Tag Heuer Servicing Scam?

bazster

Dave_C wrote: »

Unlike a watch, a phone does more than tell the time!

And yet you take the time to reply to this thread on MSE, on a device with a built-in clock.

Dave

I have a watch that tells me the altitude and has a compass and barometer (the altimeter is ridiculously accurate, wouldn't trust the compass to get me out of a fix though!)

Personally I'd feel naked without my watch, but my day-to-day one, as mentioned earlier, is a venerable, dirt-cheap Casio which is as accurate as any TAG, never needs servicing, and whose batteries I change myself. The above-mentioned beast only comes out when I'm stomping up mountains.

Ionkontrol

The jealousy is strong in this thread.

Joe_Horner

Azari wrote: »

one does not need to be an 'expert' to know that if cheap < £50 timepieces will work for many years without the need for a service, then it is absurd for a much more expensive examples of the same type of equipment to need much more frequent servicing - when they perform no extra function nor perform their main function any more effectively.

Not strictly true.

Like any machine, a watch that isn't serviced will wear. If you never change the oil in your car the engine may still last 100k miles, but it won't last the 200k+ that it would with regular servicing.

With cheap watches people tend to run them till they don't work anymore then buy another one. The entire movement is likely to cost less than a tenner so, even if you get sentimental about it, you'll be able to get the whole insides replaced for 30 quid or so including fitting etc.

More expensive watches are usually bought to last and, if you simply run them till they die, replacing the worn out bits is going to be expensive - assuming it's actually possible. Many high-end movements are restricted and can't be bought by independent repairers - it's pure protectionism to force you back to the manufacturer, but that's what you get when you buy "exclusive".

There's also the issue of water resistance, which there's been so much crepe thrown around about over the years that I don't even know where to start. Bottom line is, water resistance can suffer over time because it relies on rubber seals which will degrade. The point where you find out that a seal's failed by getting the watch filled with water is too late and is going to cost if the watch is anything "special".

All that said, makers do tend to encourage more frequent servicing than is really needed. 2 years used to be the standard in the days of mechanical watches and natural oils but we now mostly have quartz watches and synthetic oils. As I tried to explain in an earlier post, quartz movements are a lot more tolerant of missed servicing and, at around £9000 a litre, the synthetic oils are a LOT better lasting than the old ones.

Realistically that means that servicing the movement every 3rd or 4th battery change (roughly 8 - 10 years), with a pressure test (if appropriate) on each battery change is usually about right to keep a nice quartz watch going indefinitely as long as it hasn't suffered damage (water ingress, broken glass etc) in between times.

bazster

Ionkontrol wrote: »

The jealousy is strong in this thread.

Yeah, I'm real jealous of people who cough up £350 every time a watch battery needs changing. I wish that was me.

Tina20

bazster wrote: »

Yeah, I'm real jealous of people who cough up £350 every time a watch battery needs changing. I wish that was me.

I cried myself to sleep last night over this. In fact, today I threw a pound coin out of the window so I could feel that I had similarly wasted money like these lucky people.

bazster

Tina20 wrote: »

I cried myself to sleep last night over this. In fact, today I threw a pound coin out of the window so I could feel that I had similarly wasted money like these lucky people.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Waste therapy, love it...

Dave_C_2

Ionkontrol wrote: »

The jealousy is strong in this thread.

No, just that some of us are amazed at how much money people are prepared to waste on a watch that is no more accurate than a £30 watch.

If you want accuracy then it must be a radio controlled watch, otherwise you would have missed the leap second at the end of June. Nothing else cuts the mustard.

In terms of pressure testing, for most of us diving is what you do from the side of the swimming pool on holiday. Any "waterproof" digital watch can handle this

In terms of servicing, why is my 12-year old Seconda with analogue display still working perfectly without any servicing at all? If Tag and the like are to be believed, then it would have seized up by now.

The word "rationalisation" springs to mind. The Tag watch is a status symbol - I won't deny that it's a very nice bit of bling. If you want to buy into this fair enough, just don't expect everyone else to agree.

Dave

bazster

Dave_C wrote: »

If you want accuracy then it must be a radio controlled watch, otherwise you would have missed the leap second at the end of June. Nothing else cuts the mustard.

Dammit, no wonder I've been missing trains for the last few days...

Joe_Horner

Dave_C wrote: »

No, just that some of us are amazed at how much money people are prepared to waste on a watch that is no more accurate than a £30 watch.

That page is pointing out that a £30 quartz watch will (probably) be more accurate than a high quality mechanical one. That's comparing apples and pears in both technological terms and in the reasons people buy them.

The people who buy high class mechanical watches generally do it for the pleasure they get out of owning one of the most amazing pieces of moving miniaturisation that mankind has ever invented. They usually own a £30 quartz or two as well for just telling the time.

If you don't see any pleasure in owning such a thing then I doubt anyone's got a problem with that but I'm not sure why you should be amazed that some people do get such pleasure?

Dave_C wrote: »

If you want accuracy then it must be a radio controlled watch, otherwise you would have missed the leap second at the end of June. Nothing else cuts the mustard.

Can't argue with that, not sure I'd want to live such a busy life though!

Dave_C wrote: »

In terms of pressure testing, for most of us diving is what you do from the side of the swimming pool on holiday. Any "waterproof" digital watch can handle this

Wrong. No watches are rated as waterproof for a start - since the early 1970s they're all water resistant, with or without a depth rating. Going by the ISO ratings, any watch rated at 100m or more water resistance can handle that.

Anything less and it might, it might not. Certainly, if you fill your plain water resistant or even 50m rated watch with water diving into a swimming pool, the manufacturer will tell you (rightly) to do one under the guarantee because you're using it outside the spec they sold it for.

Aside from that, seals on the glass and button will degrade with age, and even a 200m + professional dive watch will leak instantly if a battery change is done badly. It's surprisingly easy to stretch and pinch the back seal as you're screwing a case together and, without a pressure test, you won't know you've done it until it fills with water - which is too late.

Dave_C wrote: »

In terms of servicing, why is my 12-year old Seconda with analogue display still working perfectly without any servicing at all? If Tag and the like are to be believed, then it would have seized up by now.

Already covered that in my last post. Your 12 year old Sekonda will keep working without servicing, until it doesn't any more. At that point you'll probably throw it away and buy another one, which is fine. But if you want it to last indefinitely then it won't without servicing.

Two of my own watches are a 1978 Seiko, which I've had to service twice in the past 17 years (once when I got it and once last week). It still gets a 100m pressure test every time I change the battery.

The last one showed up a failing glass seal - not disturbed during the battery change, just getting old. Without the pressure test it probably would have died next time I took it in water. As it is, unless the electronics fail (unlikely by now), it'll easily outlast me.

Another is a 22 year old Zeon cheapo ana-digi from Argos which is very much in the throw it away when it breaks category. That stopped when it was about 9 years old but I serviced it rather than throwing it because (a) I can, (b) sentimental attachment, and (c) the fact that it annoyed the hell out of my boss (at the time) that I was wearing a £20 Zeon while repairing his customers' Seikos, Tags and Rolexes

bazster

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The people who buy high class mechanical watches generally do it for the pleasure they get out of owning one of the most amazing pieces of moving miniaturisation that mankind has ever invented.

Really? You think that's the reason, do you?