(Not) Servicing older binos in Absam (1 Viewer)

[etudiant]

If you call respecting a person's financial investment pandering ...
When a company feels they cannot, for whatever reason, treat a collector's piece with the due respect for it's value, then they should say so outright. Not return it with the collector's value destroyed because the original hands were replaced with new new ones for example (the excuse given at the time being "Aah, the old luminous may become brittle and fall out and then potentially crumbs may fall underneath the face and cause damage in the mechanism" - riiight ... other master watch repairers can indeed service [cla] a watch without replacing the hands). If I want a new watch, state of the art, I will buy it. And certainly not from the maker whose service department just ruined my collector's piece.
Eithe a maker lives off the stable resale value and even collectability of his products, or he doesn't.

I don't understand this post.
For a collector's item, does parts replacement destroy value? If the item is from the initial production, is that OK?
I know that for vintage cars, OEM parts really matter, later reproductions are not considered authentic.
But for a watch, usually sealed tight, does changing out a gearwheel destroy authenticity?
My old watch's face has long since lost the glow in the dark feature it once had. No fitting replacement faces were available. So the olfd face stayed.
Is it 'authentic', even though the bezel and the bracelet have been replaced?

 

[dries1]

If the bezel and bracelet have been replaced with NOS (new old stock (OEM) parts) I would see no issue with that at all.

 

[Patudo]

If you call respecting a person's financial investment pandering ...
When a company feels they cannot, for whatever reason, treat a collector's piece with the due respect for it's value, then they should say so outright. Not return it with the collector's value destroyed because the original hands were replaced with new new ones for example

It may be different in the world of watches (I have no idea as my only use for a watch is to tell the time) but IMO a company is only really obligated to service its product for the term of warranty (or whatever consumer protection legislation exists, such as car manufacturers being legally required to produce parts for a certain number of years) and is entitled to use whatever spare parts it thinks best to fulfil that objective.

If I take my "classic" old Porsche in for service, I don't require (and would think it unreasonable to insist) the company to use "original" parts manufactured in the 60s/70s. Nor would I expect them to be concerned about whatever "investment value" it has. All I'd expect them to do is keep it in good mechanical order, and if they have new and improved parts (eg. recently redesigned suspension parts for a certain Porsche model), so much the better.

I don't really believe the amount someone else is willing to pay for my vehicle (or binocular, watch etc) is the manufacturer's problem.

 

[Ignatius]

I don't understand this post.
For a collector's item, does parts replacement destroy value? If the item is from the initial production, is that OK?
I know that for vintage cars, OEM parts really matter, later reproductions are not considered authentic.
But for a watch, usually sealed tight, does changing out a gearwheel destroy authenticity?
My old watch's face has long since lost the glow in the dark feature it once had. No fitting replacement faces were available. So the olfd face stayed.
Is it 'authentic', even though the bezel and the bracelet have been replaced?

Yes, replacing parts that are not original to the period destroys value. Not for a cog or winding stem, but for faces, hands, crystals, bracelets, buckles etc. Also polishing the case to within an inch of its life is very negative. It is better to have an original face and hands with the original lume, which may well have lost its power, than to have, for example, an original face but with replaced lume dots or hands which are either themselves not original or which have had the lume replaced with ther wrong material. A 1980s watch with hands containing Superluminova (which is arctic white during the day and glows blue at night) is an utter no-no.
As to your own watch - I have no idea what it is, what its second-hand or collectors market is like, so I cannot make any statements about it. I also do not know how the bracelet and bezel were replaced, ie. what sort of replacements were used.
The value of an item in the collectors world is of course not the lookout of the manufacturer per se, but, and it is a huge but, renowned watch companies live by the cachet of their watches and the reputation they have ... also in the collecting world. Knowing that a watch keeps its value or may even be collectible and appreciate is good for the company. So, actively destroying such values is not a good idea, no matter how you look at it. If the company feels they cannot service a watch without swapping in new hands, they should refuse to service vintage watches - not return them, proudly presenting the distraught owner with those fabulous new hands - as part of their comprehensive and excellent service LOL
But enough of that. This is a binocular subforum of a bird forum. And some folks are already getting short-tempered by things they cannot understand.

 

[Patudo]

I have to admit I always found watches difficult to take seriously after watching (pun not intended) the Gold Watch segment in Pulp Fiction. But (seriously), thanks for the education.

 

[Isthatascratch?]

Back in early 2022 Swarovski published a list of models no longer serviced, including the pre-1984 Habichts.
See an image and details in post #11 at: Finally got to try a Habicht SL

A copy of the complete listing is attached (I had a quick look just now but couldn't find it on the Swarovski site).


John

My Service

myservice.swarovskioptik.com