I think part of the problem with any restoration, not just those done by TAG-Heuer, is that the expectations of the owners can vary so wildly.

Perhaps the ideal would be to sit down and have a (minuted) discussion with whoever's restoring the watch and go over each point to be addressed, and the expectations and possibilities from both sides. That's rarely going to be practical, and may be a bit formal but I do think it's worth having some sort of structure to follow when setting out. Perhaps something along the lines of:

1) Brief from owner, setting out the work the owner believes is required and (equally importantly) the work the owner does not want done.

2) Response from restorer. Parts might not be available, mechanicals might need replacing that the owner is unaware of etc.

3) Agreed brief. A schedule of work to be done and, importantly, a reporting mechanism and limit of authority/discretion. If replacement hands are unavailable, is it acceptable to use service hands without referring back to the owner, for example. Likely timescale and costings can be included too, plus tolerances before slippage in either needs to be reported back.

4) Work gets done.

5) A delivery mechanism. The owner needs to formally accept the watch back and agreed that the work is as scheduled. This protects both parties - the owner doesn't need to accept back work until it is to their satisfaction as specified, but equally can't turn round and ask for something that was never requested initially. If you've worked with an outsourcing firm, you may have seen how things can really turn on what was agreed up front, so it's worth taking time over those initial discussions/documents/requests etc.

Basically an abbreviated invitation to tender, contract and delivery process. Sounds formal and constricting, but it needn't be - I've had some input on a watch Abel is restoring and effectively he has been following this or a similar process simply by sending emails at various stages of the process. To me, this is pretty ideal - before something is committed to the watch, a simple email with a photo or two can convey lots of information and ensure everyone is happy.

In this case, the watchmaker would have known that he didn't have discretion to change the case without referring it to Paul and there wouldn't have been the unpleasant surprises at the end.

My personal stance is usually to leave stuff well alone and let it wear its scars of age and use with pride. However, I will agree that there are watches that benefit from restoration and then what I really want to see is lightness of touch and faithfulness to originality. I.e. if you didn't know what the watch looked like beforehand, you might not know the restorer had even been there. And I've seen watches like that come out of Chaux-le-Fonds, and other restorers too - examples of some of Abel's work are dotted around this forum.

And I've seen stuff that was completely unacceptable (not from TH mind), like that Camaro redial from a year or so ago.

And thirdly I've seen work that I didn't like, like reluming, that the owner was perfectly happy with. Even delighted with. It comes back to my point about expectations and knowing what they are.

Perhaps the time when everything could get done with a gentlemen's agreement and a firm handshake has passed us by...