by Ashton Tracy
It’s no secret that customers are frustrated with the time it takes to get things done in the watch industry. Even something as simple as ordering a strap takes several weeks if not months; a complete overhaul is another matter entirely.
But be careful what you wish for because the watch industry seems to be listening, with companies employing procedures to drastically reduce service delays.
And there’s a dirty downside.
Lack of qualified watchmakers is the underlying issue when it comes to watches taking so long to repair. Understaffed workshops throughout the world struggle to keep up with demand for repair, which in turn causes lead times to swell out of control.
Qualified watchmakers are hard to find, and watchmaking schools are still harder to find – these schools being expensive to operate, and finding suitably qualified instructors being nearly impossible.
Countries that offer watchmaking programs not affiliated with WOSTEP, the British Horological Institute, or a similarly recognized institution are considered second rate – with students not even recognized for positions within the industry.
Schools that do offer these accredited courses are relatively few, only accepting 8-10 students per year and operating in as few countries.
The luxury watch market has had its share of ups and downs over the past few years, but one fact remains: the number of watchmakers graduating doesn’t even come close to the numbers required to sustain and maintain a reasonable repair service.
So the industry took another route.
Deskilling watchmakers
The first route is deskilling the industry via a sequential repair system.
A sequential system of repair resembles a production process, with each member of the team focusing on one area of a watch.
A technician removes the movement from the case, another the dial and hands, someone else disassembles the movement, yet someone else takes care of assembly – but only some aspects of assembly: the barrel and train by one, the escapement by another, and the dial and hands by someone else entirely.
The beauty of this system is it requires very little skill with an individual trained on one aspect of a movement only. And that person can have practically no knowledge of watchmaking, let alone any passion for the art, and can be taught the new “craft” in a matter of weeks. And be replaced at the drop of a hat.
Deskilling is great for watch brands because they no longer require a workshop full of qualified watchmakers, only a few to oversee the whole system. It could even be seen as a good thing for the consumer because we all love decreased lead times and getting our watches back more quickly.
We must, however, look at what is being sacrificed.
Watchmakers tend to be passionate people in love with their craft. You would be hard pressed to find a retired watchmaker; they generally don’t give up. Passionate repairers are needed to ensure watches, especially vintage or – particularly high-end – are looked after and treated with respect.
Sending your 1969 Speedmaster in for repair, knowing it is being repaired by a team of unqualified individuals with very little understanding of watchmaking principles, is a fairly scary prospect.
When one individual, who is highly qualified and appropriately trained, is responsible for completing a task and seeing it through from beginning to end, there is a sense of responsibility involved. With the outcome always producing superior results to that of the production line.
Exchanging movements instead of fixing them
The second way lead times are being reduced is by exchanging complete movements rather than servicing them.
We live in a throw-away society, and the world of modern watchmaking is sadly no different. It has been fairly commonplace in the watch industry for quartz movements to be exchanged for a new or refurbished model due to the fact that these are usually inexpensive when compared to mechanical movements.
However, over time certain companies have adopted the method of exchanging simple three-hand automatic and manual-wind movements and date models that are fairly inexpensive.
These days we see a new trend developing, an alarming one in my opinion. Watch manufacturers that don’t have the repair infrastructure in certain markets, even surprisingly in larger countries, have taken to exchanging more costly movements rather than servicing and repairing them.
Even chronographs equipped with an ETA 7750 that have been C.O.S.C. certified are being exchanged for refurbished models sent back from the factory. Movement serial numbers that were once unique to your watch are now being replaced with records updated to match the C.O.S.C. database.
Your old movement complete with your individual serial number will later down the track be placed into someone else’s watch entirely.
This process isn’t limited to ETA movements. Companies that produce in-house calibers certified by C.O.S.C. with individual serial numbers are also replacing movements with refurbished or even new movements, whichever is cheaper.
I spoke to a watchmaker once who had previously worked for SSIH (the precursor to the Swatch Group). He expressed to me that multiple watches would be disassembled at one time; all the components were mixed together and sent for cleaning, upon return from cleaning the movements would be re-assembled in no particular order with parts being put back wherever.
The only thing that needed to be checked was putting the bridge with the movement number back in the right watch.
To be honest this shocked me.
As a naive young watchmaker at the time I wondered how such a gross injustice could occur: customers deserve to have their own watch back in their entireties.
Is there a better way?
This is what is happening today. Perhaps I am still a little naive, perhaps we really do live in a different time and this is what today’s consumer is after. But I feel I have spoken to enough collectors in my time to know that this isn’t what they want.
In fact, I have spoken to plenty of individuals who have purchased vintage Omegas and the like based on movement numbers that have corresponded with dates that are important to them.
We would all love to have shorter wait times to receive our watches back from repair, but surely there is a better way.
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
I waited 6 months for my Perrelet retrograde to be repaired and returned to me. At the time I was not happy, but I guess now I should see that for a good thing!
The answer to your terrifying thoughts is very simple. Business and money. The majority of the watch companies belong to various financial groups. These groups expect from a watch company to bring increasing profits every day in order to see their shares increased.! Because of the politics and huge bonuses to the higher managent none of the groups reorganized the structure of their Watch makers they acquired back in the 70’s and 80’s ( back then they were romantic Watch makers and not money makers) .
After the Quartz crisis, sales start rising again and watches became more reliable as well due to the new materials used. So higher salaries and bonuses but to managers and CEO’s only. If they wanted, they could have trained all sorts of specialized personnel. I believe that Richmond’s CEO annual bonus would be more than enough to create their own repair school. No one ever ( except Rolex maybe) faced reality because after all they move from one company to another. How many companies know/ want to know or allready know and hide it, of their realistic market share they may have? Rolex maybe? Why Vacheron and others over produce watches that we all find in the gray market? Can you imagine how much Richmond’s share would drop if they produced only the number of watches they can actually sell????
Let’s not play their game and throw the blame to the luck of trained and qualified people because these people do exist and are eager to work and offer their knowledge but you have to pay them, train them and respect them!!
You know too much.Lol
Wow! This is a little distressing. Having someone, that doesn’t understand the importance of how the different parts of a movement influence and affect the performance of other parts of a movement, as well as the overall performance of the movement, working on expensive movements, in an industry that depends on precision, just doesn’t sound right. in addition, I don’t like the idea of having the COSC movement that is original to my watch, replaced with one from another, unknown watch, that has been refurbished scares the hell out of me!
Which “certain companies”? You can’t drop a bomb and then leave people hanging. If you have facts, publish them. If you don’t state it as an opinion or retract the statement.
The purpose of the article is not to name and shame watch companies by publishing an exhaustive list of all manufacturers taking this route, it is to educate the consumer about what is happening in the industry as a whole. If you don’t believe what I have published, I doubt naming watch brands would help you be persuaded, I could have made that up too.
It would help tremendously because we wouldn’t buy their watches!!! This is the only to defend our hard earned money.
as a watchmaker i see this more and more across all companies. any swatch group brand for sure doesnt use watchmakers outside of complications. when you realise a whole 2892 is worth 200 $ brand new theres really no reason to have someone actually try and fix problems. and even the brands that use watchmakers, modern watchmaking is all partswapping anyway. its super uninteresting there is no making of anything for any brand anymore.
thats kind of the other side of the story young watchamkers dont have much interest in doing this and would much rather work for private historical restoration houses (thats really the goal- but we cant learn this from industry jobs and have to learn from our own side projects – I buy old pocketwatches and repair them and re finish them to old standards, fix old minute repeaters etc) its a shame because its not like you can learn stuff from these companies anymore its all mass manufacture and all really boring and when you realise even the expensive stuff is the same (richard mille putting 1500$ vaucher movements in 120,00$ watches, i think its fair to say its only gonna get worse)
The solution to this problem is incredibly simple- allow independent watchmakers access to parts accounts.
This whole situation has been brought upon by watch manufacturers restricting parts access. Many independent watchmakers with decades of experience have had their parts accounts suddenly closed without a given reason. As a result, they cannot repair the luxury/mechanical watches with OEM parts, and are either forced to use aftermarket parts (which have lesser quality and are often more expensive than OEM) or shut down their shops.
Watch manufacturers love this, because it effectively recirculates all profit. Either you must send your watch to their service center, where they often charge over $600 for a basic service, and replace any “unsightly” features of the watch (i.e. spider cracked dials on 16660 Sea Dwellers), reducing the worth and uniqueness of your vintage piece. Or, you must take it to a watchmaker at their authorized jeweler. This is often the better option, since the watchmaker has more flexibility with what he/she replaces, but the ultimate goal is for the watch manufacturer to expose you to new products when you bring yours in. Also, the service prices are often the same as the manufacturer service center, so the customer is not getting a deal. Furthermore, the jeweler takes most of the profit, not the watchmaker- few watchmakers do piecework repairs, they are salaried. So your money goes to line the pockets of the business owner who is charging you too much for the repair and too much for new watches- not the skilled watchmaker who is actually taking care of your watch.
The right to repair is an issue that is normally applied to the electronics industry, but this should be extended to the watch industry, and any industry with independent repairmen. I can understand manufacturers restricting cosmetic parts (dials, hands) to avoid them being circulated without authorization. But essential parts (movement parts, gaskets, crystals) must be accessible.
The manufacturers’ excuse is “if bad watchmakers repair these watches, and the watches function poorly as a result, it reflects poorly on the brand.” But this is BS- bad watchmakers will just “fix” the watches using aftermarket parts. People who cannot afford the manufacturers’ set repair prices will always go to these bad watchmakers because the repair prices are often less than half of what they would be spending otherwise. As a result, now there are more watches with aftermarket parts, which reflects even more poorly on the manufacturer. The average consumer won’t know or care that the parts are aftermarket- they will complain that the used Rolex they bought from the neighborhood jeweler isn’t working right, and will be hesitant to buy another luxury watch again.
Personally, I am a certified watchmaker. My goal going into watchmaking school was to open my own repair shop, since the essential tools are affordable and were actually supplied in school. But sadly, this will never happen as long as toxic politics stay in effect, and politicians refuse to support tradesmen’s livelihoods. I simply cannot sustain an independent business if the only watches I can get parts for are cheap watches- customers would just buy new ones if the repair cost reflected the true labor cost.
Well said and if we don’t spend ou money, for a while, on a luxury watch, things maybe will change. I had a problem with my Vacheron and I could only take it at the official service center in Greece. After two months, my watch was repaired, according to them, three months later I had to bring it back for the same problem, another two months of waiting and two weeks after the was repaired, it presented the exact same problem. I contacted Vacheron Swiss and they just told me to bring it back to their Athens service. I did so and few months later I had the same exact problem. The watch now is resting in the safe and I just advise all my contacts of my case and at least 3 of them changed their mind and bought a Rolex that here you can have it serviced just about anywhere!!
Sorry to hear about the problems with your Vacheron. I have heard that Swiss service centers are notoriously slow with repairs. Not buying luxury watches might work, but the best thing would be to tell the companies your thoughts about independent watchmakers. If you could please email Vacheron and explain your situation as a customer who spent thousands on their product, and that your friends have decided not to buy their product for this reason, hopefully this will drive the point home.
Interesting, and well said. What I find a little rich is the high-end Swiss watchmakers are are going to bump into the same immovable object the auto industry did when they tried to restrict the diagnostic codes to independent mechanics and tech manufacturers (lumping smartphones, tablets, and computers into this basket) with the right to repair laws. Seiko is currently my go-to brand now because I’m fed up with the myopic thinking the Swiss Watch industry has for after-sales service.
That is exactly the problem! I live 5 minutes from a CWS21 trained watchmaker, who can do just about anything short of the Grand Comps, but outside of a few Swatch companies he can’t get parts, unless he spends his day trolling the web. It is costing him a lot of repair business. It seems the large conglomerates would prefer to maintain tight control (and profitability) by doing a sometimes mediocre job and having all repairs funneled to a central location. Someone needs to rethink this decision (Mr. Rupert).
You are right of course about the self-centred tyranny of restrictive parts supply. At least in Europe, car manufacturers are not allowed to do this and must supply, and recognise the work of for warrantee purposes, any qualified service centre. Independent watch repairers have been fighting the EU about this for years and given lawyers a lot of money, but have got nowhere.
This process was tested effectively in the 1970’s with Timex watches (yes, the dollar watches)…it made no sense to repair the movements due to the labor cost as compared to just replacing the watch with another (cheap)Timex movement…I’d imagine we’re reaching that critical stage again where the labor to repair is too costly, and the manufacturers (especially ETA) find it more cost efficient to just replace with a like movement..
Most companies wont give out spare parts to the Independent watchmaker.So this forces the customer to use the factory service centre or agent.Now where do the next generation of watchmakers come from if the repairs are taken away from the Independent watchmakers.No parts no apprentices. No industry. So it effects the service centers as well as the Independent watchmakers.Why dont you do a story on the Independent watchmaker for once.
Great feedbacks and a great story. I recently sent a Hamilton to a repairman in Chino Ca. Pretty strait forward transaction. Another time a repairman removed and sold me a mainspring from a better working movement than mine . I was shocked he would ruin the movement for 20 dollars. I think a Waltham 16 size.
Depressing news. Makes a good argument for saving up for watches with hand finishing and display backs. However, for Rolex and Omega it is fine- these are tool watches in fancy cases, far removed from the current ideals of haute horology. On the other hand, it would be truly horrifying to find out that Lange, Patek, and Audemars were doing it too!
This is alarming. I don’t have super expensive watches. I can’t afford them, but even if I could (say if I win a lottery) I would never buy their brand/s. Because nothing will piss me off more than finding out down the road..that $10k-$15k I forked up for watch has bloody inferior parts. Not sure how these watch companies that have high-end timepieces take away consumer’s hard earn money and not be responsible for servicing the timepiece. Thanks for the article. Highly disturbing to see this happening. Like I said, I don’t have super expensive watches and I can only imagine their anguish when they find out their beautiful timepiece is filled with inferior parts taken or parts swapped from someone else’s timepiece. Better stick to Seikos!!!
Hi sar i m sahab zadey I need job for watch tecnnisian
There’s a watch repair company in England that offers, for an extra £50:00, offer 24 hour servicing. You tell me how they can do that?
https://www.watchdoctors.co.uk/price-guide/
We must sawe “The soldat watchmaker”.
As the “Luxury brands” see no need, it seems that the serious watch collectors must organise watchmaker schools. To geet a perfect after sale service, by wour watch by an independant. He assume. (AHCI)
One of the most distribing things that I read in the article was the practice of taking multiple movements disassembling them and putting all the parts in a single cleaning basket and then reassembling the movements with a mix of parts. Having been in maintenance and repair for over 45 years, the practice of taking parts (especilly gears) that have worn in together and reassembling them with other parts from other (machines) movements is asking for failure. After reading this article I’m on the hunt for a good independant watchmaker that doesn’t use aftermarket parts.
Thanks for the well written article.
Unfortunately, most if not all companies prioritize profits over quality. It doesn’t really matter the company, they’re all the same but different.
Great article Ashton. Keep up the good work son. Regards Dad.
The next step is for mfg to engrave a plaquard with your serial number and screw it to the baseplate. That way they can train another tech to remove & reaffix onto the replacement movement. Whoops, probably gave em an idea….
Very interesting read. Posted a link to it on the forum.
I think there is more emotion than objectivity in this piece. The picture painted in this article is a false dichotomy of careless drones of the factory and the perfectionist watchmaker. Specialization of labor is precisely the correct route to take when it comes to limited supply and improved, measurable consistent quality.
Humans are imperfect and inconsistent, even the watchmakers of considerable experience. When considering a problem, one should select the correct tool for the job. You don’t need a Doctor to take your temperature or give you a shot, a nurse or phlebotomist can do that for far cheaper and just as well. You don’t need a lawyer to write up your contract, that can be done by other professionals (at least in the U.K.). Even amongst watchmakers and repairmen, there is specialization based on the age and make of a timepiece… are we to sneer and stick up our noses for any watchmaker that can’t or won’t handle grand complications?
Not every repair requires a master watchmaker certification to diagnose and resolve your issue. Some work does require more depth than breadth when it comes to knowledge, and those cases can be escalated, but for everyone else, a trained technician specializing in a specific problem area will do.
Systemization of repair breeds consistent and predictable results leading to better processes and better quality repair, in time and function. Quality control must remain high, and the workers on the line must be held to the same high standard or even higher than that of the lone do-it-all watch repairmen.
As for the mixing of the parts bin: It is regrettable that this would happen, and it does sound like a symptom of a poor understanding of customer sentiment and processes. One would hope that only the necessary parts would be replaced.
I am a strong believer in only one pair of hands being involved in the service process from start to finish.
This is particularly true for old watches; breaking down the assembly of the movement into small self- contained tasks carried out by different people is madness, it’s the wrong way to do it.
Some will question this, frankly I can’t be bothered spending time trying to convince them why they’re wrong. Servicing a watch isn’t like decorating your living room.
The restriction of parts supply is a major contributor to the problem. Unless this changes I can’t see how watch repairing can be a viable career option, I really can’t. The repair trade can’t survive by relying on older folks like me seeking a second career in later life, younger blood is needed.
If parts were freely available at sensible prices the repair /service process would be a whole lot easier and the skill level required would be somewhat lower. It’s far easier to fit a new balance than a balance staff, it’s a whole lot easier to fit a new balance than spend ages truing up a distorted hairspring!
I could rant all day about this issue but I’m (almost) past caring. I fix the odd one or two watches when I’ve nothing better to do thesedays, I’m fed up with struggling to find parts and begging favours. Ideally, I would invest in upgrading my facilities, buying better tools, and doing some more training, but there’s no incentive to do this when I struggle to obtain parts.