Does Removing the Caseback Void the Warranty?

[Calgaryjim]

I searched and couldn't find this here, and before that I did a google search on my question - what I found varied and none of it was from Rolex. Some sources say just removing the case-back voids the warranty, some said it only voids the warranty if repairs were done other than by Rolex or their authorized service centers. Does anyone know for sure?

[joli160]

Using the correct tools they won’t be able to see if it was ever opened or not.
I don’t think there is an anti-tampering seal in a watch

[Rushne]

Never heard of anti tampering seals so I think joli160 is on the money.

Unless you maybe screwed up the seals closing it again? But then you were fiddling and not careful I guess.

[ozwatchguy]

Only voided of work is done by anyone other then RSC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[77T]

The short answer is removing the caseback will void the guarantee if RSC detects that it was done.

“Any work carried out by third parties will render the guarantee null and void.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Catatafish]

In the USA, the Magnuson-Moss Act prevents wholesale warranty cancellation. Not sure about Canada but according to my wife, there are similar if not more strict laws in Brazil protecting the consumer.

In a nutshell, for USA, the manufacturer must show that the consumer's actions caused something to break before denying the warranty.

If I make a warranty claim on my car that my windshield wiper fell off, the manufacturer can't deny that warranty because I changed my own oil.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 77T

The short answer is removing the caseback will void the guarantee if RSC detects that it was done.

“Any work carried out by third parties will render the guarantee null and void.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Not sure about this, even if RSC detects it was done. From a legal standpoint, you could argue that an owner simply wanting to see the movement by removing the case back does not constitute "work."

[Lew_Ashby]

Originally Posted by Calgaryjim

I searched and couldn't find this here, and before that I did a google search on my question - what I found varied and none of it was from Rolex. Some sources say just removing the case-back voids the warranty, some said it only voids the warranty if repairs were done other than by Rolex or their authorized service centers. Does anyone know for sure?

I believe the answer to this question is predicated upon your nation’s and/or province’s laws regarding warranties.

There’s what Rolex may say and or do vs what the law actually reads.

[Cambo]

Why would you want to?

[KatGirl]

Originally Posted by Cambo

Why would you want to?

I get wanting to peek inside. Some of us are naturally curious, and would love to have a look at our marvelous movements. Resist the urge! If nothing else, you’d be messing with waterproofing. Just look up pics of your movement.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[watchluvr4ever]

If the person knows what they’re doing and uses the correct “dies” to open and re-close it they would never know. If you use pins like are pictured with that caseback opener above you may accidentally sheer some teeth on the caseback(I’ve seen it)and Rolex may then have something to say about it. Just remember water resistance will be compromised unless you have the equipment to re-test and most common testers only test up to 10 bar=100m.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by watchluvr4ever

If the person knows what they’re doing and uses the correct “dies” to open and re-close it they would never know. If you use pins like are pictured with that caseback opener above you may accidentally sheer some teeth on the caseback(I’ve seen it)and Rolex may then have something to say about it. Just remember water resistance will be compromised unless you have the equipment to re-test and most common testers only test up to 10 bar=100m.

My picture was not that clear, indeed the proper die is needed and pressure testing is a must

[77T]

Originally Posted by swish77

Not sure about this, even if RSC detects it was done. From a legal standpoint, you could argue that an owner simply wanting to see the movement by removing the case back does not constitute "work."

I’m sure about NYC RSC.
Can’t speak to the others.

BTW, opening a caseback is “work”. What other word can be used to describe it? In fact work is defined as: effort directed to produce or accomplish something.

As well as closing it without pinching the gasket, or without the gasket, or not tight enough…don’t you think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Driver8]

Originally Posted by joli160

Using the correct tools they won’t be able to see if it was ever opened or not.
I don’t think there is an anti-tampering seal in a watch

Exactly. Opening and closing a caseback with the proper tools isn't rocket science, so if that's all you are doing (i.e. not replacing any parts or ruining screwheads, etc), then there's no way RSC could tell.

[chro.nic]

Maybe they won't have a problem with you opening it, however, they may say you failed to close it properly and deny warranty work based on that!!

.nic

[Easy Rhino]

I think I would satisfy my curiosity by other means than risking any potential problems that might arise from removing the case back. If using other than the correct tools leaves any mark and the RSC denies warranty coverage when corrosion is discovered inside the case from moisture intrusion, you would have essentially destroyed the watch and/or potentially have a tremendously expensive repair bill. There are great online videos that show the movements in detail, including being disassembled and serviced.

[Calatrava r]

If Rolex detects the watch was opened, I think they could successfully deny a warranty claim. How can you warrant a watch movement once it is opened. A piece of dust or trash fouls it up, that should not be Rolex's problem.

[TimeToTell]

Originally Posted by 77T

I’m sure about NYC RSC.
Can’t speak to the others.

BTW, opening a caseback is “work”. What other word can be used to describe it? In fact work is defined as: effort directed to produce or accomplish something.

As well as closing it without pinching the gasket, or without the gasket, or not tight enough…don’t you think?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

By that definition, opening the clasp prior to putting the watch on the wrist can void a warranty.

[watchluvr4ever]

Originally Posted by joli160

My picture was not that clear, indeed the proper die is needed and pressure testing is a must

It would appear you are using the proper tools and are good to go…of course you don’t need my approval.

[77T]

Originally Posted by TimeToTell

By that definition, opening the clasp prior to putting the watch on the wrist can void a warranty.

Not opening it or closing it - that is what it is designed to do.

Common sense my friend.

Casebacks aren’t designed for owners to open and close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Stan Cooper]

I've replaced the caseback on my 16710 GMT II with an exhibition caseback from Custom Watch Concepts (Thomas Preik) in Germany. When I send it to the NYC RSC for service, I replace it with the OEM steel caseback and pressure test it to 10 ATM before I send it in. The RSC has serviced my watch without any problem.

[lamnyc]

If you mess it up, it’s void.

[Gab27]

Technically, in the US, unless the process of removing the case back (or performing work when the case back is removed) is the actual cause of a failure, they cannot void your warranty. Further, in theory, if you were to damage the threading by removing the case back, it would not void the warranty on the movement.

In practice, if Rolex claims some action you took caused the failure and hence it voids the warranty, you may have legal ground to fight it, but it probably would cost you a lot more money to fight it than just accept their position. More than a few car dealerships do this sort of thing and generally seem to get away with it.

[swish77]

Originally Posted by 77T

BTW, opening a caseback is “work”. What other word can be used to describe it? In fact work is defined as: effort directed to produce or accomplish something.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I can see that interpretation, but I think it's debatable in the context of "working" on a watch. If you accept your broad definition, just removing the bracelet to put a Sub on a NATO strap is "work." I can't imagine that would void the warranty.

[Ten Ten & 32]

Main question is “why would you want to”

I have quite an extensive collection & have never felt the urge to remove the case back off any of them?

Why would I ???

[AlabamaLawyer1988]

Originally Posted by Stan Cooper

I've replaced the caseback on my 16710 GMT II with an exhibition caseback from Custom Watch Concepts (Thomas Preik) in Germany. When I send it to the NYC RSC for service, I replace it with the OEM steel caseback and pressure test it to 10 ATM before I send it in. The RSC has serviced my watch without any problem.

Way cool!

DM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DDPS]

It has long been my understanding - and I could be misinformed - that one’s watch technically, in spirit, would lose COSC certification if one took opening the back into one’s hands.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by 77T

The short answer is removing the caseback will void the guarantee if RSC detects that it was done.

“Any work carried out by third parties will render the guarantee null and void.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This.

Why open the case back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchluvr4ever]

Originally Posted by DDPS

It has long been my understanding - and I could be misinformed - that one’s watch technically, in spirit, would lose COSC certification if one took opening the back into one’s hands.

The assembled watch is not COSC certified, only the movement itself is. The “uncased” movement is what is tested by C.O.S.C. No offense but that’s the first time I’ve heard such nonsense.

[DDPS]

Originally Posted by watchluvr4ever

The assembled watch is not COSC certified, only the movement itself is. The “uncased” movement is what is tested by C.O.S.C. No offense but that’s the first time I’ve heard such nonsense.

I do understand that. I had heard it needed to be subsequently sealed from further access from non-certified individuals to maintain the status. It appears I am incorrect. Thank you for debunking this for me.