# Restoration Vs Refurbishment



## Gniltierb One (May 14, 2009)

Well this is my first real post on the forum, and I thought I would ask for your opinions on the subject of watch restoration vs refurbishment. To be clear, I view Restoration as being the process of trying to retain as much of the original parts of the watch, and certainly staying true to the original design and components, whilst making the watch a useable and accurate time piece. Refurbishment I define as essentially making an old watch like new: replacement dials, even cases, but keeping the original movement - I think this may be a Franken watch by some peoples definition. As collectors do you see it as your responsibility to retain as much of the integrity of the original piece, or are you happy to keep the spirit alive only , and have a very "new" looking piece comprising "NOS" or current components?

I have to confess that in the vintage pieces that interest me I am considering one of each type for certain watches (one to wear day in day out - one to have in the display case).

Cheers

Stephen


----------



## Who. Me? (Jan 12, 2007)

I'd have put them the other way round. Refurbishment being repair of existing without replacement of parts, restoration being return to 'as new' or pristine condition (with use of new parts if necessary)

IMO; both have their merits and depend on the watch. Some watches wear patina well, some lose their attraction if key design features are not sharp and 'new'.

Also, I'd say that 'historically important' (e.g. rare, or one-off prototypes) etc watches would lose what makes them important if key parts like the dial or case were replaced with new or NOS replacements.

Likewise, if exact copy dials are unavailable, refurbishment of the originals would usually be preferable to replacement with a dissimilar, modern, replacement. If the manufacturer still had NOS or remanufactured exact copies of the originals however, why not replace and 'restore' the watch to its as-new condition.

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## seemore (Oct 25, 2007)

Don,t see a lot wrong with using nos parts, the only time it grates a bit for me is when you put a new case on an old dial and vica versa. some times parts can be too new if that makes sense.


----------



## JudgeBaxter (Sep 18, 2009)

If we're using Who Me's version of the two terms - then I think Refurbishment over Restore in most cases - if it ain't broke, why fix it??? - Just give it a nice clean instead!

There is a lot of "confusion" between parts/watches that are quoted as being "new old stock" and "remanufactured"......

For me - "new old stock" is exactly that - the part was made at the same time as the watch, and assigned as spares - it's sits in a cupboard somewhere unused and then gets fitted to a vintage peice as part of a refurb/resto.

Remanufactured parts can still be a good few years old in most case, but are still parts that were made 5/10 years ago, instead of 30 or 40 years old - and not necessarily using the same materials.....they still bear the makers mark as they were made/commisioned by the original brand, but not New Old Stock in my opinion and people should be clearer on this and let the buyer make there own mind up on whether this is what they want when they buy a watch or part.

It very specific to the circumstances and the watch in question, but I think most would perfer to "refurb" the original, rather than "restore" an old watch with a newer made (albeit correct spec) part.

Rgds,

David.


----------

