting it back. I don't think it is worth the material loss. I will probably have the re-finishing done on the next service after this one.

Thanks everyone, especially Archer!


----------



## watchtechie

This has been an interesting read. How often should I have my watch serviced?

It’s difficult to put a blanket time schedule when a given model could have been serviced 2 years prior by the official service centre and look in poor shape. Yet an identical model serviced 5 years ago can look fine. 

I would never say it should be fine for 5 or 10 years. 

I prefer to recommend that the watch is checked at 2-3 years depending on availability of parts. It is better for the watch in the long run. 

Regards 
Craig


----------



## farmerboy

I am a newish watch wearing guy. Let's say my knowledge can only improve.
My question is a cross forum type and not Omega specific but you all seem smart.
Do "innovations" such as argon gas filled watchcases and copper sulfate drying capsules affect the service interval.

Very interesting that this thread is 6 years old but never really needed to be revived due to continued interest!


----------



## Archer

farmerboy said:


> Do "innovations" such as argon gas filled watchcases and copper sulfate drying capsules affect the service interval.


The short answer is no. I am a Sinn fan and have owned one, and serviced many. They are no different than any other watch in terms of their service lifespan.

If a company really did develop a watch that could go significantly longer than the typical service interval, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, and including that information in every advert they made. I just checked the Sinn website, and I can't see a place where they even talk about a recommended service interval, let alone brag about hw long it might be...

That should tell you enough about such "innovations" with regards to service intervals.

Cheers, Al


----------



## farmerboy

Thank you for the honest reply.
Today even bottled water is advertised as new and improved.


----------



## OmegaRed

Do you find that watches with complications (i.e. chronographs) require service more frequently? Even if modem calibers.


----------



## Archer

OmegaRed said:


> Do you find that watches with complications (i.e. chronographs) require service more frequently? Even if modem calibers.


Certainly with a more complex movement there's more opportunity for something to go wrong, and that may require attention where a simpler watch may not. But from a pure service interval standpoint, the answer is no.

Cheers, Al


----------



## chicagosailor7

This was very informative - thank you for taking the time to post!


----------



## boostmiser

Thanks for the info...great post.


----------



## DavidFlo

Thanks for all the great info.


----------



## Radharc

Archer said:


> The short answer is no. I am a Sinn fan and have owned one, and serviced many.


Slightly off-topic, but does Sinn provide you with access to parts, etc., as an independent watch maker? For example, if you needed a new crystal could you get one? Or is it just that since they use standard ETA movements, etc., you have access to the parts you need for the movement but not any Sinn-specific parts? I have a ~12 year old 856 which I am thinking about sending in for service soon(ish)...


----------



## TwentiethCenturyFox

Fantastic review. Definitely, altered my thoughts on when to complete a service. Bravo, sir.


----------



## Greenbird007

Great post, I was in the “does it function properly and keep good time club” until i read this


----------



## Greenbird007

Al, know there is a million posts after your original, but I have a question.

Using a local watchmaker, are the certifications a pretty clear sign that the watchmaker is good for a service?

I worry about having a local guy work on my co-axial.


----------



## Greenbird007

I just realized this post is from 2012, sorry for the resurrection, no need to respond


----------



## Archer

Greenbird007 said:


> I just realized this post is from 2012, sorry for the resurrection, no need to respond


No worries - it tends to pop up every so often with new questions, and I'm happy to answer them...



Greenbird007 said:


> Al, know there is a million posts after your original, but I have a question.
> 
> Using a local watchmaker, are the certifications a pretty clear sign that the watchmaker is good for a service?
> 
> I worry about having a local guy work on my co-axial.


Like any profession (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.) having all the qualifications tells you that the person has met some minimum standard. And like all those it doesn't mean that the work will always been done right, or doctors wouldn't need malpractice insurance for example. So yes it can be helpful to a degree, but I would not rely on certifications alone. I would seek feedback from others who have used a specific watchmaker to get a feel for how they do the work and what they are like to deal with.

With regards to servicing co-axial watches, I personally held off taking any in for servicing until I had the training directly from Omega. I turned down many requests because I wanted to be sure I was doing the work right before I serviced any of these. Not everyone takes the same approach, and for example I have had watchmakers who are not certified contact me and ask for help when they were not sure what to do. One even did this after I had previously advised him not to take these without having the equipment and training needed, but he said he thought he would just "wing it" and see how things went. That's certainly not my approach when dealing with a customer's watch, but clearly others don't have a problem experimenting at the expense of their customers.

My advice would be to make sure whoever works on a co-axial for you has had the training directly from Omega, has access to replacement parts from Omega, and has the specific tools required for servicing co-axial watches.

Cheers, Al


----------



## Mouse_at_Large

I agree with Al. The first thing to check is that the person has had the training and equipment, however, I'd respectfully suggest that this does not give the whole picture. What is equally important is the _competence_ of the person. Competence is defined in ISO 19011:11 as: "the ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results."

A good analogy is:

"Do you know how to drive a car?"

"I was trained and acquired a driving license but I am still not confident to drive a car."

"That means you have the qualifications but not the competence."

It's a lot more difficult gather evidence of competence than qualifications. Reviews and forums give some idea of competence. When you come across a watchmaker that has both, your chances of a satisfactory outcome are massively increased!


----------



## gra1lhunt20

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Al. Surprised no one has chimed in since 2012. Really interesting read that will update my rules of thumb for the collection. 


Cheers from California


----------



## iinsic

gra1lhunt20 said:


> Surprised no one has chimed in since 2012.


That's because no one has "chimed in" since Sept. 2018. Go to the top of this page, and in the tool bar on the right, click on "Display." Select "Linear" for the reading mode, so that you will see the oldest post first, and the newest post last. You're welcome.


----------



## Shields99

Only read the original post but so informative, a lot to think about. Great reading and thanks for all the details.


----------



## iinsic

Shields99 said:


> Only read the original post but so informative, a lot to think about. Great reading and thanks for all the details.


Read through the whole thread for all of Archer's posts, as he provided additional details and clarifications. Worth the time and effort.


----------



## S20000

This thread is full of so many great information. Really interesting and great that you keep answering all the questions. A real addition to this forum.


----------



## iinsic

S20000 said:


> This thread is full of so many great information. Really interesting and great that you keep answering all the questions. A real addition to this forum.


You're right. It is great that someone exploring will bump this thread periodically, but it would be much more useful for many more watch aficionados if it had a "sticky." :think:


----------



## Titan II

iinsic said:


> You're right. It is great that someone exploring will bump this thread periodically, but it would be much more useful for many more watch aficionados if it had a "sticky." :think:


I totally agree. Consider my name #2 on the petition.

Rene


----------



## Mothh12

Titan II said:


> I totally agree. Consider my name #2 on the petition.
> 
> Rene


Glad I found this. It would be cool as a sticky...


----------



## FlyguyAZ

Keeping this great post alive! I rarely post anything because most question/topics I can think of can already be found discussed in length using the search function. That makes it difficult to reach the 200 mark though...so here it goes. These questions are probably out there already, but I think they fit this thread.

I imagine some things have changed since Omega no longer supplies third parties with parts (correct me if I'm wrong there). Does that mean I should always go through Omega for service now? Specifically with an 1861 Speedmaster. Can other shops still source the parts needed? If I'm in a pinch over $700, would it still be worth it to have a qualified Watchsmith clean and lube the watch even if they can't source parts? Lastly, should I be stocking up on parts if I can find them since the movement is discontinued? Thanks!

Also, if anyone knows of a competent service location near Atlanta let me know!


----------



## Archer

FlyguyAZ said:


> Keeping this great post alive! I rarely post anything because most question/topics I can think of can already be found discussed in length using the search function. That makes it difficult to reach the 200 mark though...so here it goes. These questions are probably out there already, but I think they fit this thread.
> 
> I imagine some things have changed since Omega no longer supplies third parties with parts (correct me if I'm wrong there). Does that mean I should always go through Omega for service now? Specifically with an 1861 Speedmaster. Can other shops still source the parts needed? If I'm in a pinch over $700, would it still be worth it to have a qualified Watchsmith clean and lube the watch even if they can't source parts? Lastly, should I be stocking up on parts if I can find them since the movement is discontinued? Thanks!
> 
> Also, if anyone knows of a competent service location near Atlanta let me know!


Omega stills supplies parts to independent watchmakers. At the end of 2015, they stopped selling parts to resellers, so watch parts suppliers like Otto Frei, Cousins, etc. But watchmakers maintained their spare parts accounts, and any watchmaker who wants can apply for one now. The only watchmakers who were "cut off" as people often pout it, were watchmakers who were not buying their parts directly from Omega, but from a third party reseller. For many, nothing changed at all, myself included.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Cheers, Al


----------



## FlyguyAZ

Archer said:


> Omega stills supplies parts to independent watchmakers. At the end of 2015, they stopped selling parts to resellers, so watch parts suppliers like Otto Frei, Cousins, etc. But watchmakers maintained their spare parts accounts, and any watchmaker who wants can apply for one now. The only watchmakers who were "cut off" as people often pout it, were watchmakers who were not buying their parts directly from Omega, but from a third party reseller. For many, nothing changed at all, myself included.
> 
> Hope this helps clarify things.
> 
> Cheers, Al


Thank you sir for the fast response! I will check with any watchmakers before service to make sure they still have a parts account. What other certifications should I ask about, or is it safe to assume that if they have a parts account that they meet the minimum standards to service an Omega?

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Archer

FlyguyAZ said:


> Thank you sir for the fast response! I will check with any watchmakers before service to make sure they still have a parts account. What other certifications should I ask about, or is it safe to assume that if they have a parts account that they meet the minimum standards to service an Omega?
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe


In order to get a parts account, you have to meet Omega's requirements for education, experience, have a well equipped modern shop, and attend training at Omega, so although nothing is guaranteed, if someone has an account they have proven themselves to be competent.

Cheers, Al


----------



## GrouchoM

Archer said:


> In order to get a parts account, you have to meet Omega's requirements for education, experience, have a well equipped modern shop, and attend training at Omega, so although nothing is guaranteed, if someone has an account they have proven themselves to be competent.
> 
> Cheers, Al


@Archer - Are there levels to this? Specifically, will Omega sell pre-CoAx parts to a watchmaker that has all the equipment, training, and experience with those older movements, but haven't upgraded their equipment for the newer movements? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## Archer

GrouchoM said:


> @Archer - Are there levels to this? Specifically, will Omega sell pre-CoAx parts to a watchmaker that has all the equipment, training, and experience with those older movements, but haven't upgraded their equipment for the newer movements?


It's been a long time since I received my account, but from what I can recall, there are essentially 2 stages. Once you are "approved" you can buy essentially only watch accessories, so straps, bracelets, and things like that. Once you are fully approved, you can buy pretty much anything.

Based on comments from a watchmaker I know who went through this process recently, he was only fully approved after attending the training at Omega.


----------



## bhardie

Really good write up. Thanks for putting this together for all of us.


----------



## composer

Just read the whole thread. Learned a lot and well worth the time. Everyone considering servicing their watch should read this since this since this question pops up pretty often on watch forums.


----------



## matlt

composer said:


> Just read the whole thread. Learned a lot and well worth the time. Everyone considering servicing their watch should read this since this since this question pops up pretty often on watch forums.


It’s a pretty unique circumstance in any field to get servicing advice from an expert that has no interest in furthering their own business or profits (I’m sure he likes money as much as anyone, but doesn’t exactly need help getting more business). Even when profit isn’t the primary intent behind advice, often what you get is the ultra conservative and safe answer.


----------



## Jeklotz

Great thread! I stumbled on it randomly, as I don't own an Omega and don't visit this section very often. This thread should get a sticky in the public forum.


----------

