A Good Reason to Learn to Repair Your Own Rolex

[TJGladeRaider]

That crapola makes me feel like Robin Hood.

An extensive collection of reps, contacts that can service them, and I ain't gotta be saying, "Thank you Sir, may I have another."

Besides which, if anyone went out and bought gens like my reps, they should have bought a really nice house instead!

This modded H Factory Luminor Submersible on my wrist is PERFECT . . . when you can buy the perfect rep for this kind of money, you know what the manufacturer's actual cost must be.

None of that for me - ever.

Bill

[TeeJay]

That crapola makes me feel like Robin Hood.

An extensive collection of reps, contacts that can service them, and I ain't gotta be saying, "Thank you Sir, may I have another."

Besides which, if anyone went out and bought gens like my reps, they should have bought a really nice house instead!

This modded H Factory Luminor Submersible on my wrist is PERFECT . . . when you can buy the perfect rep for this kind of money, you know what the manufacturer's actual cost must be.

None of that for me - ever.

Bill

My thoughts exactly

[freddy333]

I nearly used the term 'reducing' rather than 'turning', but did not simply because of the rationale Ronin mentioned with cars.

There is a very big difference, as I see it, between modified Porsches or Mercedes cars & modified Rolexes - Porsche & Mercedes copies are rare (I have never actually seen a Porsche or Mercedes copy in the real world) while Rolex copies are ubiquitous, outnumbering gens & by a vast margin.

To be clear, I would love to still be able to buy Rolex parts over-the-counter as I did back in the 80s. But I can also see that Rolex had to do something to stem the hemorrhaging of gen parts into the black market, especially in the Internet age where everything is just a click away. I think it was fair & reasonable to leave control of (localized) parts distribution up to the individual members within the Rolex service network.

[TeeJay]

There is a very big difference, as I see it, between modified Porsches or Mercedes cars & modified Rolexes - Porsche & Mercedes copies are rare (I have never actually seen a Porsche or Mercedes copy in the real world) while Rolex copies are ubiquitous, outnumbering gens & by a vast margin.

To be clear, I would love to still be able to buy Rolex parts over-the-counter as I did back in the 80s. But I can also see that Rolex had to do something to stem the hemorrhaging of gen parts into the black market, especially in the Internet age where everything is just a click away. I think it was fair & reasonable to leave control of (localized) parts distribution up to the individual members within the Rolex service network.

I see the point you're making with regards there being less copies of the cars, compared to the more frequent copies of watches, but that's not really the main issue under discussion re: 100% pure factory stock, and aftermarket modification/replacement parts... The point is that a car which has been fitted with after-market parts, while probably no longer under warranty, so won't get repaired by the inhouse garages, is still viewed as per brandname (with re-sale value rising or falling depending on mods performed and the market it's sold in) I can also quite see the point you make about Rolex wanting to stem the flow of proprietary materials out of their control. But. As before, sometimes people modify cars for a hobby with no thought of re-sale value, and while someone is unlikely to want to install aftermarket parts on a Rolex just for the fun of it (even I'm not that twisted) maybe someone is in the position of not being able to afford the service charge... Suppose for the sake of argument that my dead uncle John was an industrial diver for Comex, and leaves his DRSD to me in his will. I am now the owner of a $50'000 watch (is that the right price?) What if my aunt left the watch in a drawer for years and the movement needs servicing? I can't afford to take the watch to the AD to be fixed, so instead, I take it to the highstreet watchsmith who works some magic, and restores the watch to functional status. The watch would now be considered by many to be a bastardized franken, and Rolex themselves would consider it no longer under warranty and decline to service it, but it would still be my uncle's Rolex... As mentioned before, when the availability of parts dries up, people are going to have to make that decision between functional franken, or dead gen...

[freddy333]

when the availability of parts dries up, people are going to have to make that decision between functional franken, or dead gen...

We appear to have come full-circle as this was exactly my original point.

[Ronin]

I'd rather wear a functional franken, than have a totally gen paperweight

Love this line!

There is a very big difference, as I see it, between modified Porsches or Mercedes cars & modified Rolexes - Porsche & Mercedes copies are rare [ ...... ] I think it was fair & reasonable to leave control of (localized) parts distribution up to the individual members within the Rolex service network.

Deep down, I do agree, and TJ's quote below mirrors my feelings. I spent a lot of time in automotive hobbies and racing, and seeing the consumer protection that does exist in that arena makes me happy -vs- what is going on with the likes of Rolex, Apple, and Sony. The modern world is creating serious ownership and property rights issues. (I love the watch repair story where ?Breguet? kept a solid gold rotor as part of service - who owned that gold?). Can Apple or Sony "Brick" my property because I installed something they do not approve of? (Yes, because I have no choice but to accept their 60 page TOS, without objections.)

I see the point you're making with regards there being less copies of the cars, compared to the more frequent copies of watches, but that's not really the main issue under discussion re: 100% pure factory stock, and aftermarket modification/replacement parts... [....] As mentioned before, when the availability of parts dries up, people are going to have to make that decision between functional franken, or dead gen...

We appear to have come full-circle as this was exactly my original point.

+1

[GoFaster]

Hey we find Fake Ferrari and Lamborghini ! Lol

They prefer make Copy for exceptional cars only... 

And I've seen a Fake Buggati Veyron made in pologne or Hungary.... I don't remember exactly

[TeeJay]

We appear to have come full-circle as this was exactly my original point.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how the scenario plays out among gen collectors when those supplies do dry up I just think the distinction needs to be addressed between necessary repairs and servicing, and modifications as aftermarket customization, as it really does shift 'the values' under discussion Someone who is going to modify for customization is likely not worried about re-sale value (or would be selling in a specialized market where the customizations could increase the car's value) where the person in possession of a watch they can't afford (as per my hypothetical scenario) to maintain via the RSC, is likely to still consider their 'outside repaired' watch as 'the real thing', and probably not ever likely to consider selling the watch, so their concern would not be of maintaining the warranty or value, but instead keeping the watch running at all costs

[TeeJay]

Love this line!

Deep down, I do agree, and TJ's quote below mirrors my feelings. I spent a lot of time in automotive hobbies and racing, and seeing the consumer protection that does exist in that arena makes me happy -vs- what is going on with the likes of Rolex, Apple, and Sony. The modern world is creating serious ownership and property rights issues. (I love the watch repair story where ?Breguet? kept a solid gold rotor as part of service - who owned that gold?). Can Apple or Sony "Brick" my property because I installed something they do not approve of? (Yes, because I have no choice but to accept their 60 page TOS, without objections.)

+1

I just think that the distinction needs to be drawn between aftermarket customization for shits and giggles, and someone needing to maybe install an aftermarket part to restore function, when their wallet can't stretch to Official Channels, as it's a big difference as to what is done and why I'd hope that even the most devout gen collector on TZ would appreciate putting an aftermarket movement/part into a DRSD (as described in my hypothetical scenario) as a necessary measure to keep the watch running, rather than have it turn into a non-runner

[freddy333]

It seems to me that there are 2 groups of people in the world - those who take watches too seriously & everyone else.

While the former, having just been willed dead uncle Wilfred's DRSD (also DOA), would do whatever it takes to get the timepiece running again, the latter group, I believe, upon hearing the costs Rolex charges to revive it, would either eagerly post the money-maker on ebay or, if sentiment trumps greed, toss it (ever so lovingly) into the bottom of a safe/drawer/cupboard & live with the knowledge that uncle Willie's ticker -- the 1 that remains above ground -- is well taken care of.

Restoring vintage/collectible watches, as is the case with vintage/collectible cars, has always & will always be exceptionally expensive. This I know having spent several years restoring vintage/collectible cars &, now, (mainly Rolex) watches. But, when I began this thread, I was thinking more of the average, modern Rolex & the increasingly prohibitive costs Rolex levies against the average Rolex owner for regular maintenance. In previous years, an owner always had the option of taking his/her Rolex to an independent, Rolex-trained watchmaker, who, while perhaps not within the official Rolex service network, was still able to access it for parts. Sadly, with Rolex's recent clamping down on these independents, that option no longer exists. Or, at least, the door of opportunity will close as each watchmaker's parts supply runs out. Imagine having to sell your 5 year-old Datejust or GMT because the AD never made it clear that Rolex recommends (& requires, if you want them to honor the warranty) overhauls (that only Rolex can perform) every 5-7 years, the cost of which may soon exceed the purchase price of the watch. Even for Rolex, which has often been known to try to squeeze every last cent out of their customers over the years, that is pretty poor.

[TeeJay]

It seems to me that there are 2 groups of people in the world - those who take watches too seriously & everyone else.

While the former, having just been willed dead uncle Wilfred's DRSD (also DOA), would do whatever it takes to get the timepiece running again, the latter group, I believe, upon hearing the costs Rolex charges to revive it, would either eagerly post the money-maker on ebay or, if sentiment trumps greed, toss it (ever so lovingly) into the bottom of a safe/drawer/cupboard & live with the knowledge that uncle Willie's ticker -- the 1 that remains above ground -- is well taken care of.

Restoring vintage/collectible watches, as is the case with vintage/collectible cars, has always & will always be exceptionally expensive. This I know having spent several years restoring vintage/collectible cars &, now, (mainly Rolex) watches. But, when I began this thread, I was thinking more of the average, modern Rolex & the increasingly prohibitive costs Rolex levies against the average Rolex owner for regular maintenance. In previous years, an owner always had the option of taking his/her Rolex to an independent, Rolex-trained watchmaker, who, while perhaps not within the official Rolex service network, was still able to access it for parts. Sadly, with Rolex's recent clamping down on these independents, that option no longer exists. Or, at least, the door of opportunity will close as each watchmaker's parts supply runs out. Imagine having to sell your 5 year-old Datejust or GMT because the AD never made it clear that Rolex recommends (& requires, if you want them to honor the warranty) overhauls (that only Rolex can perform) every 5-7 years, the cost of which may soon exceed the purchase price of the watch. Even for Rolex, which has often been known to try to squeeze every last cent out of their customers over the years, that is pretty poor.

I think this is where our opinions on restoration varies slightly, in so much as I can certainly understand and appreciate the desire to restore something with NOS parts, but, I can also understand that such NOS can be prohibitively expensive, and someone in the hypothetical situation above (rather than someone who knowingly purchases a high-maintenance product) might feel that aftermarkets parts 'are good enough', even if they're not NOS, to keep the watch (or car) functional. Afterall, what's the point of a watch if not to tell the time? (that is of course, assuming they want to actually wear the watch, rather than just keeping it in the drawer as a keepsake) With regards the second point though, yes, that kind of price-gouging tactics on the part of Rolex (and other companies) is unnecessary, and totally lowers my opinion of the company, and that is why I would never buy a gen even if I could afford it: I simply would not want to give the company my money. I appreciate the watches, not the company itself, so reps provide that happy medium for me of the look I like, at a price I can (occasionally) afford, and without supporting a greedy multi-national company. I think it's quite funny how there're Sub and SD reps available for around the $200-$300 range, which is pretty much what the original watches would have cost back in the 60s and 70s

[Ronin]

... when I began this thread, I was thinking more of the average, modern Rolex & the increasingly prohibitive costs Rolex levies against the average Rolex owner for regular maintenance. In previous years, an owner always had the option of taking his/her Rolex to an independent, Rolex-trained watchmaker, who, while perhaps not within the official Rolex service network, was still able to access it for parts. Sadly, with Rolex's recent clamping down on these independents, that option no longer exists. Or, at least, the door of opportunity will close as each watchmaker's parts supply runs out. Imagine having to sell your 5 year-old Datejust or GMT because the AD never made it clear that Rolex recommends (& requires, if you want them to honor the warranty) overhauls (that only Rolex can perform) every 5-7 years, the cost of which may soon exceed the purchase price of the watch. Even for Rolex, which has often been known to try to squeeze every last cent out of their customers over the years, that is pretty poor.

Exactly. Resulting in a future powder keg, of Rolex/Rolex Fanatics -vs- John Doe who simply tried to keep it running, used aftermarket parts, lists it on eBay or elsewhere only to get flamed for their actions.

Funny thing is, if you rolled into a Doxa, Ball, Sinn, forum, and said: "My moment blew up. Went to Ofrei and swapped in a regular ETA 28xx.", you would probably be applauded for keeping it running and your skills to do it. Roll into TRF and say your 3135 died, and you cleverly retrofitted and ETA into it, and you would probably be banned... (Which is why RWG is THE BEST watch forum.)

[lumbee]

All of this is very interesting, and I agree that Rolex should make parts....movement repair parts, available to any qualified watchsmith. I can see not selling bracelets, cases, dials, etc willy-nilly, but gear trains, pallet forks, balance assemblies, mainsprings etc. should be availasble since they are items needed to keep the watch, which you paid a crapload for, running. Some people save for years to buy that one and only Rolex. They can't afford the prices RSC charges for service.

All of this is why I am doing my own service on my recently acquired vintage 5500 Air-King. I paid a grand for the watch, I'm not going to pay another $600-$1000 to service it!

 

Dave

[freddy333]

As they say in the 'Benz world, a cheap used Mercedes is the most expensive car you will ever own.

Like Mercedes, quality & prestige are expensive & that is part of Rolex's appeal. If Rolexes were cheap to maintain, everyone would have 1, so no one would aspire to own 1.

[TeeJay]

As they say in the 'Benz world, a cheap used Mercedes is the most expensive car you will ever own.

Like Mercedes, quality & prestige are expensive & that is part of Rolex's appeal. If Rolexes were cheap to maintain, everyone would have 1, so no one would aspire to own 1.

I would suggest that that is only part of Rolex's appeal, as for some, the aesthetics and history mean more than the social status of wearing one. As for your assertion that if they were cheap to maintain, everyone would own one, I have to disagree. Jeremy Clarkson once said:

"The only thing worse than a fake Rolex, is a real one..."

He exclusively wears Omega...

I think that even if Rolex were to put out a Budget Line, they would still face Market forces and personal choice, so not be as ubiquitous as you suggest.

TD's for example, sell multiple brands, rather than just being The Guy for X brand, and equally, not all the members of the forum necessarily own the same pieces... I may have dabbled in Omega and Panerai, but I really can't see myself buying an AP, Oris or Hublot... Given choice, people will always go with what they want

[freddy333]

Rolex & Mercedes hold similar positions within their respective markets & for the same reasons. Both have long histories (they began at roughly the same time), target high income earners, have long lists of notable patents & inventions, & maintain aspirational status because of their relatively high price & level of quality. While I ultimately disagree with Rolex US's decision to restrict the retail sale of parts, I can understand their reasoning.

[TeeJay]

Rolex & Mercedes hold similar positions within their respective markets & for the same reasons. Both have long histories (they began at roughly the same time), target high income earners, have long lists of notable patents & inventions, & maintain aspirational status because of their relatively high price & level of quality.

While I ultimately disagree with Rolex US's decision to restrict the retail sale of parts, I can understand their reasoning.

I would certainly agree with that comparison between the two companies, but I would suggest that Rolex does not truly target high income earners (that strata I would say belong to Patek etc) but instead, would suggest that they target social climbers, and in the past, targeted working professionals. I think Rolex now targets people who are insecure enough to take their esteem through product ownership, and willing to part with the money to make that happen. Higher level earners, I would suggest are confident enough to move away from brand names, and maybe even be the 'millionaire with a casio' (says the wannabe tattoo artist wearing a fake 1665 ) The cost of the Sky-Dweller, for example, is pretty obscene, even considering what an engineering miracle it actually is (I was fortunate enough to try one on a couple of months ago, and have to admit, I liked what I saw) so to me, that suggests it is targeted at someone who will pay the price tag to Get The Look, where the higher earner would likely settle for a regular DateJust or Sub...

[freddy333]

The cost of the Sky-Dweller, for example, is pretty obscene, even considering what an engineering miracle it actually is (I was fortunate enough to try one on a couple of months ago, and have to admit, I liked what I saw) so to me, that suggests it is targeted at someone who will pay the price tag to Get The Look, where the higher earner would likely settle for a regular DateJust or Sub...

 

With the exception of the now-defunct Maybach line & some of Rolex's custom models, neither brand makes claims at being the ultimate or pinnacle in their respective market. But I think your example of the new Sky-Dweller makes my point. The Sky-Dweller, like the new S-Class, contains alot of advanced technology, which comes with a high price tag. &, although Rolex & Mercedes both produce more affordable models (Explorer & C-Class), both are generally purchased by the well-heeled & those that aspire to be well-heeled. Similarly, over the years, both companies have had their detractors - claiming they produce garish products targeted at an unsophisticated clientele, but they have also been criticized for just the opposite - being too conservative & staid. It is difficult to be all things to all people, especially, when you have so many competitors, all of whom are looking for an angle to grab market share from the leader.

[fitch]

I'd rather wear a functional franken, than have a totally gen paperweight

 

Can I quote you on that one?

[TeeJay]

With the exception of the now-defunct Maybach line & some of Rolex's custom models, neither brand makes claims at being the ultimate or pinnacle in their respective market. But I think your example of the new Sky-Dweller makes my point. The Sky-Dweller, like the new S-Class, contains alot of advanced technology, which comes with a high price tag. &, although Rolex & Mercedes both produce more affordable models (Explorer & C-Class), both are generally purchased by the well-heeled & those that aspire to be well-heeled. Similarly, over the years, both companies have had their detractors - claiming they produce garish products targeted at an unsophisticated clientele, but they have also been criticized for just the opposite - being too conservative & staid. It is difficult to be all things to all people, especially, when you have so many competitors, all of whom are looking for an angle to grab market share from the leader.

Absolutely, Rolex as a company doesn't make that claim, it's more of a consumer-driven status, but I do think that many Rolex buyers are doing so for the status it conveys, or perhaps I'm just seeing that status being conveyed by gold-diggers who only know to look for a Rolex, rather than a more expensive marque...

Can I quote you on that one?

By all means

[fitch]

Thanks