60/60 was a great marketing tool which of course was necessary for clear differentiation. The new criteria may still be generous but seem now to be diminishing and dropping back into the mainstream while smacking of bad faith. Warranty should not be dependant on servicing as that brings all sorts of "maintenance" versus "fault" and "consumables" vs "parts" definitions into play. Suddenly the warranty document is thirty pages long and not worth the paper it's written on.Bahnstormer_vRS wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:31 am@Bidnet - an interesting observation and thank you for bringing it to our attention. All goes to emphasise CW's mantra of 'Do your research'; as I trust any self respecting watch buyer will do before committing to a purchase.
I have no knowledge as to why CW have sought to bring about this change and I don't propose to speculate or comment on their reasons for doing so. Overall though, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I will though stick to a few basic facts and compare the revised CW warranty / service recommendation with a number of other notable brands.
Christopher Ward (wef Trident Mk3) - Warranty 5 years, Service Recommendation 3 - 4 years.
Bremont - Warranty 3 years, Service Recommendation 3 - 5 years.
Omega (wef watches purchased after 1st July 2018) - Warranty 5 years, Service Recommendation 5 - 8 years.
Oris - Warranty 2 years, Service recommendation 3 - 5 years.
Breguet - Warranty 2 years, Service recommendation variable depending on model but, as a rule, 3 - 4 years.
There will no doubt be other Watch Manufacturers with shorter or longer Warranty and Servicing criteria.
What this shows though is that;-
1. CW are competitive in the market place and their criteria are still generous.
2. They are the only manufacturer (from the examples above) where the Warranty period overlaps with the Service Recommendation i.e. the other manufacturers mentioned have their warranty expiring before a service is recommended, and thus, as has been mentioned in the comparison with Car Manufacturers, it seems reasonable for a service to be carried out for the warranty to continue to apply.
Ultimately, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Finally, as to why CW have brought this into play, it is certainly a valid question to be put to the Co-Founders at the next GTG.
If CW have quality and consequent service problems, punishing the customer is not going to improve matters.