Timpsons - massive ripoff

mjm3346

kwikbreaks wrote: »

Originally Posted by bod1467
Thanks for that. This thread was only dead for 17 months after all.

Blast it- I missed that til after I replied.

How about a thread on the reviving of long dead threads?

I think there was one but of course it got locked while stuff like this seems to remain open forever.

Takeaway_Addict

spot the disgruntled ex employee

RHemmings

Today we were quoted £12 to cut two new house keys. Bog standard keys of this style:



We went to a nearby small independent shop that did the job to a high standard for £5.

hollydays

This thread is ancient

enfield_freddy

hollydays wrote: »

This thread is ancient

so old , the locks need some oil

RHemmings

hollydays wrote: »

This thread is ancient

I think it is interesting that Timpsons being very expensive has continued throughout the years.

Pollycat

RHemmings wrote: »

I think it is interesting that Timpsons being very expensive has continued throughout the years.

Yeah.
So 'interesting' that I'm falling asleep.

Kaye1

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I know this is an old bump, but I've just been searching for Timpson out of curiosity having seen some of their work today and figured there were a couple of tech points in this post and the following discussion that (a) hadn't been answered fully and (b) I'm qualified to answer (I'm a watchmaker)

First, regarding water resistance:

There are usually at least 3 seals on a water resistant watch - the back, the glass and the crown (setting button). If you have pushers for chrono etc then they have seals as well.

When a watch is opened for something like a battery, the only seal that should be disturbed is the back seal. That's usually a rubber O ring which is easy to inspect visually and very cheap indeed to replace. That means that, if the watch was water resistant before changing the battery, there's no real excuse for it not being afterwards, with or without a pressure test.

But guaranteeing resistance on a watch is another matter - as a repairer, you have no idea at all whether or not the watch was proof before you opened it because there may be a leak on the glass or (most common) crown or pusher seals. Taking the customer's word for it is a really bad business idea! The crown (and pushers) are the only seals that suffer any wear in normal use, which is why they're the ones that tend to fail first.

Personally - ignoring the fact that I obviously do my own when needed - I would never use anywhere that insisted I pay for a pressure test, no matter what the rating of the watch, provided they were willing to explain the risk of not testing.

The common phrase "it won't be proof without..." is pure misleading bull. The correct phrase (for a competent repairer) should be more like "It will be just as proof as it was before i opened it, but without testing I can't guarantee it because I don't know what the other seals are like".

Obviously, the situation is slightly different for dive watches that are actually used for diving because the owner's life could depend on it not failing. For that situation, a pressure test should always be strongly advised for peace of mind - although anyone who dives nowadays relying completely on a single timepiece is taking unnecessary risks!

The comments about changing your own are perfectly valid, and can save a great deal of money, but there are a couple of gotchas to watch out for.

First is the quality of the batteries. Please never use the cheap alkaline cells in watches - they leak almost as soon as they run out (sometimes even before) and leakage is likely to lead to mucho expense, or a dead watch if parts can't be sourced. Only ever use branded silver oxide cells if you're going to be the least bit upset if the watch fails. For a junker, by all means throw in whatever's cheapest

Second is shelf-life. All batteries have a shelf life, once that expires they don't only lose capacity but become much more prone to leaking. Buying cheap single batteries (even quality ones) from unknown sources is likely to leave you with out-of-date stock which you're unlikely to know unless you're familiar with current packaging and date codes for the brands concerned!

Finally, size is important. I see a lot of watches with the wrong size battery fitted - in fact, the one that got me searching today was one such case. It was the right diameter but 0.5mm too thick, which was enough that when the back was pressed on, the dial was pushed forward and loosened the bezel and glass. Luckily it didn't fall off somewhere in the street or the owner would now have a scrap watch. In most sizes there are also "high drain" and "low drain" versions. Using the wrong one (even though it's a perfect fit) is likely to give either short life or premature leakage.

Finally finally, £150 for "replacing some numbers" is, frankly, a joke. Assuming the OP means that there were "applied" hour markers or numbers that had come loose, that would usually take about 5 minutes, and never more than maybe 1/2 hour if it was all of them. Unless there was a pressure test as well, I'd normally do 1 or 2 of them for no charge and ask for a donation to the RBL jar on the counter.

Maybe that's why I'm not rich :rotfl:

I'm glad this was bumped- very informative and at a time when I'm looking to replace my watch battery.

RHemmings

Kaye1 wrote: »

I'm glad this was bumped- very informative and at a time when I'm looking to replace my watch battery.

And that's why it's better to use an existing thread rather than starting a new one on the same topic.

geerex

They're amateurs. Jack of all trades,master of none.

If you have a cheap watch, [STRIKE]get a better job[/STRIKE] do it yourself. If you have a proper Swiss-made timepiece, either take it to a reputable jewellers, or send it to the manufacturers for a service.

Take it to Timpson if you'd like a barely trained minimum wage monkey to do a lesser job than you could do yourself.