Mr Phoenix wrote:
When I sent the watch back to Breitling I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that it would be refurbishing to its original undamaged state? Did they not do that? Would I have been better leaving it incomplete and broken?
Ash, everything needs to be considered in context. What @Dracha says is correct if you are a serious collector, where the two most important characteristics are [original] condition and provenance. But this may not be correct for everyone and in every circumstances, and this is sometimes forgotten by those who have a zeal for collecting. Unfortunately, it is also largely the collectors who set the prices (although they too complain when prices spiral uncontrollably), so unless an owner has accommodated the characteristics desired by collectors, while still meeting their ownership aims, they can come unstuck with regards to maximising resale value. Of course, owners generally only learn this when they look into why they are not being offered the large sums that they have seen similar watches go for on eBay, Chrono24 and forums such as this, and by then it is too late.
On the matter as to why Breitling and other watch manufacturers restore or renovate watches, rather than conserve or preserve them, it is probably what they get asked to do more often than not, so they are just meeting customers' demands. To them it is just a watch that they sold to somebody once, and their restoration service is merely adding value to their business. Besides, many of these companies are so removed from their own origins that they don't care about their own history unless they can use it in their marketing to milk more profit; and with respect to their watches, they probably already have enough collection quality pieces in their own museums to add a bit of flavour to that milk.
Login
Register
FAQ
