Cousins Material House Taking Swatch to Court

[theancientmariner]

Then as a purchaser of a used watch you have the option of buying something with a "full dealer service history" as you would with a car. As the owner of said hypothetical watch in the first place, I'd very much like the option of having it serviced by an independent watchmaker with whom I can develop a personal and trusting relationship, as I would choose to do with my car. I would do so knowing that it may have an impact on the used value of my watch, and that would be entirely my choice. No one is suggesting that we should entirely remove your prefered option but it is frustrating and disappointing that you think it is a good idea to remove my prefered option.

Interesting analogy given that until relatively recently, if you wanted to keep your cars warranty intact, it had to be serviced by a main dealer which is in effect what is happening here with Swatch. I really don't see the issue with this from a watch owners perspective. If you want to buy into the brand and support the brand then having your watch serviced by a main dealer shouldn't be an issue. The only negative is cost but then of course you have the option of not buying into the brand in the first place. I can see why the independent repairers and parts suppliers would be upset, it's their livelihood that's at stake.

I do also find it curious that a lot of watch enthusiasts criticise certain brands over either not having everything made in house or even misleading their customers about it yet those same enthusiasts also criticise certain brands for the limitations that come with having everything made in house. Seems to me as though some people want to have their cake and eat it.

[Dynam0humm]

Alright then Mick, lets talk about these 'cheap non-franchised parts' you mentioned above.

Log-on to Cousins, search for Omega movement parts and the 565 is the first on the list, presumably because that's the caliber they sell most parts for. 5-6 years ago they had almost every part available, and now around 30% of them (I CBA counting them all) are 'restricted by manufacturer'. Out of the over 100 parts listed a grand total of three are generic or aftermarket; a stem, a mainspring and a setting lever spring, so if a dubious watchmaker wanted to cheap-out on parts he doesn't have many avenues.

Now lets look at Rolex to see what their long standing parts restriction has done regarding non-original parts. Search Cousins for Rolex parts and generic even has it own section with 44 different categories contained within, so it's never been easier for some charlatan to take liberties when servicing a Rolex*.

Independents won't need to worry too much as genuine parts will still filter through to Ebay etc like you see with Rolex, it's just that they'll likely cost more than they currently do and watches could be sitting for a long time waiting for the right part to appear.


*You'll say that a Rolex should only be serviced by Rolex and in most cases I agree, but if you own an old Constellation that's worth a grand tops and because it's vintage you might get billed the same again, then you should be able to see why someone would opt for the cheaper independent option vs throwing it in a drawer. The cheaper option will always be there, it's just that it'll become more likely that generic parts may have used when the vast majority of independents would prefer to use genuine, and that benefits no one.

[Mick P]

Alright then Mick, lets talk about these 'cheap non-franchised parts' you mentioned above.

Log-on to Cousins, search for Omega movement parts and the 565 is the first on the list, presumably because that's the caliber they sell most parts for. 5-6 years ago they had almost every part available, and now around 30% of them (I CBA counting them all) are 'restricted by manufacturer'. Out of the over 100 parts listed a grand total of three are generic or aftermarket; a stem, a mainspring and a setting lever spring, so if a dubious watchmaker wanted to cheap-out on parts he doesn't have many avenues.

Now lets look at Rolex to see what their long standing parts restriction has done regarding non-original parts. Search Cousins for Rolex parts and generic even has it own section with 44 different categories contained within, so it's never been easier for some charlatan to take liberties when servicing a Rolex*.

Independents won't need to worry too much as genuine parts will still filter through to Ebay etc like you see with Rolex, it's just that they'll likely cost more than they currently do and watches could be sitting for a long time waiting for the right part to appear.


*You'll say that a Rolex should only be serviced by Rolex and in most cases I agree, but if you own an old Constellation that's worth a grand tops and because it's vintage you might get billed the same again, then you should be able to see why someone would opt for the cheaper independent option vs throwing it in a drawer. The cheaper option will always be there, it's just that it'll become more likely that generic parts may have used when the vast majority of independents would prefer to use genuine, and that benefits no one.

I actually do own a Constellation that I bought new in 1986 and I would still take it back to Omega or an accredited agent.

The courts have backed this rule up for a reason and a lot of people here don't like it and it's mainly based on the fact that they think it's going to cost them money.

[FrontierGibberish]

Interesting analogy given that until relatively recently, if you wanted to keep your cars warranty intact, it had to be serviced by a main dealer which is in effect what is happening here with Swatch. I really don't see the issue with this from a watch owners perspective. If you want to buy into the brand and support the brand then having your watch serviced by a main dealer shouldn't be an issue. The only negative is cost but then of course you have the option of not buying into the brand in the first place. I can see why the independent repairers and parts suppliers would be upset, it's their livelihood that's at stake.

I do also find it curious that a lot of watch enthusiasts criticise certain brands over either not having everything made in house or even misleading their customers about it yet those same enthusiasts also criticise certain brands for the limitations that come with having everything made in house. Seems to me as though some people want to have their cake and eat it.

The big difference is that whilst what you say is true re the warranty on the car and a main dealer service, once that warranty expired and as the car got older you could take it to an independent garage and they could buy the parts from the OEM to do the work. OEMs did not refuse to sell parts to independents.
The brilliant exception to all this is Toyota/Lexus, who run "Relax", which means if you take your car for a main dealer service they automatically put a year's full manufacturer warranty on it, even if it's up to ten years old or 100,000 miles. Watch companies could do this I think. You'd really be getting something for your (large amount of) money if the thing came back with a full "as if new" 12 month warranty.

[Saint-Just]

I actually do own a Constellation that I bought new in 1986 and I would still take it back to Omega or an accredited agent.

The courts have backed this rule up for a reason and a lot of people here don't like it and it's mainly based on the fact that they think it's going to cost them money.

No. As was said earlier, choice is good. It is good that people like you can go direct to the manufacturer; it is good that people who understand how the industry works can choose to go to an independent watchmaker; the good ones will usually only take the jobs they know they can do; many have been trained by the brands themselves, and have the brand approved equipment to service the watches they take on.
Besides, people like you should never buy second hand, as you know how easily papers, and therefore service history, can be forged. So not really an issue that should concern you.

[Dougal]

Not all Sellita parts are interchangeable. The ETA 2892 train wheel bridge is a good example

Exactly. I own some watches (from reputable non-Swatch brands) with ETA movements. They include everything from Steinhart to Oris, and I get them serviced every 5-6 years. What do you think their future servicing looks like?

[Mick P]

No. As was said earlier, choice is good. It is good that people like you can go direct to the manufacturer; it is good that people who understand how the industry works can choose to go to an independent watchmaker; the good ones will usually only take the jobs they know they can do; many have been trained by the brands themselves, and have the brand approved equipment to service the watches they take on.
Besides, people like you should never buy second hand, as you know how easily papers, and therefore service history, can be forged. So not really an issue that should concern you.

You make some good points but in response to your final sentence I have always put a second hand watch in for service to Rolex on the day that I bought it or the day afterwards at the very least. I find it important to feel that I am wearing a 100% genuine watch. The courts have decided that everyone else must do the same. I, for one, regard this as a good move.

[Saint-Just]

You make some good points but in response to your final sentence I have always put a second hand watch in for service to Rolex on the day that I bought it or the day afterwards at the very least. I find it important to feel that I am wearing a 100% genuine watch. The courts have decided that everyone else must do the same. I, for one, regard this as a good move.

I am reasonably certain that Rolex would not be able to tell if mine were serviced by an independent or not (i.e. if they don't have the watch in their database they won't know it has been serviced, but everything in the watch will be genuine and the watch deemed 100% authentic).

[Mick P]

I am reasonably certain that Rolex would not be able to tell if mine were serviced by an independent or not (i.e. if they don't have the watch in their database they won't know it has been serviced, but everything in the watch will be genuine and the watch deemed 100% authentic).

I purchased a second hand YG watch with a factory diamond sale for my wife, or rather she told me that it was the one she wanted and leaned on me to buy it.

It was into the local Rolex accredited agent in the afternoon who advised me that there were a couple of "spurious" parts fitted. My main concern was the diamond dial which was pronounced genuine.

I always factor the cost of a service into the price when buying second hand.

I am currently looking around for a JLC Revesro and a Patek Gondolo and whenever I buy them, it will be straight into an OEM service for both of them.

[walkerwek1958]

Apart from the unavailability of some parts as a consequence of restricted supply, the price of parts has roughly doubled over the past 8 years as a result.

I can’t be bothered arguing the points with Mick P any longer, as someone with a track record of restoring old Omegas I find his comments quite insulting, does he genuinely believe what he posts?

Trawl through ebay thesedays and there are lots of second-hand watch parts being sold. However, some of these are in poor condition and really aren’t worth buying. Omega 565 parts are a good example, the mainspring barrel and rotor bush wear out and most examples I come across need these parts replacing with new, yet I see second-hand rotors and barrels selling on ebay. Its highly likely these parts will be in worn condition, but they’ll get bought and re- used because new parts are either not available or getting v. expensive. This isn’t a good situation and its wholly caused by Swatch Group’s policy.

If Swatch Group continue to restrict parts I’d love to see more high quality generic alternatives being made available. This is happening with some ETA parts but I’d like to see more Omega 550/560 stuff. Cousins are supplying a very limited number of generic case- specific parts, Speedmaster handsets, pushers and crystals are now available and quality is fine. Maybe Cousins should’ve put the money they’ve wasted on the court battle into procuring alternative manufacture of such key parts. This would’ve hurt Swatch Group, but not enough to prompt a U turn.

Sometimes the use of genuine parts doesn’t guarantee good results. Yesterday I replaced a day- wheel corrector on an ETA 2830 with a genuine replacement in original packaging, when tightened down the part should turn freely but didn’t. I measured it against the old damaged one and found it to be 0.15mm thicker. After a tedious half- hour of reducing the thickness and trial fitting I got it working fine, this shouldn't happen but it can. I’ve had new Omega mainspring barrels that were tight on the new arbour and needed broaching, I’ve also had Omega parts wrongly packaged too. You learn to be cautious and check everything!

Finally, consider the 1967 pie-pan steel Constellation I bought at auction for £450 in 2014, with an original black dial. The watch needed extensive work to restore and wasn’t cheap, but I wanted it so I bought it. A genuine omega crystal and crown were obtained via Cousins, together with a genuine Omega mainspring, barrel, rotor bush and reverser. The watch and parts sat in my projects drawer till late 2016 when I refinished and restored it. A genuine Omega replacement bracelet from Watchco finished it off (they were selling their Omega parts off) and the all-up cost of the project was around £700. Nowadays I’m reluctant to buy such project watches because I struggle get the parts to restore them correctly, it isn’t worth the hassle in most cases.

The Constellation’s on my wrist now, it looks virtually new and it runs at +2 to +3 secs/ day, its a superb example of a nicely restored watch.......still wouldn’t be good enough for Mick P though!

I’ve yet to see a convincing justification for the restricting supply of watch parts.

[TheGent]

Exactly. I own some watches (from reputable non-Swatch brands) with ETA movements. They include everything from Steinhart to Oris, and I get them serviced every 5-6 years. What do you think their future servicing looks like?

This interests me too, makes me wonder if an industry will spring up making ETA replacement parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Carlton-Browne]

I can’t be bothered arguing the points with Mick P any longer, as someone with a track record of restoring old Omegas I find his comments quite insulting, does he genuinely believe what he posts?

Don't feed him. He's a liar and a troll.

[walkerwek1958]

This interests me too, makes me wonder if an industry will spring up making ETA replacement parts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it already has! My gut feeling tells me that servicing ETA 2824 and similar will never be a problem, but finding watch repairers will.

[Mick P]

Don't feed him. He's a liar and a troll.

The is your old and corney response but the simple truth is that you accuse me of being a troll because I agree with a court judgement. One could conclusively argue that you are the troll for disagreeing with a decision made by people with a far greater knowledge of law and commerce than you have.

[theancientmariner]

I think it already has! My gut feeling tells me that servicing ETA 2824 and similar will never be a problem, but finding watch repairers will.

I've been watching this thread with interest but it seems to have stalled a little bit so I'll ask a couple of questions as a watch enthusiast but as someone who doesn't have any vintage watches.

Would I be right in thinking that you're a watch maker/repairer? I don't know you but from your answers I would assume so? To repeat a general question I posted earlier, as watch enthusiasts, are we not making a rod for our own backs by effectively demanding in house movements and insulting brands when they don't have their own? The situation in this thread wouldn't necessarily be happening if Omega for instance used a generic movement such as an ETA, would it? From new and upcoming brands discussed on this forum we know that the manufacture of an in house movement is the hardest part for a production watch manufacturer. Cases and dials etc. seem to be relatively straight forward to get hold of or manufacture. So if more watches used generic movements the remaining parts could be manufactured by small independent companies?
Also, from your comment above that watch repairers are going to be more difficult to find, speaking as a member of the public and not someone whose job depends on the watch repair trade, other than potential cost, is it such a bad idea to take a watch back to the original manufacturer for service or repair? I couldn't tell you where my nearest independent watch repair specialist is and yet a I recently took an old Seiko watch I have (with no material value but lots of emotional value) back to a Grand Seiko boutique and they arranged the repair for me.

[M1011]

The situation in this thread wouldn't necessarily be happening if Omega for instance used a generic movement such as an ETA, would it?

Just for context - Swatch group own Omega and ETA. This thread is about a court battle playing out because Swatch won't sell parts for ETA movements to independents.