zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Don: Thanks so much for your follow-up on this. Since I first posted it, I exchanged my SMP 2541.80 for the 2531.80 (new, from AD). And so I am not only more "on the field" w/ this question now, but also happened to be thinking about the economics of it this afternoon.

Again, my only point of reference is maintenance that has served me well on my automobiles. W/ nothing more than sticking to the 3,000 mile routine on a 1987 Oldsmobile I owned, the car never seemed to show the slightest sign of wear until 73,000 miles. As I recall, my service interval was something like 5 times per year, at $20 a pop -- against a $13,000 investment (employee discount). In 5 years, that works out to be $500 put into a car then depreciated to $6,000 (8% of asset value).

In 5 years, my SMP 2531.80 at best will be worth maybe $800, and require $290 in service (36% of asset value). Setting aside sentimentality for a moment, does this put things into the category of "throw away and replace with new"? Mind you, as my FIRST Omega Seamaster, this watch will undoubtedly attain something more than its dollar value and may well be "worth" that investment. But what about my second and subsequents?

How do I justify the investment?

To your use versus non-use point, I suspect that watch inner workings also fall into some parallel to the "3 months or 3,000 miles" thing. In other words, lubricants separate and break down with age, as does seal performance: Regardless of use, or simply sitting around. I have a 1916 Dodge that continues to reaffirm that to me via belts, lubricants and tires, regardless of how well-cared for and with effort put into back-stop restorations. Sitting in the garage, driven no where, it moves backwards.

Everything does, I think. It must.