Does my watch really need service?

January 3, 2008 11:39 AM

Automatic watches, maintenance required?

I've had a automatic watch for around 8 years, I have not taken it in for maintenance, but I was told by the jeweler that it should be done every couple years.

It's working great, however I don't know if its any less accurate than when I purchased it (I haven't kept track).

Any insight on if/when this should be done from a consumer's standpoint? Should it really cost several hundred to perform? Will it hurt the watch if I wait too long?

posted by mphuie to clothing, beauty, & fashion (10 comments total)

I can't imagine it hurting the watch if it's working fine. I got my Omega back on Christmas Eve Eve after sending it in during mid-August because it was running absurdly fast. Apparently, according to my family's trusted jeweler who handled the transaction, this is on the short end of the timescale, because all watch companies now handle repairs centrally. He said that having Rolexes fixed can take eight months to a year. And, of course, it was expensive.

Bottom line: don't send it in if there aren't any problems.
posted by awesomebrad at 11:48 AM on January 3, 2008

The recommendation I've heard is every 4 years or so, or if it stops keeping time. What I've been told is that if you don't lubricate the bearing parts regularly, they wear faster and hence require replacement before they otherwise would. If the watch is exposed to extremes of heat or cold the lubricant doesn't last as long.

A good watch repair shop will have a machine that can sense the vibrations produced by a running watch and measure how off-time it is. If it's still spot-on after 8 years you may not want to mess with it too much; if it's losing or gaining more than 10 seconds a day, though, you probably do (assuming it's a decent watch to begin with and you care about preserving it.) The service is usually called "regulating" the watch.

There is no reason in 2007 to use an automatic watch except that it is a mark of privilege - a luxury. For the purpose of timekeeping, quartz watches are superior in every way. It takes a lot of training, skill, and equipment to service a mechanical watch, and it takes that skilled, equipped person a lot of time to take a watch apart and put it back together. That's why the price tag, and why it's a luxury.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:07 PM on January 3, 2008

You might find this thread from TimeZone helpful. The only advice I would add is to pay attention to what is normal for your watch so you can spot potential problems early and get service when needed. Most manual wind and automatics will gain or lose a little bit of time every day/week, so no need to go crazy with every change, but under normal circumstances the watch should at least be pretty consistent.
posted by j-dawg at 12:10 PM on January 3, 2008

My dad has had several Swiss automatics since the '60s, and they're all ticking away just like new, with no maintenance ever (and no fancy winding boxes, either).
posted by The World Famous at 12:16 PM on January 3, 2008

Random anecdote: My father has an automatic he's owned since the 60s, which has been to a watch shop exactly once in all that time (for potential water damage), and which has been keeping consistent time all along. The one time it was in the shop I think it cost $200 or something in that vicinity.

...so I guess, based on that, I personally wouldn't bother unless the timing started to go wonky.
posted by aramaic at 12:51 PM on January 3, 2008

Besides exterior cleaning, I say no need. Never opened the Rolex since early 70's, a Frederick Constant since '99.
posted by artdrectr at 1:09 PM on January 3, 2008

I bought an Omega Speedmaster in 1997. It's had no maintenince and it keeps immaculate time. And I don't even wear it all of the time, so it's not kept wound.

My everyday watch is an automatic, too. It's an Oris. And it's kept pretty much wound all of the time. It keeps perfect time. So go figure.

PS- It's ricidulous to say there is no reason to wear an automatic. It's maintenence-free. That's the "luxury" part.
posted by wfc123 at 1:13 PM on January 3, 2008

I've got a low-end model (Invicta 8926), but the reason I like automatics is that I *dont* have to worry about ever needing a battery. I don't need to-the-second accuracy; plus/minus 30-45 seconds is good enough for me.
posted by mrbill at 1:28 PM on January 3, 2008

Agree with everyone who said not to bother as long as it's running acceptably.

What makes the service expensive is that they need to take the watch completely apart to reapply lubricants, etc. As long as they are doing that, replacing a particular part that may be more worn because you didn't have the watch serviced more regularly probably won't increase the cost that much.

As far as I understand, a mechanical watch can pretty much always be made to work again no matter how long it has gone without service. Even if the parts aren't available, a part could potentially be machined to match.

Also, although regulating the watch would be included in a full service, it is a somewhat separate operation that could be done on its own (just involves moving a screw or lever to set the timing). If the timing drifts significantly after several years, probably a full service and not just a regulation is what is needed.
posted by dixie flatline at 2:49 PM on January 3, 2008

I've had an Omega Seamaster since 1997. Never had it serviced and as far as I can tell, keeps perfect time and I wear it every day.

Never track the accuracy as I change the time every week or so as I move between time zones, so any inaccuracy is user induced.

As mrbill writes, I wear one as I hate changing batteries (I have a low end Tag Heuer I got for my 18th, that sits in a drawer for this very reason). Also, I don't wear any jewelery apart from a wedding ring, so a nice watch is the only adornment I like.
posted by arcticseal at 1:57 AM on January 4, 2008