ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
23 July 2017, 06:35 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: australia
Posts: 1
|
1971 GMT Master
I recently had my 1971 GMT Master serviced at a Rolex Service Centre. Despite asking for only a service the hands were replaced. I contacted the RSC and was told by their watchmaker that the hands had to be replaced as the luminous material on the hands was breaking down, and if not replaced could possibly damage the inner workings of the watch. Is this claim correct, and if so will my watch be devalued?
|
23 July 2017, 09:17 PM | #2 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Florida
Posts: 16,568
|
Quote:
If a watch does not have the original parts, yes it will be devalued. Specially with parts like the dial and/or hands.. But they could be sourced in the aftermarket. But curious, do you have a picture of the watch before it went in to service? Loose tritium is definitely not good, so the claim is correct, if such was the case.. |
|
23 July 2017, 09:23 PM | #3 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Real Name: Eddie
Location: Australia
Watch: A few.
Posts: 36,695
|
I would have expected that items requiring replacement would have been itemised on your quotation and require acceptance prior to any work being done and any extra work required during the service would need to be accepted by you before they proceeded.
Was there a charge for the hands? This was my experience when I sent my 14060m to the Melbourne RSC for service. They listed all the items they thought required replacing and I accepted the work I required. I declined the crystal replacement and the new bracelet (I sent it in on a NATO). They did a perfect job.
__________________
E |
23 July 2017, 09:27 PM | #4 | |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Brian (TBone)
Location: canada
Watch: es make me smile
Posts: 73,119
|
Quote:
I sent a 67 5513 in for a service and before any work was done they sent a detailed estimate. |
|
24 July 2017, 12:13 AM | #6 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Aaron
Location: CT/NYC
Watch: ing the time!
Posts: 6,772
|
Wow, I'd be so pissed! Perhaps during the initial evaluation the watchmaker didn't realize that tritium was flaking on the hands, but then discovered the issue when he was taking it apart for service. OK, that could happen.
HOWEVER, they should have let you know about the issue BEFORE they just went ahead and replaced the hands. How about a quick phone call to the customer so he could decide what he wanted to do? Sure, they might have refused to complete the service if you didn't want the hands changed, but that should be your decision to make. You could have taken your watch elsewhere for service, and kept your original hands. Can you try to see if they kept the originals? Maybe you could get them back. |
24 July 2017, 12:37 AM | #7 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: london
Posts: 3
|
Perhaps they accidentally damaged the hands and are using the lume as an excuse.
|
24 July 2017, 01:25 AM | #8 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Itinerant
Watch: 79010sg
Posts: 7,963
|
Yes, watch is devalued as there are many among us (including me) who wouldn't buy it at all now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
24 July 2017, 01:36 AM | #9 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Watch: of course
Posts: 8,429
|
Too late now but should go with a recognized independent watchmaker rather than the RSC, on vintage watches. Generally speaking that is.
|
24 July 2017, 05:25 AM | #10 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Piedmont, CA
Watch: various vintage
Posts: 2,272
|
While this may not hold true for every RSC, I instructed the San Francisco RSC to not attempt any replacement of the dial, hands and bezel insert, or to polish the case, when I had my red Sub serviced. Made sure it was noted on the work order when they took my Sub from my unhappy hands. 8 weeks later, it was as beautiful as it ever was and runs like a champ.
To the OP, sorry to hear you got stuck with new hands. Hopefully they make it right, especially if you had instructed them not to replace any of the visible parts without your consent.
__________________
1680 MK II 2.2M (my daily); 1655 MK IV 8.1M (my 1st vintage); 16660 x 4 - 8.0M spider & matte 7.4M, 8.0M, 8.0M; 16610LV F MK I/MK I; 116528 Z; 14060 M COSC; Tudor 75090 Gone.....never forgotten: 14000 F, 14060 V COSC, PAM 048, 16623 F, 1680 MK V 3.1M, 16800 matte 8.3M & 1655 MK IV 7.4M |
26 July 2017, 11:28 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Real Name: Rich
Location: NC
Watch: Rolex 1675
Posts: 2,359
|
Do you have a pic to post?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Member of Nylon Nation
__________________
Rich Member of Nylon Nation Red Sox Nation Instagram watchguy97 |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.