Reply With QuoteI suggest adding to the original thread:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?373604
Apologies in advance if this is well known but was the first time I’d seen a holding update from cousins, I knew they had a dispute with Swatch regarding the free supply of parts for the brands they control, Omega, Breguet, Choppard, Tissot, Longines, Hamilton, Certna etc
The challenge in the Swiss court is competition driven and Swatch are trying to quash any chance of parts and repair via independents only ever being done by the manufacturer
There’s plenty of stuff on the net about it
They have a good case, eta based movements etc quash the argument they are highly specialised and unique, the competition issue won’t go away for Swatch. Who will be next, Rolex?
Swatch v Cousins in the Bern Court only slightly delayed due to Covid-19
Our fight with Swatch over the supply of parts has only been slightly delayed by the Covid-19 outbreak. Because the Swiss judicial system mainly relies on written submissions rather than Court appearances, the impact on our case has been less than might have been expected. The deadlines for submission of documents were extended for an extra four weeks by the Swiss Federal authorities, and an extra two weeks extension was granted by the Judge in Bern.
All the formal submissions by both sides have now been completed. The remainder of the process consists of informal comments by both sides (Swatch are due to submit theirs in the next two weeks and we will reply after that), and then a hearing in the Bern Court. We would expect the written verdict from the Judge around two to four months after that.
The date for the hearing has not yet been set. The summer recess for the Courts runs from mid-July to mid-August and we expect it will be some time after that. A lot will depend on travel restrictions and quarantine issues, but hopefully by the Autumn this will not be a factor.
As we said in our last News update, we were happy that our first submission was a very robust defence. As before, we can’t go into detail, but we can say that we think our second submission is even stronger than the first, and are very confident that the judge will reach the right verdict.
We will keep updating you as matters unfold by email
I suggest adding to the original thread:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.php?373604
Thus will rumble on for a lot longer, and the longer it goes on the more watch repairers will throw the towel in because they can’t get hold of parts.
I can see how this may pan out.......’ the good news is that Cousins have won, the bad news is that I’m 90, my hands shake and I can’t bloody see’
I’m continuing for a while longer, I have a good stash of parts for certain watches, but there will come a point where I decide its time to give up and that will probably be dictated by the worsening parts supply situation.
Restricting supply of parts will drive the cost of watch repair/ service upwards, this has happened over the past few years and it’ll continue.
Did everyone receive the recent update on this ?
Yes.
Looks like the end may be in sight. I’m resigned to the fact that Cousins won’t win but I hope I’m wrong.
I’ve done plenty of hand- wringing over the parts supply situation since 2014 when this nonsense began, I've learned to accept the situation and its the main reason why I’m unlikely to get back to the same level of watch repairing activity, currently I’m immersed in other things but that won’t last indefinitely. However, stepping back has made me realise how futile the watch repair business has become with the restrictions on parts supply. Last August I tried to source parts for an Oris via the UK appointed service centre, in the past they were happy to supply me but that’s no longer the case, I was trying to buy a crown but they insisted I send the watch to them! Needless to say that didn’t happen and I turned the job down. If parts are obsolete and no longer exist we accept that, but a situation where parts are available but supply is restricted is demoralising, it’s like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.
If the restrictive practices had attracted better publicity and started to affect sale of new models the manufacturers might’ve backed down, but that didn’t happen.
Can’t see Cousins getting a result in a Swiss court against a Swiss company..........I hope I’m wrong.
As a talentless enthusiast that would like to understand how the mechanism works I bought a Chinese 6497 clone dismantled it and it won’t go back together. I bought an ETA and it’s infinitely better and runs well. It motivated me to experiment and try make something. It’s so sad that quality such as the ETA won’t be available to me.Originally Posted by walkerwek1958
As an enthusiast perhaps it’s time for the total cost of ownership type metric like a car. How much did a service, battery charge, new glass, new crown, new strap etc .
I can’t help but feel the restriction of parts is another step on the road to an eventual implosion of the Swiss watch industry (but I could be wrong).
Here’s some thoughts/arguments.
Over the last 20 years I’ve watched the prices of certain brand’s watches increase from something I could justify to 2, 3 or even 4 times the price, for no real acceptable reason. And the whole servicing and restriction of parts story has gone the same way. Meaning that no longer could you contact someone locally, an independent, who could service your watch and instead it would go ‘back to Switzerland’ for a hefty sum. All of which makes owning a luxury watch a more expensive activity than ever.
I suppose the flip side of my argument is that the Swatch group have brands within all price ranges to cover a lot of the market, and people have more money now than ever to pay for luxury items (maybe a certain 2020 pandemic might put the brakes onto that??)
Here on the forums we don’t look at watches in the same way as the man on the street who just wants something with a name on it that is reliable and looks good; we often are happy to spend crazy amounts of money on our hobby, as that’s exactly what it is - a hobby, our interest. In the same way that I have a friend who spends a huge amount of time and money on a vintage car, when he could easily spend a lot less on a modern car that would still get him from A to B. It doesn’t make sense, but it’s what we like and what we spend our money on, and we complain about rising costs but still pay out. And non of the above (increased costs etc) applies to the financially richer members of society as they can afford anything they choose anyway.
So to address my own original comment about the Swiss watch industry imploding, I guess it boils down to this: what is the demographic of the luxury watch buying market. If 80% of it is the man on the street, then increases in prices of the watches themselves and subsequent servicing (as well as less money in people’s pockets post-COVID) will eventually lead to less sales, watches sat in drawers not financially viable to service and repair, and a potential shift in the whole secondhand market. If however, 80% of sales go to enthusiasts and rich people, then prices will continue to rise and parts will be more restricted and nothing will change.
Just my thoughts, for what it’s worth.
Wow that was a long post. Sorry!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Curious to know what the how the update came / what it was?
It was in an email sent last Friday -
At the end of June, we explained the remaining steps in the Swiss Legal process were informal written comments from both parties, a hearing, and then the written judgement. The informal comments were completed and we have been waiting for the date of the hearing.
It is worth explaining that the Swiss procedure is rather different to that in England. The right to a hearing is part of the Swiss Constitution, and the Judges are responsible for investigating the evidence, not just applying the law. This means that it is only the Judges that ask questions at a hearing. The two parties in the dispute do not cross examine each other. They are allowed to ask questions of witnesses via the Judge, but not directly and only if the Judge thinks the answer is likely to add value. In our case, the facts are not disputed. Swatch openly admit that they ceased to supply us. The dispute centres on whether or not that action was illegal. All the points of law pertinent to that question have been covered in depth in the extensive written submissions.
The Covid restrictions give the Court a range of issues when it comes to holding a hearing. Video links are not normally allowed in Swiss law but have exceptionally been permitted during the pandemic. However questioning witnesses via video in a foreign country raises all sorts of issues about jurisdiction, and would require a range of permissions from the British Authorities. Because of this, and also because the evidence is clearly laid out in the documentation, the Judge in Bern took the unusual step of asking both parties how they would like to proceed.
We responded by stating that if the Judge did not have any questions for the parties or the witnesses, we would be willing to waive our right to a hearing if Swatch would do the same. The Judge described the proposal as “reasonable” and wrote to Swatch asking if they would agree to the same approach, which they did.
The Judge has been studying the papers in detail for the past four weeks and has now advised us that his initial view is that a hearing is not required, but that he will make a firm decision on this point within the next three weeks. If a hearing is required, a date has been reserved in March of next year, and we would expect the final judgement two to three months after that. If a hearing is not required, we hope that the judgement will come much earlier than we would otherwise have expected.
We will keep you updated.
Kind Regards
Anthony
Thanks for that!
I wondered the same thing, but guess that servicing doesn't cross the mind of most people. Until their watch loses accuracy or goes wrong, then people will take their watch to be fixed (a service).
On the other hand, I can image the servicing and restriction of parts thing slowly and imperceptibly eroding the market. Cumulatively, expensive experiences with servicing could damage the market.
And if you've bought an expensive watch as a keeper, perhaps to hand on to the next generation, it leaves a bad taste to discover that spare parts could become hard or impossible to obtain. Part of the charm of automatic timepieces is that you can use them for decades. Or even generations. However long you hold onto your watches, it's part of the mechanical mystique.
Why is Swatch restricting sales of spare parts? What has it got to gain? I can't see it having any significant impact on the sale of new watches.
They only sell you a expensive watch once, but the revenue from servicing if locked into their system lets them earn from you for years afterwards.
In house servicing from the big firms has to be large part of their income stream, which they are increasingly exploiting to the max if recent service horror quotes are anything to go by.
The parts themselves must cost them pennies with the economies of scale they have.
Cheers..
Jase
Perhaps this is the new model. This is why if cost is a driver the total cost of ownership should be considered as it is for a car or motorbike.
I guess it’s a classic case of making hay while the sun shines. After all these are businesses first and foremost so maximum profit is priority 1. But I do wonder for the future, it will be difficult to go backwards with pricing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My skills only extend to swapping out quartz movements and changing circuit boards on G10's, though this issue appears to have stopped the supply of new boards, except cheap Chinese copies which I've avoided, or the odd NOS occasionally popping up on the bay.
Wondering though how and if this issue effects Sellita movements and parts?
Notice Eddie and CWC for example are now using them with the inability to source eta mechanical movements but by the sounds of it, it can take a while to obtain an order for them.
A not-insignificant part of the appeal of a quality watch lies with is its potential "immortality" - with relatively simple mechanisms that can be repaired repeatedly if need be; something that some brands trade on with their advertising.
Shut down supply of parts, and move servicing in-house at usurious expense, and word will diffuse among potential customers that they will be bent-over at a later date, and so a significant percentage of the saner and more-intelligent will simply take their discretionary spend elsewhere. I can only agree that this is an act of self-harm by the watch industry.
It's also one reason why the increasing mania for midstream in-house movements is very much a mixed blessing - some makers will play fair, but others very much not (e.g. most of LVMH's big names). The root of this is perhaps that everyone wants to pull-off the stunt that Rolex has, but none of them want to commit the HUGE long-term advertising budget, so they ape other behaviours and hope...
Great opportunity for Sellita, Seiko and Miyota to continue to capitalise here - they may lack snob cachet, but they make very decent movements and could pretty-much monopolise (is "triopolise" a word?) the market if they keep parts affordable, and indeed movements cheap enough that its potentially economic to simply bin them and replace with new, as is often the case with e.g. Seiko NH35. Makes more sense than constantly trying to crowbar Swatch Group with legislation, when they clearly have a vested interest in keeping their movements to themselves.
Not much help to owners of older pieces though...
Agree with this sentiment (as does my small collection). And in my experience Miyota movements perform brilliantly.
As you say, the owners of older pieces will suffer most as there may be no independent watchmakers left.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree having just purchased both the Nav and Everest, and noticed while the Nav has the Top version of its Sellita movement, the Miyota in the Everest is just as good for time keeping gaining no more than 3 seconds p/d when worn against the Nav loosing up to 4 when worn (about bag on when not worn mind).
Like cars, watches should be serviced to keep them running as intended and to avoid excessive wear. Unlike cars the service intervals are vague, approx 5-7 years is my recommendation but if the watch us worn sparingly it may still be fine after a longer period. The only way to tell whether a watch really needed servicing is to inspect the lubrication whilst stripping it down, a bit of a chicken and egg scenario which isn’t helpful to the watch owner. Usually a watch will start to give poor timekeeping and a check with a timegrapher will usually show the amplitude to be lower than it should be, but there are cases where a watch will apparently run fairly well, with decent amplitude, because its running dry. I had a Speedmaster on the bench recently that was giving 250 degrees amplitude, which is low for one of these but not horrendous. The watch had supposedly been serviced recently when it had a broken mainspring replaced, but it had issues that made me very suspicious so I ended up taking it apart. My fears were confirmed by inspecting the balance pivot cap jewels and finding they were as dry as a bone, they clearly hadn’t been lubricated for several years yet the watch was running reasonably well.
With the ever- increasing cost of servicing it’s little wonder that owners won’t get watches serviced until they’re performing badly, but that’s not ideal for the longevity of a mechanical watch especially if it’s used frequently. Eventually the only option will be to send the watch to the manufacturer’s service centre and pay whatever they want to charge. The number of professionally trained independent repairers operating on a commercial basis will continue to decline, I can’t see much appeal as a career. Hopefully the hobbyist/keen amateur repairers will continue and that will keep watch repairing alive, providing an option to those who own older watches or watches with sentimental value. As a second career or profitable hobby in later life I recommend it, especially for those who like a challenge.
Can't independent repairers get an account with Swatch, so that they can still buy ETA parts?
Though it appears the Government's proposed 'Right to repair' law could – potentially – stop the Swatch Group's attempt to restrict spare parts: https://www.watchpro.com/right-to-re...f-watch-parts/
Yes, you just need to have the qualifications, a workshop with clean air filtration and a separate room for polishing etc, and somewhere between an estimated £40k and £70k in specific tooling that Swatch will insist on, even though you might already have all the tools but just not the correct brand.
That is simply just wrong, it’s 5k for Omega specific tooling. The rest you should have as a watchmaker. A polishing room separated from where you service the movement is common sense. Swatch are very open, if you have a Rolex pressure tester as I do then they don’t insist on the omega one. I find them to be the most accommodating.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
I got this email from Cousins earlier -
Sad but not surprising...Judgement Given by the Bern Court
On 28 December 2021, our Swiss lawyers received the long awaited judgement from the Bern Court.
At the moment we do not have a full translation, but whilst the Court confirmed our position that Swatch are 100% market dominant in the supply of spare parts, it does not appear to have followed previous case law relating to companies with such monopolies, and has ruled that Swatch’s refusal to supply Cousins does not breach British and EU Competition Law.
Cousins has until the 1st of February 2022 to lodge an appeal at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Our legal teams in Switzerland and the UK will be studying the judgement over the next few days, and we will provide further information and updates as we are able.
Oligopolise, perhaps Earl?
I can't add much value to the debate, though, other than to say it's a shot in the foot.
I got this earlier, dread to think of the cost of taking the Swatch group to court, must be more than any profit they made selling the parts in the first place
A company that I used to work for tried to take a council to court on a rock solid case. The boss was asked how he would pay for the legal fees if he lost the claim. He couldn't, so it never got to court. As with a lot of cases! The company went bust due to the problems caused by the Council representative's mistakes! I and many others lost our jobs at the time. Taught me a lesson and luckily didn't cost me personally (apart from moving jobs).
If I buy an old watch I want to be sure that it is 100% OEM and not a glorified frankenwatch. By restricting parts and insisting on the correct level of appropriate tooling, future generations have a better chance of buying a watch that was as same as original.
If you don't like the restrictions, sell the watch to someone who respects the integrity of it.
Trouble is, that potentially puts a whole load of independent watchmakers at risk as they can’t service watches which they can’t get parts for. Alternatively, they may be staring at repair without using OEM parts which is precisely what you presumably wish to avoid.
If parts were readily available, that wouldn’t be an issue.
Also, I’m not convinced Swatch give many hoots about the longevity of their products, if your certina breaks after 10 years, then they might be able to sell you another. Equally, if you’re forced to always send your watch to them for service or repair, they can charge whatever they like for that service. Win-win with a monopoly.
I got the e-mail from Cousins, v. disappointing but no surprise. Can’t see the appeal doing much good either.
Make no mistake, the restriction of parts supply us not good news for watch owners. Manufacturers service centres will be the only option and they'll be able to charge what they like.
At least Mick P’s post made me laugh, I’d love to show him some of my Omegas and challenge him to state they’re not worthy because they haven’t been ‘blessed’ by Omega Service Centre or an Omega accredited repairer, they've been restored to a high standard by a bloke who works in his spare bedroom who knows what he’s doing but that isn’t good enough for Mick the ex- Pat Postie, he loves to generalise.
I’m sitting on a couple of grands- worth of genuine Omega parts in original packaging and that'll keep me in the game until the day arrives when I’ve had enough and decide to sell the lot. Crowns, handsets and genuine crystals are now v. difficult but I have a good stash of movement parts for the older stuff.
What I can’t understand is how Swatch Group can realistically restrict ETA parts. If they only supply manufacturers that means any micro- brand who used ETA movements should have access to movement parts. It would be interesting to test this. There’s always the option of binning a badly worn ETA movement and fitting a Sellita.....at a price! That’s where the logic of restricted parts falls down, Chinese ETA clone movements will find their way into watches and the owner might not even know.
I applaud Anthony Cousins for fighting his corner but winning tge case in a Swiss court was like the Boy Scouts taking on the KGB!
What'll actually happen is future generations will inherit a broken watch and pop it in a drawer because it means something to them but would cost the earth to repair.
And future eBay will be full of stuff sold spares or repair.
What a brilliant result for everyone!
Uncertainty
The monopoly corporation has won, unfortunately.
Precisely. How many micro-brands had ETA movements? There’s got to be innumerable (non-Swatch) watches with ETA movements – what does their future servicing look like?
Also, some manufacturers have grown from micro to well-established companies, such as Damasko and Christopher Ward. They used ETA movements for many years, and some of their customers will expect lifelong servicing. Will these manufacturers continue to be able to procure ETA parts for their older watches?
They’ll probably just buy Sellita.
Not all Sellita parts are interchangeable. The ETA 2892 train wheel bridge is a good example, that’s a part that's easily sprained if too much force is applied when fitting the seconds hand without supporting the bridge. Once its sprained the watch will never make good amplitude and a replacement has to be fitted. Unfortunately the Sellita part has small but v. significant differences so this repair has to be done with the correct ETA bridge. I have one in my spares stash, I used to pay around £15 for them but I paid double that, when I use a part I always try buy a replacement and charge the part out at the going rate, no way am I losing money on parts but I don’t make anything either. Sourcing parts is getting harder and involves time spent trawling the internet, in the past it was a quick on-line order to Cousins or a phone call to Gleaves.
The exact opposite will happen.
The enforced-monopoly will drive the price of in-house servicing beyond the means or inclinations of countless watch-owners, who will either use more non-OEM parts, or neglect servicing altogether.
The only winner here is Swatch Group.
Perhaps people are looking at this through the perspective of watch nerds who are frankly a tiny minority of buyers. Are people who go out and buy say a £300 Tissot really going to be sending watches off for 5 year service? I recall seeing in the markets in Geneva tons of vintage Tissot watches so I am not sure there is going to be a shortage of parts or movements as the market will be still flooded with ETA movement watches that people have thrown away.
The only thing this is really going to effect is stuff like Omega and other mid to high priced watches and it’s probably more likely that Joe Public will send it back to Omega anyway.
- - - Updated - - -
Perhaps people are looking at this through the perspective of watch nerds who are frankly a tiny minority of buyers. Are people who go out and buy say a £300 Tissot really going to be sending watches off for 5 year service? I recall seeing in the markets in Geneva tons of vintage Tissot watches so I am not sure there is going to be a shortage of parts or movements as the market will be still flooded with ETA movement watches that people have thrown away.
The only thing this is really going to effect is stuff like Omega and other mid to high priced watches and it’s probably more likely that Joe Public will send it back to Omega anyway.
The simple answer is that they will be collected by enthusiasts who know that nearly every Rolex or Omega etc has been serviced by either Rolex or Omega or an accredited agent. What they don't want is non franchised repairers using non approved parts.
This is definitely a move in the right direction.
And have a vintage watch have all the original parts ripped out and replaced loosing fortunes in value and patina.. No thanks
What happens to those vintage Omega and Rolex watches that those brands won’t service?
They will when they are not competing with repairers using cheap non franchised parts and non approved tooling. Yes it will cost more but it will be worth it to retain 100% originality.
I want a 100% pure watch on my wrist not some bodged up mess. Fortunately the courts are adopting the correct attitude and whilst it may upset the odd WIS, most people will welcome it.
It’s good you don’t fancy a 5512 or a 5513. You would not be able to maintain it
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Then I wouldn't buy one.
Also if they are pricey to maintain, the value will almost certainly come down.
What you may want to consider is that your current Rolexes will soon get new hands and dial when they are sent for their service, and will therefore lose a lot of their investment value. But they will remain what Rolex meant them to be, fully functional time keepers.
Alternatively you will have to break your golden rule and sell them instead of losing money on them.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
You buffoon
That's exactly what you won't get.
You may get OEM parts but they will strip out plenty of the Original parts and replace with new parts.
That makes zero sense, are you seriously suggesting Rolex and Omega have not serviced one of their own vintage watches because of competition with independent watch repairers?
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.
I was going to post something similar, but you laid it out better than I would have.
I was suggesting that Rolex and Omega will continue to service older watches in the absence of unfair competition. I accept however that they will increase their charges but if that is the cost of keeping a Rolex 100% Rolex, then so be it.
I want all Rolex to fully functional time keepers and 100% Rolex.
I have already lost my money because the watches have been gifted to my sons.
Posting Permissions