Health of the Industry

[clockboy]

The main point is it denies the customer the freedom of choice. Some inherent a nice Rolex/ Omega and would just like to see them running but do not have the finances to pay Rolex etc their fees. 

[nickelsilver]

I hate the parts restrictions as much as anybody, but they didn't come out of a vacuum. In the 70s the quartz crisis hit very hard. Manufacturers were closing left and right, and within a short time a quartz watch could be had for less than a mechanical, 10 times more accurate (or more?), and require only a battery change here and there. There were articles in trade journals on how to shorten the time time it took to perform an overhaul on mechanical watches- customers didn't want to pay the "going price" anymore. Partial disassembly or even cleaning entire movements became common with the introduction of final rinses that supposedly lubricated the movement correctly. By the 80s watchmaking schools were seeing a huge drop in applicants, older watchmakers were advising young people to find another trade, schools were closing or cutting their curriculum to the bone and essentially producing hacks.

 

Rolex did begin restricting parts. At first it was checking on the actual ability of the watchmaker and seeing that they were adequately equipped. Then it got tighter and tighter, with requirements of making significant investment in seldom used equipment, more training, etc., then finally in the 2000s it has come to only supplying parts to watchmakers working in a Rolex dealer, with all the equipment and doing training and so forth. So it was a process over decades, and not done out of greed, but to guarantee a top level of service. I can say that having viewed the insides of some Rolexes that were 10+ years old or 10+ years after factory service, they look fantastic- Kifs still well oiled, oil sinks clean and oil filled, all great. A friend who worked for Rolex as a trainer told me they clean the movement 3 times for an after sales service. Pre-clean, then disassemble and inspect, peg all holes, pith all pinions, check the functions, replace any and all worn parts and certain parts regardless just as a precaution, clean again, then a final clean in pristine solutions. Epilame used where appropriate. Get some oil on top of the jewel?- back through the machine.

 

Other makers have tried to follow suit, but without systematically building up the internal structure to handle the workload. So there are a lot of unhappy owners of Tag Heuers and other brands out there, who wait an unreasonably long time for a service, then get a watch back that many times has been given a subpar service.

 

20 years before the quartz crisis it was common to have your watch serviced once a year or so. It was OK to use lesser cleaning methods, and maybe not be as picky with oiling technique, as the watch was going to be redone in a matter of months. Also, the use of natural lubricants meant that oil would tend to thicken up and stop the watch before wear occurred. Now, if you miss something the watch might grind itself to dust on certain parts.

 

So, rambling a bit, but just wanted to stick up a little for Rolex, as they have gone this route truly to ensure that their watches are at the level they desire (and I have nothing to do with them, I might see a couple a year and don't own one).

 

At the end of the day I agree with the often used comparison to car parts. A friend has a couple of Porsches and does most of his own service work (he's also a watchmaker, haha), and he never has an issue getting any part for his cars. That anyone can buy anything for a device that is potentially lethal to the owner and others, while some mid-tier watch company doesn't want to supply parts to "ensure quality" is rotten. It used to be mentioned in discussions like these that buyers should vote with their wallet and only buy from makers who do supply parts, but it's gotten to where that pretty much eliminates everything.

 

For the moment Omega is the star; with a reasonable outlay for some specific tooling for dealing with cases, and a modernly equipped shop, and a reasonable amount of training, you can get a parts account with them. A friend has one, and says they are also very easy to deal with and fast with getting the parts out. The same guy had an account with Zenith- but they decided to make their parts account holders invest in thousands of bucks worth of tooling (Ok...), and also order a minimum dollar amount of parts per year, which would equate for him to doing only Zenith work, haha. So he let it go.  A shame.

[spectre6000]

3 hours ago, VWatchie said:

That Newton movement was new to me. It has the same dimensions as the 2824-2 (haven't checked hand dimensions), and reading about it, got me intrigued. The idea to create a nice franken watch, housing the Newton entered into my mind. Thought this movement would be possible to buy on Cousins but no luck and no spare parts!? Googling further, these movements don't seem to be available to the general public. That was a bit of a disappointment...

I think it's a brand new movement. I've only seen it in one or two watches so far. It seems their goal is to be a viable alternative to the 2824/SW-200, and so I imagine availability will come with time.

[WatchWood]

2 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

 

 

Rolex did begin restricting parts............. then a final clean in pristine solutions. Epilame used where appropriate. Get some oil on top of the jewel?- back through the machine.

 

Other makers have tried to follow suit, but without systematically building up the internal structure to handle the workload. So there are a lot of unhappy owners of Tag Heuers and other brands out there, who wait an unreasonably long time for a service, then get a watch back that many times has been given a subpar service.

 

20 years before the quartz crisis it was common to have your watch serviced once a year or so. It was OK to use lesser cleaning methods, and maybe not be as picky with oiling technique, as the watch was going to be redone in a matter of months. Also, the use of natural lubricants meant that oil would tend to thicken up and stop the watch before wear occurred. Now, if you miss something the watch might grind itself to dust on certain parts.

 

So, rambling a bit, but just wanted to stick up a little for Rolex...

Thanks for your perspective on this discussion, much appreciated. I began it out of genuine interest, not to have a go at any particular brand - as you say, nothing ever happens in a vacuum. It's good to know that some brands are doing something to protect their legacy rather than their bottom line. It's highly unlikely (without a lottery win) that I will ever buy a high-end watch but when you consider buying a car there is usually some consideration given to running costs. Surely the same logic applies when spending an equivalent amount (or more) on a wristwatch? - or maybe it doesn't!

[Plato]

3 hours ago, nickelsilver said:

I hate the parts restrictions as much as anybody, but they didn't come out of a vacuum. In the 70s the quartz crisis hit very hard. Manufacturers were closing left and right, and within a short time a quartz watch could be had for less than a mechanical, 10 times more accurate (or more?), and require only a battery change here and there. There were articles in trade journals on how to shorten the time time it took to perform an overhaul on mechanical watches- customers didn't want to pay the "going price" anymore. Partial disassembly or even cleaning entire movements became common with the introduction of final rinses that supposedly lubricated the movement correctly. By the 80s watchmaking schools were seeing a huge drop in applicants, older watchmakers were advising young people to find another trade, schools were closing or cutting their curriculum to the bone and essentially producing hacks.

 

Rolex did begin restricting parts. At first it was checking on the actual ability of the watchmaker and seeing that they were adequately equipped. Then it got tighter and tighter, with requirements of making significant investment in seldom used equipment, more training, etc., then finally in the 2000s it has come to only supplying parts to watchmakers working in a Rolex dealer, with all the equipment and doing training and so forth. So it was a process over decades, and not done out of greed, but to guarantee a top level of service. I can say that having viewed the insides of some Rolexes that were 10+ years old or 10+ years after factory service, they look fantastic- Kifs still well oiled, oil sinks clean and oil filled, all great. A friend who worked for Rolex as a trainer told me they clean the movement 3 times for an after sales service. Pre-clean, then disassemble and inspect, peg all holes, pith all pinions, check the functions, replace any and all worn parts and certain parts regardless just as a precaution, clean again, then a final clean in pristine solutions. Epilame used where appropriate. Get some oil on top of the jewel?- back through the machine.

 

Other makers have tried to follow suit, but without systematically building up the internal structure to handle the workload. So there are a lot of unhappy owners of Tag Heuers and other brands out there, who wait an unreasonably long time for a service, then get a watch back that many times has been given a subpar service.

 

20 years before the quartz crisis it was common to have your watch serviced once a year or so. It was OK to use lesser cleaning methods, and maybe not be as picky with oiling technique, as the watch was going to be redone in a matter of months. Also, the use of natural lubricants meant that oil would tend to thicken up and stop the watch before wear occurred. Now, if you miss something the watch might grind itself to dust on certain parts.

 

So, rambling a bit, but just wanted to stick up a little for Rolex, as they have gone this route truly to ensure that their watches are at the level they desire (and I have nothing to do with them, I might see a couple a year and don't own one).

 

At the end of the day I agree with the often used comparison to car parts. A friend has a couple of Porsches and does most of his own service work (he's also a watchmaker, haha), and he never has an issue getting any part for his cars. That anyone can buy anything for a device that is potentially lethal to the owner and others, while some mid-tier watch company doesn't want to supply parts to "ensure quality" is rotten. It used to be mentioned in discussions like these that buyers should vote with their wallet and only buy from makers who do supply parts, but it's gotten to where that pretty much eliminates everything.

 

For the moment Omega is the star; with a reasonable outlay for some specific tooling for dealing with cases, and a modernly equipped shop, and a reasonable amount of training, you can get a parts account with them. A friend has one, and says they are also very easy to deal with and fast with getting the parts out. The same guy had an account with Zenith- but they decided to make their parts account holders invest in thousands of bucks worth of tooling (Ok...), and also order a minimum dollar amount of parts per year, which would equate for him to doing only Zenith work, haha. So he let it go.  A shame.

There's a couple of recent posts on the forum about how Rolex have refused to undertake the work offered to them. If they're trying to hog the market then they at least have to offer a repair service. Not that I have Rolex money but this has really put me off the brand. 

Isn't one of Patek's selling point the fact that they will repair any of their watches, no matter how old or damaged... probably at eye-watering prices, but it's still an offering. 

[WatchWood]

5 hours ago, VWatchie said:

 

For example, this is from the FAQ section at  A. Lange & Söhne:

"Can I order spare parts or individual parts?

....

Just playing Devils Advocate**; To some extent I understand that if you are spending 30K+ on a watch there will always be some level of protectionism going on - only WE can service it for you. From the owners' perspective would you be happy sending your goods to anyone OTHER than the OEM?

The watch industry seems to be very healthy(?) so wouldn't it be in their interest for more people to train in watchmaking with more impetus from the industry to facilitate it?

(** full disclosure; I would love to own a Lange Datograph!)

[Plato]

47 minutes ago, WatchWood said:

on a watch there will always be some level of protectionism going on - only WE can service it for you.

If they're genuinely the best at what they do then they should freely accept competition. 

[clockboy]

1 hour ago, Plato said:

There's a couple of recent posts on the forum about how Rolex have refused to undertake the work offered to them. If they're trying to hog the market then they at least have to offer a repair service. Not that I have Rolex money but this has really put me off the brand. 

Isn't one of Patek's selling point the fact that they will repair any of their watches, no matter how old or damaged... probably at eye-watering prices, but it's still an offering. 

Many years ago I took a vintage GMT master to Rolex for evaluation purposes and I was told if I had it serviced and any parts needed to be replaced they would have to make them. So they did not refuse exactly but everyone has a budget.

[Plato]

3 minutes ago, clockboy said:

Many years ago I took a vintage GMT master to Rolex for evaluation purposes and I was told if I had it serviced and any parts needed to be replaced they would have to make them. So they did not refuse exactly but everyone has a budget.

So they sold/scrapped all the machinery and tooling they used to make the parts in the first place? 

Isn't this type of practice called 'gouging'? 

[WatchWood]

40 minutes ago, Plato said:

If they're genuinely the best at what they do then they should freely accept competition. 

I'm not sure I would frame it as a 'competition' issue. Others have commented on Omega being able to widen the service-base to independents. Obviously there are hurdles to jump but it doesn't seem out of reach - the brand retains control but the customer ultimately wins. Then there are the others who seem to want to maintain their walled gardens!

[oldhippy]

Back in the 70's & 80's Rolex wouldn't guarantee a full service if the watch was over I think 15 years old. It doesn't say much for their watch movements. 

[VWatchie]

14 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

and so I imagine availability will come with time

That would be very nice. However, no Soprod movements or spare parts were available at Cousins. So I'm speculating Soprod might want to limit their sales to manufacturers only, and thereby be able to exclude the independent watch shops for the benefit of the manufacturers. The Newton movement is available from a single, Swiss based, seller on eBay, but without access to parts it's not all that interesting.

[VWatchie]

13 hours ago, WatchWood said:

From the owners' perspective would you be happy sending your goods to anyone OTHER than the OEM?

Sure, Roger Smith, Philippe Dufour, Greubel Forsey, to name a few! 

Anyway, in my opinion, if I own a watch, no matter its brand or price, I should have the right to do with it what I want, even try, and perhaps fail, to service and repair it myself. Imagine a car brand refusing to sell spare parts to end-consumers! All hell would break loose, and in my opinion rightly so.

Edited October 25, 2021 by VWatchie

[WatchWood]

3 hours ago, VWatchie said:

Sure, Roger Smith, Philippe Dufour, Greubel Forsey, to name a few! 

Anyway, in my opinion, if I own a watch, no matter its brand or price, I should have the right to do with it what I want, even try, and perhaps fail, to service and repair it myself. Imagine a car brand refusing to sell spare parts to end-consumers! All hell would break loose, and in my opinion rightly so.

I completely agree, it's just a shame that the right-to-repair legislation recently introduced only covers electrical goods. I wonder how much lobbying is going on to make sure it stays that way?

I think the car industry did try doing that not too long ago! There seems to be a healthy industry in the alternative spare parts market for cars (non OEM) giving the consumer a choice. 

[Marc]

This may be of interest ...

https://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/openmovement-aims-to-revitalise-watchmaking/

[watchweasol]

As far as th industry goes this is radical thinking and will I am sure lead to a resurgence in the mechanical watch. The quartz watch will hold its position due to the fact that is can be programmed into a small space with many complications. but there are many who still prefer the mechanical watch and this will give people the choice.  Being open source will no doubt create an interest in the training facilities and many gifted amatuers as well who will all bring somthing to the party. A brilliant concept .

[spectre6000]

3 hours ago, WatchWood said:

I completely agree, it's just a shame that the right-to-repair legislation recently introduced only covers electrical goods. I wonder how much lobbying is going on to make sure it stays that way?

I think the car industry did try doing that not too long ago! There seems to be a healthy industry in the alternative spare parts market for cars (non OEM) giving the consumer a choice. 

Hopefully it's a gateway to a larger and more inclusive body of legislation. 

[watchweasol]

As the politicians say   Hear   Hear.

[WatchWood]

4 hours ago, Marc said:

This may be of interest ...

https://journal.hautehorlogerie.org/en/openmovement-aims-to-revitalise-watchmaking/

Oooh, that sounds interesting. I see the article was written over a year ago so I look forward to seeing what has happened since.

I've been using Linux now for over a year and I'm quite impressed at what is available Open Source.

[WatchWood]

1 hour ago, watchweasol said:

As the politicians say   Hear   Hear.

Shouldn't we be saying;  Watch  Watch!

[WatchWood]

3 hours ago, spectre6000 said:

Hopefully it's a gateway to a larger and more inclusive body of legislation. 

Or a move out of Europe to avoid it (cynical, I know!)

[Marc]

27 minutes ago, WatchWood said:

I see the article was written over a year ago so I look forward to seeing what has happened since.

If you point your browser at https://openmovement.org/ you can get all the up to date info.

[WatchWood]

Yes I saw that. I also came across an article from 2016 so this looks like it's going to be a slow-burn. Looks promising. I do wonder if the slow-burn is indicative of the waning interest in watchmaking or is it a case of 'make it and they will come'

If anyone has time to spare there is a good video on the Horological Society of New York channel by the owner of Habring who made his own movement when ETA stopped supplying him (link below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJFf3VlCXss

[VWatchie]

2 hours ago, WatchWood said:

I've been using Linux now for over a year and I'm quite impressed at what is available Open Source.

Many people aren’t aware, but these days the entire Microsoft .NET platform is Open Source. What used to cost thousands of dollars is now free to download available on GitHub. I think they did the right thing for everyone, themselves and the consumers.

I think the watch industry would benefit from moving in the same direction.

Edited October 25, 2021 by VWatchie

[HectorLooi]

I guess when the market is huge, industry players can afford to go open source. But in a small niche market, manufacturers tend to be more protectionistic. 

Like in the dental sector, which is really small, manufacturers tend to be rather protective. Our equipment need special tooling to disassemble them or risk damage. And with every new range of equipment, even from the same manufacturer, new tooling is required.

Recently I learned that a prominent European dental equipment manufacturer started putting code into their motherboard to cripple their equipment if a routine maintenance service is not performed.