Rolex service.
Discussion
Eleven said:
I put it in the safe "12 down" this morning to test another position but it fell over to "dial down". I checked it this evening and it's gained 9 seconds after 10 hours. I'll check in the morning to see what it's done after 24 hours.
It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
No disrespect to Variomatic – I don't know if he's (formerly) Rolex accredited – but get in touch with Duncan at Genesis Watchmaking (think he's in Bristol?) and have a chat.It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
I'd be insisting on Rolex letting Duncan look at it and correcting the problem – and letting them deal with his reimbursement.
It'll do no harm to discuss it, and make sure you're compensated with at least the 2-yr service warranty starting from its return. It may be a few weeks before he can book yours in, so the time lapsed should be credited back.
PJ S said:
Eleven said:
I put it in the safe "12 down" this morning to test another position but it fell over to "dial down". I checked it this evening and it's gained 9 seconds after 10 hours. I'll check in the morning to see what it's done after 24 hours.
It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
No disrespect to Variomatic – I don't know if he's (formerly) Rolex accredited – but get in touch with Duncan at Genesis Watchmaking (think he's in Bristol?) and have a chat.It's looking like the watch is going to be going back to Rolex, again, doesn't it!
I'd be insisting on Rolex letting Duncan look at it and correcting the problem – and letting them deal with his reimbursement.
It'll do no harm to discuss it, and make sure you're compensated with at least the 2-yr service warranty starting from its return. It may be a few weeks before he can book yours in, so the time lapsed should be credited back.
Having now got another freshly Rolex serviced watch that's also keeping poor time I am wondering whether Rolex is struggling to do a quality job within their new improved turn-around times. I'm not sure why that should be the case though because other manufacturers seem to manage.
Eleven said:
I cannot see Rolex agreeing to this and after all they SHOULD be able to sort it out themselves surely.
It's not about whether you can see it or not, it's bothering to either make enough of a fuss to see that it does happen or at least explore the possibility.What's the point in seeking advice or opinions, if you're just going to be defeatist?
It's obvious Rolex couldn't sort it out themselves – they've had enough attempts – what makes you think the only need one more to get it right?
You've paid for a service, which they've failed to deliver on, on two occasions now – so you'd be well within your rights to demand a refund.
The suggestion I've given is the more diplomatic option, but you won't know until you actually pick up the phone or send an email, and find out.
desolate said:
Eleven said:
No. And at the moment it's gaining about 7 seconds a day which is too much for a chronometer.
Over the course of the test period how much was it out then? Eleven said:
There have been several and the answer varies depending upon the one you're referring to. Which is the problem. A consistent error can be corrected with regulation, inconsistent timekeeping cannot.
OK. I was going off the list on the first page. Personally I would just reset the time every couple of weeks but if you can't tolerate it being out a minute or so per week I would sell the watch and get something different.
In my judgement the timekeeping is acceptable, particularly considering it was bought used.
desolate said:
Eleven said:
There have been several and the answer varies depending upon the one you're referring to. Which is the problem. A consistent error can be corrected with regulation, inconsistent timekeeping cannot.
OK. I was going off the list on the first page. Personally I would just reset the time every couple of weeks but if you can't tolerate it being out a minute or so per week I would sell the watch and get something different.
In my judgement the timekeeping is acceptable, particularly considering it was bought used.
Eleven said:
You think that because it was bought used it need not comply with COSC tolerances when it returns from a service by the manufacturer?
If COSC is -4/+6 then for your test period it performed within spec for practically every day. I would accept that level of performance certainly.
desolate said:
Eleven said:
You think that because it was bought used it need not comply with COSC tolerances when it returns from a service by the manufacturer?
If COSC is -4/+6 then for your test period it performed within spec for practically every day. I would accept that level of performance certainly.
Eleven said:
COSC is a bit more involved than that, but for some time it complied. Right now it's running at +7 which means that it is running outside spec. It should be running consistently. Rolex agrees with me by the way, they just seem to be unable to resolve the problem.
Personally I think you are searching for the golden rivet. It complied for a 6 weeks and is now a second per day out or spec. In my experience that is totally normal for a Rolex (indeed most non quartz watches)
As I, and others, have said I think its perfectly acceptable.
desolate said:
Eleven said:
COSC is a bit more involved than that, but for some time it complied. Right now it's running at +7 which means that it is running outside spec. It should be running consistently. Rolex agrees with me by the way, they just seem to be unable to resolve the problem.
Personally I think you are searching for the golden rivet. It complied for a 6 weeks and is now a second per day out or spec. In my experience that is totally normal for a Rolex (indeed most non quartz watches)
As I, and others, have said I think its perfectly acceptable.
I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
Eleven said:
I don't recall anyone else saying it's acceptable.
I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
2 others did, but on reflection one was being flippant so I think that was mainly my internal monologue.I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
Currently got a Sea Dweller, Explorer 1 and non-chronometer no date sub. Other watches, COSC and not
Have had other Rolex COSC.
I can't think of one that's been bang on.
I wouldn't have accepted the watch in the first place due to it being described "As new" and it having case damage, but I would be happy with the timekeeping.
desolate said:
Eleven said:
I don't recall anyone else saying it's acceptable.
I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
2 others did, but on reflection one was being flippant so I think that was mainly my internal monologue.I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
Currently got a Sea Dweller, Explorer 1 and non-chronometer no date sub. Other watches, COSC and not
Have had other Rolex COSC.
I can't think of one that's been bang on.
I wouldn't have accepted the watch in the first place due to it being described "As new" and it having case damage, but I would be happy with the timekeeping.
Have you ever had your watches regulated? My experience of mechanical movements both COSC and not is that when healthy any error tends to be consistent. I have a TAG chronometer which was accurate to a second a week or better when new. My chronometer Sub is my benchmark and it runs very consistently at between -1 and -2 per day.
Eleven said:
desolate said:
Eleven said:
I don't recall anyone else saying it's acceptable.
I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
2 others did, but on reflection one was being flippant so I think that was mainly my internal monologue.I should also probably add that before the figures mentioned above the watch was losing lots of time and went back to Rolex for that - those figures are not included.
But I am interested in your experiences of Rolexes chronometers running like this routinely. Seriously.
Currently got a Sea Dweller, Explorer 1 and non-chronometer no date sub. Other watches, COSC and not
Have had other Rolex COSC.
I can't think of one that's been bang on.
I wouldn't have accepted the watch in the first place due to it being described "As new" and it having case damage, but I would be happy with the timekeeping.
Have you ever had your watches regulated? My experience of mechanical movements both COSC and not is that when
healthy any error tends to be consistent. I have a TAG chronometer which was accurate to a second a week or better when new. My chronometer Sub is my benchmark and it runs very consistently at between -1 and -2 per day.
My Daytona and my Tudor chronograph are worn occasionally so accuracy is not so important and if I was buying a watch for everyday use and accuracy was important then it would be a quartz!
Eleven said:
I think you have the wrong end of the stick, the damage was caused when it went back to Rolex for the second time, it was not present when I bought it.
Have you ever had your watches regulated? My experience of mechanical movements both COSC and not is that when healthy any error tends to be consistent. I have a TAG chronometer which was accurate to a second a week or better when new. My chronometer Sub is my benchmark and it runs very consistently at between -1 and -2 per day.
Must learn to read thread properly pre-postulation. Sorry. Have you ever had your watches regulated? My experience of mechanical movements both COSC and not is that when healthy any error tends to be consistent. I have a TAG chronometer which was accurate to a second a week or better when new. My chronometer Sub is my benchmark and it runs very consistently at between -1 and -2 per day.
I have never felt the need to get a watch specifically regulated as I always found that accuracy depended on what I was doing. If they were getting knocked and banged or worn during sport or physical activity I found that accuracy would change.
I haven't got a watch winder so it will have been a long time since a watch got worn for 2 months plus on an exclusive basis.
I suppose we just have a different attitude to it, but I can understand why you would want one watch to perform the same as another with the same movement.
Grandfondo said:
You are very lucky with your TAG because mine is poor and that is after a service also.
My Daytona and my Tudor chronograph are worn occasionally so accuracy is not so important and if I was buying a watch for everyday use and accuracy was important then it would be a quartz!
I am quite happy with COSC accuracy, no need for quartz. But if it says chronometer on the dial it needs to perform as a chronometer should. Not too much to expect from a newly serviced watch surely.My Daytona and my Tudor chronograph are worn occasionally so accuracy is not so important and if I was buying a watch for everyday use and accuracy was important then it would be a quartz!
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff