If it was me, i would try to ignore the dust specks. Afterall they are just...dust specks. Of course, if it was some tarnishing of the hands, or some black spots on lume etc etc, i would have given RSC an earful.
The reason that steers me towards NOT having RSC perform any checks or maintenance (unless it's for for regular servicing intervals or if the watch really starts becoming problematic), is because i am absolutely paranoid about the loss of the vacuum within the case once it is opened up, esp in a brand new piece. Unless RSC re-vacuums the case before sealing it up again, this will surely attract more dust specks entering the case. Then again, who can prove that they actually re-vacuum the case?
After all the flak i hear about QC at RSC, i would have to think very hard before i decide to send the watch in. Is it really justified? Or will i risk more problems after it is "serviced"? For dust specks, i wouldn't. Watch may come back with scratches on the bracelet etc etc. If the problem is more to do with accuracy issues or obvious blemishes, then my threshold for tolerating these post-servicing problems is higher.
The reason that steers me towards NOT having RSC perform any checks or maintenance (unless it's for for regular servicing intervals or if the watch really starts becoming problematic), is because i am absolutely paranoid about the loss of the vacuum within the case once it is opened up, esp in a brand new piece. Unless RSC re-vacuums the case before sealing it up again, this will surely attract more dust specks entering the case. Then again, who can prove that they actually re-vacuum the case?
After all the flak i hear about QC at RSC, i would have to think very hard before i decide to send the watch in. Is it really justified? Or will i risk more problems after it is "serviced"? For dust specks, i wouldn't. Watch may come back with scratches on the bracelet etc etc. If the problem is more to do with accuracy issues or obvious blemishes, then my threshold for tolerating these post-servicing problems is higher.
Comment