Quote:
Originally Posted by CedCraig
So, the excerpts below are actual messages in a private group chat. I’ve deleted the names since it’s not publicly available on the web. I highlighted some sections for easier reading. This is current information, like this week.
Reading these comments I stand by my assertion that Tudor swaps in refurbished Kenissi movements.
“Forgive me if anyone’s touched on this yet. “. . . @[industry insider who knows things] mentions the challenge with in-house movement post warranty. I actually just experienced that on a Pelagos 42 that was running well, but it had some other issues. I was required by RSC to do a service - I noticed on my invoice that they didn’t actually work on the movement. They swapped it out for a refurbished movement and sent the original movement back to Switzerland… it sure made me think hard about sticking to watches with Valjoux, eta, etc that I can service myself”
@[industry insider who knows things]: “I believe that is SOP for Tudor since going in house, it allows them a faster turn around on repairs.”
@[industry insider who knows things]: “So they keep stock of prepped movements, then swap them in and fix the original to use for a future repair. I think it’s clever and apparently it cuts down on waste.”
@[original commenter]: “I sent in a 2019 model and they not only swapped. They wouldn’t let me decline service even though it was running at -1spd, 300 degrees and 0ms beat error. I was sending it in for a bezel that was not covered under warranty - that being said the cost of service was very cheap! $500cad is practically free in US Dollars”. This person attached a photo of the bill, which said “Replace Movement: movement MT5612 a1 white reconditioned - x1”
If Tudor moves to a new movement swap service model, that’s no better in my mind. Then the MT movements are just a disposable, but more expensive, movement, like a Swatch Sistem51: just chuck out the old movement whenever there’s an issue.
Hard for me to believe a (the?) major industry player, Foundation Wilsdorf, is just throwing out watch movements, when the watch industry, like many other companies especially in Europe, are trying to “go green.” Marketing a fine Swiss timepiece as something that will outlast you and is fit to pass down to subsequent generations rings hollow when you just discard the most important part of a watch whenever it’s sent in for service.
Calling Tudor staff to ask if they use refurbished movements when repairing Kenissi powered watches is about the same as asking Rolex staff about 32xx problems: nobody will cop to anything negative about their products, the ‘ol move along now, there’s nothing to see here game.
I can’t find that Hodinkee article that confirmed the Kenissi refurbished movement service model, but if I eventually stumble on it, I’ll post again.
Since Tudor has historically had the freedom to try out new things, while Rolex moves ever so slowly, I think it’s worth keeping up on the Tudor service model. With the lack of qualified watchmakers only getting more pronounced and Rolex already moving to modular movement parts that are trashed instead of repaired, I think it’s only a matter of time before Rolex looks for a more efficient way to repair their watches. And we know that many of the current movements do indeed need repair (or replacement).
|
Very, very interesting.
When I read that, it makes me wonder: Did early 5612 movements have some systemic issue, like the GMT movement did with its date window, that Tudor would want to repair whether or not it was apparent in that particular watch?
That would at least explain the insistence on servicing (because there was some issue that was since solved and Tudor didn't want to let a watch leave the service centre without addressing on that watch).
The overall scenario seems a little different than sending a watch for routine movement servicing, but still contradicts the claim that "no refurbs" are used.