Automatic watches and sports
Mark Wilkins
And yet another post from someone seeking free information. I know the
topic of watch durability has been discussed at length quite a number of
times, but I haven't had much luck at finding posts of my specific interest
in the archives (probably just not choosing the correct search words). For
example the word "jogging" only appears in about 5 threads in all
alt.horology history in the google archives. "Running" appears quite often,
but not in the context that interests me. Well... running watches do
interest me :), but I am specifically interested in running while wearing
the watch.
I am wondering if it is reasonable to expect a watch with an automatic
movement to survive day-to-day wear. Basically, I would like to get an
automatic movement watch that I can wear 24 hours a day and not have to
worry about taking it off for certain activities.
I am a software engineer by trade, so my work environment obviously isn't
going to stress any watch. But I also like to go running/jogging, swimming,
bicycling, and downhill skiing. My co-workers and I also play Ultimate
Frisbee at lunch quite often. Would an activity like that be hard on an
automatic watch? It is (in theory) a non-contact sport, but there is
occasional contact (at high speed usually) with other players and sometimes
fairly solid contact with the ground in diving catches gone bad. And what
about more mundane activities such as mowing the lawn?
A lot of the companies seem happy to present their watches as sports
watches, but the two primary sports showcased seem to be golf and the timing
of people engaged in competitive activities. I understand that some people
value those things, but neither is going to put much strain on a watch. I am
curious to know if the constant pounding while jogging, bicycling, smacking
it against the side of the pool at the Y during a bad turn, etc. is really
hard on a watch. In other words, is it expected that the person engaged in
the sports wear a "sports" watch or only the spectators?
From a practical standpoint, the digital Timex I wear most of the time is
obviously much better suited to these activities, but I am considering
getting something nicer, but I don't want a watch that I have to leave in a
drawer all the time. Some of the Omega Seamaster watches are really calling
my name now (for example, the Aqua Terra sure seems nice). And I love the
idea of an automatic. Not really sure why, but I'm sure it is the same
factors that cause me to ride my bike to work more often than driving, make
espresso daily with a La Pavoni lever machine, prefer fountain pens to ball
points, and like playing my acoustic piano way better than my synthesizer.
It all seems rather anachronistic considering my profession as a programmer.
Or maybe that's exactly why I like those things. Whatever the reason, the
idea of a nice automatic watch sure appeals to me. I would just like to
know if the idea far outstrips the reality. Any opinions or testimonials?
Thanks,
Mark Wilkins
Thore Karlsen
It really depends on what kind of watch you're talking about. I've worn
my Seamaster for all kinds of activities and I haven't thought twice
about it. No problems so far. A Seamaster Pro should definitely be able
to handle anything you throw at it, and the Aqua Terra, although
slightly more dressy, should as well. The only unknown there is the
co-axial escapement, I'm not sure if that is more fragile or not. I
personally wouldn't worry about it.
Btw, I can relate. I'm also a software engineer, and I like mechanical
watches and mechanical things in general. I get more than enough high
tech at work, I don't need more of it at home. :)
--
Be seeing you.
hugo drax
"Mark Wilkins" <ma...@invaliddomain.com> wrote in message
news:8VPFb.2587$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Hi,
>
> And yet another post from someone seeking free information. I know the
> topic of watch durability has been discussed at length quite a number of
> times, but I haven't had much luck at finding posts of my specific
interest
> in the archives (probably just not choosing the correct search words).
For
> example the word "jogging" only appears in about 5 threads in all
> alt.horology history in the google archives. "Running" appears quite
often,
> but not in the context that interests me. Well... running watches do
> interest me :), but I am specifically interested in running while wearing
> the watch.
>
I would not feel comfortable wearing a 35,000 dollar limited edition VC
Toledo watch playing football :)
but then again for someone who can afford such a watch it probably feels
like buying a 19 dollar Amitron quartz in the local pharmacy, Broken VC, no
problem I will buy a new one on the way home.
Mark Wilkins
"Thore Karlsen" <s...@6581.com> wrote in message
news:03jfuvkqrna15doos...@4ax.com...<snip>
>
> It really depends on what kind of watch you're talking about. I've worn
> my Seamaster for all kinds of activities and I haven't thought twice
> about it. No problems so far. A Seamaster Pro should definitely be able
> to handle anything you throw at it, and the Aqua Terra, although
> slightly more dressy, should as well. The only unknown there is the
> co-axial escapement, I'm not sure if that is more fragile or not. I
> personally wouldn't worry about it.
Thanks for the information. That's what I was looking for. I was basically
trying to find out if I was completely misguided in planning to wear it for
"everything".
>
> Btw, I can relate. I'm also a software engineer, and I like mechanical
> watches and mechanical things in general. I get more than enough high
> tech at work, I don't need more of it at home. :)
I agree with that. I love programming and think it's the best possible job,
but I try to shift gears when I am away from work.
Thanks again,
Mark
Mark Wilkins
"hugo drax" <hugo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bs8o1r$aphgi$1...@ID-155262.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> I would not feel comfortable wearing a 35,000 dollar limited edition VC
> Toledo watch playing football :)
> but then again for someone who can afford such a watch it probably feels
> like buying a 19 dollar Amitron quartz in the local pharmacy, Broken VC,
no
> problem I will buy a new one on the way home.
>
>
Heh heh. I'm not sure I would wear any watch playing football. Of course
if I end up getting what I think is a "nice" watch, I may not feel
comfortable wearing as I planned. I'll have to see. If I break it, I won't
be picking up a new one on the way home :) But at least I'll have learned a
lesson, and my Timex will still be ticking (or whatever the digital
equivalent of ticking is).
Mark
Simon Bryquer
target price and in spite of some of the voices that once again might raise
the same old issues -- I would say almost any Rolex , especially the GMT
and the Subs (or if you're game the chrono Daytona) and can be considered an
all around work horse and although for the last years I've been wearing a
Zenith EP Class SS chrono 24/7 and almost never take it off, years ago I
wore a simple Rolex Explorer 24/7 and sometimes in extreme weather
conditions such as deserts and the tropics and for a stretch in freezing
temperatures and the watch never lost a beat, which is not what I can say
for some quartz that I tested when they first came out under similar
conditions, one actually melted, that is the circuitry.
Then again there are many others, one of my favorites from my youth is the
Doxa 300T now reissued as the 600T, if you're not familiar with it, take a
look:
http://www.doxawatches.com/new/sub600_reissue.html
Anyway you have many choices at a great range of prices. Remember though,
some of the cases in lesser known brands may look like the top sports
watches cases and bezels but their quality for what you have in mind might
not live up to the task.
Good luck ----------------------------------- Simon Bryquer
==============================================================
"Mark Wilkins" <ma...@invaliddomain.com> wrote in message
news:8VPFb.2587$lo3....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jack Denver
be able to withstand the range of activities you mention. Some people
caution against watch wearing during activities where the wrists are subject
to unusual acceleration or shock -e.g. swinging a golf club/baseball
bat/tennis racket. Nowadays, the balance is fairly well protected and the
biggest danger is to the automatic winding system - the relatively massive
rotor (much heavier than any other moving part of a watch) creates a lot of
stress on its axle during sudden acceleration. Of course if you wear an
expensive watch while sliding around in the dirt, you are bound to scratch
it up, which will reduce its value but not impair the function. Some people
don't care about such things, others "baby" them. Really, given the
economics and the alternatives available, you'd be nuts to roll in the dirt
with a Rolex Daytona, just as you don't see too many people driving their
Lincoln Navigators thru the woods. If you get a nice watch, my suggestion
would be to leave it home and wear a "beater" when you know in advance you
are going to be playing contact sports, etc. but not to worry too much if
you happen to find yourself in an impromptu game of Frisbee with your good
watch on.
A watch does not have to be especially expensive to withstand these rigors.
While an Omega or Rolex sport watch will stand up to sports wear, a Seiko or
Invicta diver has a similar waterproofing and shock resistance system and
should hold up equally well. Very high end "dress" watches such as Patek are
built with thinness and elegance in mind and should certainly not be abused,
any more than you should take a Ferrari offroading. As you point out, the
shock resistance of digital watches extends far beyond that of mechanical -
a specially constructed digital such as the Casio G-shock can withstand more
shock than your body can - you'll be unconscious/dead before the G-shock
quits running.
"Mark Wilkins" <ma...@invaliddomain.com> wrote in message news:8VPFb.2587$lo3
.1797@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Mark Wilkins
"Simon Bryquer" <sbry...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vXYFb.31624$0P1....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> I would second Thore's reply and add the following. Depending on your
> target price and in spite of some of the voices that once again might
raise
> the same old issues -- I would say almost any Rolex , especially the GMT
> and the Subs (or if you're game the chrono Daytona) and can be considered
an
> all around work horse and although for the last years I've been wearing a
> Zenith EP Class SS chrono 24/7 and almost never take it off, years ago I
> wore a simple Rolex Explorer 24/7 and sometimes in extreme weather
> conditions such as deserts and the tropics and for a stretch in freezing
> temperatures and the watch never lost a beat, which is not what I can say
> for some quartz that I tested when they first came out under similar
> conditions, one actually melted, that is the circuitry.
I'm fairly certain that I will never put a watch through those kinds of
extremes. I live a pretty sedate life by comparison, but it's good to hear
that they hold up well under those conditions. From what little I know
about Rolex watches, they cost a bit more than I want to spend. However,
the one thing I found interesting in my very unscientific search of old
alt.horology postings is that that the name Rolex seems to come up most
often (and in a positive fashion) when discussing the wearing of watches in
"strenuous" activities.
>
> Then again there are many others, one of my favorites from my youth is the
> Doxa 300T now reissued as the 600T, if you're not familiar with it, take a
> look:
>
> http://www.doxawatches.com/new/sub600_reissue.html
I haven't heard of that watch before. I'll have to study it some. At first
glance, it doesn't appeal to me, but that could be the affects of the great
amounts of money that the big players have spent on marketing to make me
think they sell the ultimate watch. :)
Thank you for the information. You have given me some more ideas to
explore.
Mark
Mark Wilkins
activities I regularly participate in will not cause problems for an
automatic movement. I like Jack Denver's advice of the separate "beater"
watch. Of course if I do that, it may be the only one I wear. Maybe I'll
just start there and see if I still want the "good" one. :) I'm sure that
if I get something like an Omega Seamaster, I will be incredibly sad the
very first time I scratch it (which would probably happen in the first
couple days). My intentions to wear it 24/7 would immediately come under
serious scrutiny at that point.
Well I have a more good information to work with in my search.
Thanks again,
Mark Wilkins
"Michael" <watch.2...@9MMvs45ACP.com> wrote in message
news:ciojuv0okke6ekpkr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:55:32 GMT, "Mark Wilkins"
> <ma...@invaliddomain.com>, wrote the following in alt.horology:
>
> > I am wondering if it is reasonable to expect a watch with an automatic
> > movement to survive day-to-day wear.
>
> I regularly shoot 8 rounds (25 shells/round) of trap over the course of
> an afternoon. Or participate in handgun competitions involving 200-300
> rounds of ammo sent downrange.
>
> I don't give a second thought to wearing one of my "everyday" automatics
> when engaging in such activities. Invicta (an 8926), Oris (BC3), Omega
> (SMP), etc., seem to suffer the recoil of a 12ga shotgun, or a .45acp
> pistol, without ill effect.
>
> On the other hand, if I had a $20,000 Patek Phillippe dress watch, I
> probably wouldn't risk it.
> --
> Michael
y_p_w
> I am wondering if it is reasonable to expect a watch with an automatic
> movement to survive day-to-day wear. Basically, I would like to get an
> automatic movement watch that I can wear 24 hours a day and not have to
> worry about taking it off for certain activities.
Honestly - you might think athletic activity might be hard on a watch.
You mentioned sports and jogging, which frankly aren't that "violent"
to a watch save a direct impact damaging the watch. I'd think the most
violent thing to happen to a watch would be the simple act of clapping
one's hands. It's a quick acceleration with an almost instant rebound.
P. Bianchi
news:8VPFb.2587
> movement to survive day-to-day wear. Basically, I would like to get an
> automatic movement watch that I can wear 24 hours a day and not have to
> worry about taking it off for certain activities.
Rolexes are sturdy. Buy the simplest Explorer I or Air King, snap it on and
forget it.
Enjoy, ciao
B.
Jack Denver
more so than any other modern shock protected water resistant watch. And
nowhere near as rugged as some of the shock protected digitals such as the
Casio G-shock.
I get the feeling some people say "well this Rolex costs $3,000 but at
least it is very rugged." They are fooling themselves.Fifty years ago
incablock shock protection and screwdown crowns and backs were fairly rare
and you had to buy a Rolex or equivalent to get them (and at the time a
Rolex was only a couple of hundred $). Nowadays, there are watches around
$100 that have these features but Rolex charges 30x that much.
"P. Bianchi" <ppbi...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:bshqu9$ctthn$1...@ID-163647.news.uni-berlin.de...
KLEE
> This is a myth - Rolexes are indeed sturdy for a mechanical watch but no
> more so than any other modern shock protected water resistant watch. And
> nowhere near as rugged as some of the shock protected digitals such as the
> Casio G-shock.
>
> I get the feeling some people say "well this Rolex costs $3,000 but at
> least it is very rugged." They are fooling themselves.Fifty years ago
> incablock shock protection and screwdown crowns and backs were fairly rare
> and you had to buy a Rolex or equivalent to get them (and at the time a
> Rolex was only a couple of hundred $). Nowadays, there are watches around
> $100 that have these features but Rolex charges 30x that much.
>
Thanks Jack for contributing with interesting point of the issue.
Often you hear people say RolexĀ“ s movements are sturdier than other
brands mainly because they are much thicker. Is thickness relevant at all
when it comes to sturdiness (regardless of having incabloc) ?
B rgds
/Keo
Jack Denver
ultrathin movement for a dress watch. There was a point just before quartz
where manufacturers used thinness as a point to compete on for bragging
rights. Some of these movements took thinness too far, to the point where
the entire watch was subject to flexing and indeed compromised ruggedness as
a result. But if you compare the Rolex movement to other modern automatic
calibers (e.g. ETA 28 series) it is not significantly thicker.
"KLEE" <remove_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FEF2F2C...@hotmail.com...
K Le
> Rolex movements are thick in relation to something like a Patek or other
> ultrathin movement for a dress watch. There was a point just before quartz
> where manufacturers used thinness as a point to compete on for bragging
> rights. Some of these movements took thinness too far, to the point where
> the entire watch was subject to flexing and indeed compromised ruggedness as
> a result. But if you compare the Rolex movement to other modern automatic
> calibers (e.g. ETA 28 series) it is not significantly thicker.
>
Thanks for input.
But isnĀ“t 2892-A2, widely used movement, considerably thinner
than the Rolex? (I donĀ“t have the figures now..)
But if the thickness itself doesnĀ“t affect ruggedness then my
question is not needed
/keo
Jack Denver
ultrathin movements where the entire watch is prone to flexing. Otherwise,
thickness per se is not relevant - probably factors like the strength of the
pivots are more important and if anything a lighter watch will generate less
force on itself when dropped. To repeat, no mechanical watch can withstand
severe shock (e.g. being dropped out of window of building) but there are
many digitals that are unaffected by such shocks (e.g. Casio G-shock). If
you can expect severe shocks in your line of work you would be well advised
to go with a G-shock or equivalent rather than a Rolex or any other
mechanical watch. Not to mention that the repair costs on the Rolex will be
astronomical once you succeed in breaking the rotor pivot (a typical failure
point for Rolex because they insist on jeweling the rotor (lower friction)
vs. putting it on ball bearings (higher friction but a much stronger
bearing).
Again to repeat - 50 or 60 years ago Rolex stood out from the crowd as
offering superior water resistance and shock resistance and this is when
they gained their "rugged" reputation - they were indeed rugged in relation
to grandpa's pocket watch which was neither water nor shock resistant. But
by modern standards, especially the standards of digital shock resistant
pieces, they are nothing special, actually rather lame if you are judging
just by "ruggedness".
"K Le" <tavack_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FF046A8...@hotmail.com...
Al
watches carefully and am dying to know: what about activities
that result in a few seconds of VIGOROUS back-and-forth hand
movements?
Specifically, I'm thinking about shaking up drinks in my
cocktail shaker, but I figure you already assumed that. ;-)
Seriously! I was shaking a martini tonight, and the missus
likes hers shaken with gusto! I'm more than happy to oblige,
but became worried about the effects on my watch (Tissot with
an ETA 2824-2.)
Shall I remove it before shaking?
Bottoms up,
Al
y_...@hotmail.com (y_p_w) wrote in message news:<591da479.03122...@posting.google.com>...
dAz
> Again to repeat - 50 or 60 years ago Rolex stood out from the crowd as
> offering superior water resistance and shock resistance and this is when
> they gained their "rugged" reputation - they were indeed rugged in
> relation to grandpa's pocket watch which was neither water nor shock
> resistant. But by modern standards, especially the standards of digital
> shock resistant pieces, they are nothing special, actually rather lame
> if you are judging just by "ruggedness".
I never considered Rolex to be "rugged", if someone wanted a tough watch
25 years ago, I would tell them to buy a Certina DS, the movement was
enclosed in a metal frame with very thick rubber shock ring suspending the
frame in the case, combined with a strong case, very thick armoured plexi
it was a watch that could take a lot of knocks
Jack Denver
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2681947142&category=31387
Quite fashionable again at 44mm. Talk about thick -this watch is 17mm thick
(almost 3/4 in.) . I'm sure that it won't fit under a lot of shirt cuffs -
like wearing a turnip on your wrist.
Of course nowadays the Rolex is too expensive to even consider for truly
rough use - construction, etc. Again, a G-shock is what you want nowadays if
you really want a watch that can take a beating.
"dAz" <da...@nonspam-zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ff0b151$0$18750$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Jack Forster
around 3.6 mm in height.
AFAIK some of the components of the Rolex are stronger than the ETA, esp. fa
the balance pivots which are a different shape in the Rolex. My
understanding is that the 2892 is not considered the most robust of ETA's
movements, which is not to say that it wouldn't be perfectly fine for
everyday use; but as I recall the 2824 which is thicker at 4.6 mm is
sometimes preferred by 3rd party manufacturers (Doxa uses the 2824 fe in the
re-issue of the Shark Hunter.) OTOH the 2892 is certainly used in its share
of sports watches as well, so I don't know how significant any real world
difference is between these three. Ruggedness in real world use probably
has at least as much to do with the case as the movement except in extreme
circumstances.
Regards,
Jack Forster
"K Le" <tavack_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FF046A8...@hotmail.com...
KLEE
> I would say that thickness affects ruggedness only in extreme cases, as in
> ultrathin movements where the entire watch is prone to flexing. Otherwise,
> thickness per se is not relevant - probably factors like the strength of the
> pivots are more important and if anything a lighter watch will generate less
> force on itself when dropped. To repeat, no mechanical watch can withstand
> severe shock (e.g. being dropped out of window of building) but there are
> many digitals that are unaffected by such shocks (e.g. Casio G-shock). If
> you can expect severe shocks in your line of work you would be well advised
> to go with a G-shock or equivalent rather than a Rolex or any other
> mechanical watch. Not to mention that the repair costs on the Rolex will be
> astronomical once you succeed in breaking the rotor pivot (a typical failure
> point for Rolex because they insist on jeweling the rotor (lower friction)
> vs. putting it on ball bearings (higher friction but a much stronger
> bearing).
Hi Jack, thanks for insight.
Since I m an amature with no knowledge on how watches work I tend
to believe what I read on different forums/reviews and so on.
And in many cases, what IĀ“ ve read is that Rolex watches are more
rugged since they are thicker and in-house (!).
But now IĀ“ve got things straightened out.
The "typical failure" of Rolex rotor youĀ“ve mentioned - yes, IĀ“ve
encountered that statement before too.
>
>
> Again to repeat - 50 or 60 years ago Rolex stood out from the crowd as
> offering superior water resistance and shock resistance and this is when
> they gained their "rugged" reputation - they were indeed rugged in relation
> to grandpa's pocket watch which was neither water nor shock resistant. But
> by modern standards, especially the standards of digital shock resistant
> pieces, they are nothing special, actually rather lame if you are judging
> just by "ruggedness".
>
People (Rolex owners) have been telling remarkable stories on how
their Rolex (e.g. Submariner) has stood up against severe abuse and
licking, it surely sounds like they were wearing a Casio G-shock
rather than a mechanical piece.
IĀ“m little bit confused here.. the shop clerk (where I bought my SMP)
told me to never wear a mechanical watch while playing golf,
while other told me that most sports and other daily activities
arenĀ“t gonna harm it - e.g. mountainbiking,
hot saunas, shooting, golf etc. Why are the answers so sundry?
/Keo
KLEE
> Hi guys, Rolex Caliber 3135 is about 6 mm in height and ETA Caliber 2892 is
> around 3.6 mm in height.
Ah, those were the figures I was looking for, thanks.
>
>
> AFAIK some of the components of the Rolex are stronger than the ETA, esp. fa
> the balance pivots which are a different shape in the Rolex. My
> understanding is that the 2892 is not considered the most robust of ETA's
> movements, which is not to say that it wouldn't be perfectly fine for
> everyday use; but as I recall the 2824 which is thicker at 4.6 mm is
> sometimes preferred by 3rd party manufacturers (Doxa uses the 2824 fe in the
> re-issue of the Shark Hunter.) OTOH the 2892 is certainly used in its share
> of sports watches as well, so I don't know how significant any real world
> difference is between these three. Ruggedness in real world use probably
> has at least as much to do with the case as the movement except in extreme
> circumstances.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jack Forster
>
Ię»l leave it to the proę to comment on whether the 2.4 mm in difference
between the Rolex and ETA 2892 is any significant.
Perhaps it is as you say, that other factors are more important such as
the case.
/Keo
Jack Forster
It depends to some extent on what you mean by "rugged," I think. As Jack
Denver mentioned earlier once you have a reasonably thick (that is to say
not ultra-thin) movement with shock protection, what really seems to
distinguish sports watches from dress watches is mainly the case design.
The most fragile part of any mechanical watch is usually the balance pivots
and that is certainly the first thing that will give if the watch is
subjected to a severe blow or sudden acceleration or deceleration. A solid
state watch with no moving parts like the G-Shock is immune to the physical
displacement of moving parts since it doesn't have any to begin with. I've
seen many comments about the hazards of golf ;-) to watches over the years-
the Grand Seiko owner's manual, for instance, advises against golfing with
the watch on the wrist- and though I could speculate I have no idea why
golfing in particular should present such a problem. My guess is that the
high side load on the balance pivots combined with the physical shock of
impact with the ball, produces a higher than usual risk of breakage. I've
actually had a 2824 based watch stop on me while playing golf, though it
started up again when gently shaken (the watch lover's equivalent of turning
your computer off and then on again when it gives you trouble.) OTOH I am
sure that many Rolexes have traveled through many rounds of golf with no ill
effects. The most noticeable difference between sports and dress watches as
far as I can tell is that sports watches are designed to offer more
protection to the movement- mainly in the form of a thick heavy case with
better than average protection against penetration by water, protection for
the crown and crystal, a screwdown caseback and crown, and so on.
Jack Forster
"KLEE" <remove_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FF16FA2...@hotmail.com...
KLEE
Hi Jack, thanks for your reply.
Not that Ię“ a golf player but I will certainly take your advice on being
careful with various activities. Ięe heard that it isnę the impact itself that
inflict damage on the watch (while playing golf) but the fast swing will
probably harm the rotor.
I know from personal experience that occasional bumps and daily life
shocks are well managed by the watch,
I havenę really had the guts enough to
put it under severe stress. I once dropped a Swatch automatic on
concrete floor but nevertheless, it worked flawlessly. I suspect that
plastic materials in the case are better shock absorbers than stainless
steel? (Donę wanna try though with my SMP) :)
B rgds
/Keo
Simon Bryquer
Arnold Palmer as for years played golf, and I've seen him myself in
tournaments, always wearing his gold President on the wrist. Now I don't
know if it's the same watch but I have a feeling based on my own experience
wearing a simple Explorer or the basic Datejust and taking these watches
through extreme conditions of temperature and various intensity of physical
movement in and out of water the Rolex never lost a beat -- which is not
what I can say about some watches with other movements such as certain ETAs
and I know of a friend that has a look alike Rolex Invicta which did not
fare too well in water and regular gym workouts after six months or so.
Now all of this is of course anecdotal -- but I know from personal
experience that Rolex, for me, as always been the most resistant and rugged
work horse, certainly 20 years ago and even today. I know there are more
sport watches on the market today than ever before and some are even more
rugged and WR under all conditions but I also know of many that claim the
equivalent ruggedness of a Rolex and are not. Personally without having
made a great study of the subject I think it is the Rolex Oyster case and
such things as the 'quite complicated' screwdown crown ( one of the elements
if examined closely will be seen as being very different in tooling and
manufacturing detail than some of the contenders) and the very material that
is used for the gaskets and the special ceramic for certain elements of the
movement.
Again the old argument that Rolex is too expensive and one can get identical
qualities in a watch for much. . . much less and etc. but it does not take
away from Rolex constant R&D (yes I know they have taken credit for certain
innovations which were not exactly new and they were not really theirs or
the first) has always been active improving their watches with small details
and increments to the movement and other mechanical devices (e.g. the shock
resistant spring beneath the bezels) that are not that obvious to the naked
eye or upon casual examination -- this is not something one can say for the
Invictas of this world, companies like Invicta don't have R&D they simply
copy with a variation what others invent and innovate.
Again I no longer wear my Rolexes, but that is for personal reasons and much
more to do with taste rather than a question of Rolex quality and yes Rolex
for years had been the whipping boy -- for whatever reasons -- of many
involved with high end watches. But for me Rolex has been a constant ( and
in some cases -- pun intended -- has not really changed its general look and
style in 50 years) for almost a century and so far as I know as never tried
to compete or go up against the likes of Patek Philippe, Vacheron, though
Audemars Piguet has challenged Rolex with their Royal Oak but we all know
that Rolex keeps on rolling along through good and bad economic climates and
various horological advents without missing a beat is still the top selling
expensive brand and in addition is one of the few if not the only watch that
cannot be bought NEW in box on the gray market and no dealer that wants to
keep their dealership and keep on selling Rolex will give more than 10%
discount ( that's a Rolex mandate) if that and if you're a good customer (
at one point one could get more of a discount on 47th St. in NY, the jewelry
district, but no more) and if someone were, for whatever reasons,
contemplate and consider buying a NEW Rolex I would strongly recommend,
because of the superb fakes floating around -- the best of all replicas,
buying from a Rolex dealer and even then immediately take it to Rolex under
the guise of a check up to make sure, because one never knows even then and
that is one of the worst downside of wanting to buy a Rolex --fakes.
Why have said all this -- because there is an Italian saying that goes
something like this: The rich always keep the mouth of everybody else busy
talking about them.
Seasons Greetings one and all --------------------------------- Simon
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fCfIb.69861$4F2.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Jack Denver
others say it makes no difference. I get the feeling that if the rotor
breaks on Palmer's Rolex he's not too worried - Rolex will take care of it
not problem. You OTOH, would get a hefty bill if the watch was out of
warranty.
Frankly, the quality control on Invictas is somewhat spotty. It is not
unusual to receive one that is DOA. You have to cut some corners to put out
that much watch for $100 (and the Invicta is a lotta watch for that price -
that it can be spoken of in the same paragraph as Rolex when it sells for
what Rolex would charge you for a bracelet link is amazing). It's also
probably not impossible to find one in which the gasket was not properly
installed or the back tightened to the right torque. Or maybe your friend
left the crown open - this can happen to a Rolex the same as to a $100
watch. But, the construction of the Oyster case is not the technical wonder
it once was. Start with a stainless case. Add a screw down caseback and a
screwdown crown, both with gaskets and you have a water resistant watch. All
the patents, etc. fell into the public domain decades ago and there are no
secrets left. You don't have to spend $3,000 to get this. And remember the
choice is not either the $3,000 Rolex or the $100 Invicta. There are many
watches with flawless reputation and good quality control that start at say
$300 or so.
The fancy triple lock crown on the Rolex may indeed serve a role at 300
meters. Next time I go diving at 300 meters, I'm getting a Rolex for sure.
Fortunately, very few people take their Rolex or other "dive" watches any
deeper than their backyard swimming pool. For such use (or even at normal
diving depth e.g. under 50 meters) any screwdown crown will do.
The stuff about Rolex R&D is bull. All the elements in a submariner have
been known for 50 years or more. It's R&D is about as current as a '57
Chevy. Rolex's R&D budget in relation to its revenues (or its advertising
budget) is laughable. The last "big" innovation was that they etch the Rolex
emblem in the crystal. Yawn. You're right that those many makes that buy
movements from ETA spend even less (i.e. nothing) - in the land of the
blind, the one eyed man is king.
Rolex indeed has some kind of mojo going that keeps them in demand, but it
has very little to do with the technical merits of the watch, which while a
fairly solid watch is really not that special (especially in relation to the
price charged).
"Simon Bryquer" <sbry...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jGhIb.90006$0P1....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Urban Fredriksson
Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> The last "big" innovation was that they etch the Rolex
>emblem in the crystal.
I thought it had to do with the qualities of a new oil
composition.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Things that try to look like things often look more like
things than things do.
Jack Forster
that increases the recommended service interval to 10 years. Well respected
industry professionals like Guilio Papi, head of Renaud et Papi, who make
high end complications for Audemars Piguet, have commented favorably on
Rolex R&D, and John Davis, who is a WOSTEP watchmaking school graduate, a
highly regarded writer for IWW, and a moderator on the Watchrap forum for
ThePuristS.com, has commented on several occasions on what he feels are the
many attractive technical aspects of Rolex movements and the steady stream
of incremental improvements they have made to them. There are some
surprisingly traditional and easily visible qualitative differences between
Rolexes and other watches at competing price points, such as their
proprietary balance pivot shape, their use of an adjustable mass/overcoil
balance, adjustment to five positions, etc. etc. My own feeling is that it
is very difficult to have a truly informed opinion on any of these issues-
you would have to review Rolex's recent patent history (which is available
online, by the way) as well as compare critical engineering and
metallurgical differences between their movements and comparable ETA
movements in order to present a genuinely factually informed opinion. As a
rule I personally try very hard to avoid unsubstantiated sweeping
generalizations, because the more I learn about watches, watchmaking, and
the business of watch selling, the more I realize that it is quite a bit
more difficult to properly evaluate a movement than you might think. Just
about every movement- even really well regarded movements, like the Zenith
El Primero- contain sometimes shocking compromises or apparently conflicting
engineering decisions. Girard Perregaux for instance make really wonderful
watches IMHO but John just reviewed the movement in the GP Vintage 1945- one
of my favorite watches, especially in the moonphase iteration- and several
of the wheels on the dial side are actually permanently riveted to the
plate. I can just imagine what a stink there'd be if Rolex did something
like that. And this isn't an isolated incident- there are engineering
quirks in every movement I've ever researched in depth, that range from, er,
quirky, to downright bizarre/perverse.
Rolex is an easy target but at a certain point, if you're serious, it
behooves one to look a little deeper than conventional wisdom and admit
that, at the very least, there may be more to the story than is apparent at
a first or second look. Basically though every modern movement, almost
without exception, represents a blend of aspirations and compromises. Which
one you choose to focus on is a matter of taste and whether you're a glass
half full, or glass half empty kind of guy or gal.
Regards,
Jack Forster
"Urban Fredriksson" <gri...@canit.se> wrote in message
news:bsts22$c...@uno.canit.se...
Jack Denver
in general has a very stunted view of technical innovation, so if you
operate from that midget perspective, using a new oil is a major technical
breakthru. In any other industry that would be a joke. As I said before,
Rolex R&D compares favorably with the R&D of many other brands, especially
because most don't bother with that R&D stuff at all, they just call up ETA
and tell them how many movements to send over. All mass produced products,
even rather high priced ones, contain compromises from the standard of
absolute perfection. It cannot be otherwise. When a respected horologist
points out Rolexes technical qualities, his words have some weight (but
again remember that they are speaking from the narrow perspective of
mechanical horology where things move very very slowly and small things
appear large). But when the man on the street tells you his Rolex is "tough"
he is just repeating an urban legend.
The truth about Rolex lies somewhere inbetween - they are neither the shoddy
junk portrayed in the famous Timezone Odets review nor are they the watch
that outshines all other watches that Rolex fans say it is. But, and I think
this is undeniable, their price increases in recent years have outpaced
inflation and the watches can hardly be said to be bargain priced for what
you are getting.
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:CRAIb.37059$cM1.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Jack Forster
your comment re: the bar not being set very high for R and D. On the other
hand there are exceptions- take the co-axial escapement for instance.
Basically the first new escapement to be introduced since the Swiss lever
took the world by storm, and it's happening today. There is a certain
amount of innovation, although my totally unsystematic impression is that a
lot of it is confined to higher end pieces. The UN Freak is a case in
point, or the Harry Winston Opus 3. These things seem to fulfill the same
function as concept cars do for Detroit; we groundlings kind of sit around
hoping that the good stuff will trickle down to some extent. What was it,
thirty years between Daniel's first bespoke coaxial pocketwatch and Omega's
first LE production model?
Incidentally God forbid we should leave off slagging Rolex. . . where would
long threads be without them ;-)? The whole idea of "value for the dollar"
strikes me personally as a difficult thing to pin down, especially in the
context of luxury goods, which operate AFAIK according to different market
forces. People often go on about "value" as if it were a concept with
stable parameters across every item from pork bellies to Tiffany diamonds,
and of course it isn't- at least, I don't think it is. Brand prestige, for
instance, is a silly concept in pork bellies but it's a critical component
of perceived values in luxury goods, where a few grams of carbon atoms
disposed in an attractive crystalline configuration can command idiotic
prices. The particular peculiarity with watches is that they're at an
intersection of utility, craft, and image where such a high degree of
subjectivity is operating that it's very difficult to have a conversation
about them where everyone's on the same page. Like that old Chinese saying,
"the duck talking to the chicken."
The other interesting thing for me is how people's opinions and perceptions
are fluid over time. John, for instance, told me a while back while we were
discussing the movements from a very well known high end manufactory, that
at first he hated them- they took a lot of massaging, sometimes over a
period of days, before they were reasonably well regulated after servicing.
He had a chat about them with another Big Name in internet watch reviewing
who commented to him, "But that's exactly what I like about them! Who wants
an assembly line watch that doesn't take any human skill to make run well?"
So now John's gone from loathing them (his first impression) to finding them
fascinating pieces of machinery with appealingly idiosyncratic
personalities.
I basically agree with your last comment about Rolex price increases,
although I'm not sure I agree that they don't offer value for the dollar
when looked at from the slightly skewed value system of the luxury goods
market in general. Brand name recognition, prestige, etc. are part of the
value you pay for with Rolex, and for a lot of people there's considerable
pleasure, and value, in those components of the product- in fact for a lot
of Rolex owners despite the many good points Rolexes have mechanically those
may well be the ONLY components they're interested in. Personally if I were
in the market for a carefully adjusted, machine made watch at a 5k or less
price point, I don't know that Rolex would be my first choice- but I don't
know that they'd be my last either. At the end of the day, I'm probably
buying vintage anyway ;-) . I'm pretty slow with a dollar, to tell the
truth- the watch I'm proudest of is a vintage chronometer grade GP Gyromatic
which cost me all of a hundred and forty bucks, so don't take me too
seriously when I go on about luxury watches.
Regards,
Jack Forster
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:LsidncYfHK-...@comcast.com...
Thore Karlsen
wrote:
[...]
>Incidentally God forbid we should leave off slagging Rolex. . . where would
>long threads be without them ;-)? The whole idea of "value for the dollar"
>strikes me personally as a difficult thing to pin down, especially in the
>context of luxury goods, which operate AFAIK according to different market
>forces.
Well, not really. You can compare to other watches in the same market.
Rolex is a terrible value compared to many, many high-end watches. And I
say this as a Rolex owner. :)
--
Be seeing you.
Jack Denver
watchmaking, especially from mass market pieces.It is a mature niche market,
to put it mildly. There haven't been that many technical breakthrus in stage
coach design either since the automobile came in. In the Freak and watches
like it the novelty and cleverness itself is the selling point and you pay
dearly for it. In quartz where the real action is, we see fresh stuff in
mass market items, or at least in the first tier above the dimestore - the
Seiko Kinetic, the perpetuals that are accurate to 20 sec/ yr, etc. For $200
in a mechanical watch no one expects anything innovative.
Value for dollar is a difficult thing to pin. The extreme argument is that
is a market economy value by definition equals price. But if you accept that
definition, then not only is there no such thing as an overpriced item, but
there is no such thing as a bargain either. I think our real life experience
tells us the market is not that perfect. There are indeed items that are
(especially on a subjective basis) worth more to us than we are charged for
them, and others that are rip-offs that we avoid if we can. Another way of
thinking about it is to consider a Rolex (or other brand name good) to be
part for the item itself and partly for associated intangibles. At one
extreme take something like painting by a famous artist. A Picasso painting
is just a piece of canvas with some paint on it. It's "value" as a tangible
object is under $20, yet people pay millions because of the famous
signature. We call such items "collectibles". At the other extreme, take
something like a sack of potatoes at the supermarket. Almost all of its
value is attributable to its utility (in this case, that you can eat them).
Putting a famous name on the bag adds almost nothing to its value. You
cannot expect to resell such an item for the same or greater value if you
hold on to it. Items like that we call "commodities". Watches fall somewhere
in the middle of this spectrum, but I'd say that in recent years Rolex has
migrated away from the "commodity" end of the spectrum and more toward the
"collectible" end. I'd also say that in most manufactured goods there is a
"sweet spot" - you don't want to buy the cheapest priced item on the market
because too many compromises will have been taken and the item will not be
worth even its cheap price (e.g. the Yugo automobile, $5 Chinese watch on
Canal Street). OTOH, you do not want to buy the most expensive item either
(unless you happen to be drowning in money and don't care) because at some
point you see diminishing returns - $100 speakers are more than 10x better
than $10 speakers, but $1000 speakers are not 10x better than $100 speakers.
Again, I'd say for myself (and where the sweet spot is is always
subjective) that Rolex nowadays is above the sweet spot.
Your preference for vintage pieces is no mistake - there has been a real
deterioration in craftsmanship. People today ooh and ah over Lange and pay
big bucks for them as if it were some miracle of the watchmakers art, when
the level of craftsmanship is no better than what was routinely available in
a good American pocket watch eighty years ago (and these were not
ultra-luxury items, they were not cheap in their time but they were within
the budgets of the middle class and made by the millions). Of course many of
these same pocket watches still survive today and a $500 Hamilton I think
compares very favorably with a $8,000 Lange.
Perceptions do change according to what the market perceives as "good".
And of course advertising is the art/science of manipulating our
perceptions. So, for example, nowadays we consider a watch with a second
hand that ticks once per second as "uncool", something associated with
dimestore watches and that therefore the rich/well informed should avoid.
But 40 years ago Rolex (in the Tru-Beat) was pushing the idea that a
jumping second hand was a special refinement to the mechanical watch, that
it was expensive and ultra-cool, while sweep seconds were old-fashioned and
"out". So you can have a complete role reversal - the exact same item (the
jumping second) is either "luxury" or "tacky" depending on the context and
what advertisers tell us it is. Especially in luxury goods, part of being
good is the high price itself, and of having something that the filthly
masses don't possess. What you have doesn't necessarily have to be better,
it just has to be rarer and more exclusive and therefore "cooler". This may
require the "cool people" to resort to pretzel logic, as you describe - a
handmade item is "better" than a machine made item because it runs less well
and therefore requires more "love". You have to submit idiots like that to
the "granny" test. You explain the concept to some wise old relative of
yours (living or dead) and if he/she laughs in your face, it has failed the
granny test.
"Coolness" also varies according to the tenor of the times - I have in my
kitchen a tin of biscuits whose label design dates from the early twentieth
century. At that time, industrialization was perceived as being "good" - you
wanted your cookies to come from a "scientific" and sanitary factory and
pictured on the tin is a picture of the very industrial looking cookie
factory, complete with belching smokestacks. "Luigi the baker" was the
opposite of what you wanted, with his stained apron and not too clean hands
in the dough. Today, perception has reverse and "handmade" is a virtue, so
that various factory made products pretend to be handmade (e.g. Rolex) or
have fictional surrogates ("Sam Breakstone", who you are supposed to believe
personally makes all the cottage cheese).
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m4DIb.72458$4F2.6...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Olaf Peuss
> Not to mention that the repair costs on the Rolex
> will be astronomical once you succeed in breaking the rotor pivot (a
> typical failure point for Rolex because they insist on jeweling the
> rotor (lower friction) vs. putting it on ball bearings (higher
> friction but a much stronger bearing).
I believe that the reason why Rolex insists of jeweling the rotor is the
lower noise level at which the rotor runs - at least as long as the rotor
pivoting point is intact. There's certainly a reason why the rest of the
watchmaking world gladly adapted Eterna's invention of the rotor ball
bearing as soon as the patens ran out. :-)
> Again to repeat - 50 or 60 years ago Rolex stood out from the crowd as
> offering superior water resistance and shock resistance and this is
> when they gained their "rugged" reputation - they were indeed rugged
> in relation to grandpa's pocket watch which was neither water nor
> shock resistant. But by modern standards, especially the standards of
> digital shock resistant pieces, they are nothing special, actually
> rather lame if you are judging just by "ruggedness".
I don't think it's a big secret that digital watches are more
shock-resistant than analogue ones as they don't have any mechanical parts
that could break when exposed to physical forces such as acceleration. It's
just the looks of digital watches that still makes me favour self-winding
analogue ones - and the fascination with precision mechanics.
Kind regards,
Olaf
Please use "reply to" address for e-mail.
Jack Denver
rugged - a Rolex or a Casio?" , he is apt to say Rolex, even though it's not
true. Rolex has spend almost a century building a myth and such myths take a
long time to catch up with reality.
"Olaf Peuss" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bt49l2$emk$1...@online.de...
Olaf Peuss
> I beg to differ... if you ask the man on the street - "Which is more
> rugged - a Rolex or a Casio?" , he is apt to say Rolex, even though
> it's not true. Rolex has spend almost a century building a myth and
> such myths take a long time to catch up with reality.
I bet that the "man in the street" wouldn't even know that a typical Rolex
is a mechanical watch, or they wouldn't even know that there are still
mechanical watches around. :-> When I said that it isn't a big secret that
digital watches are more shock-restistant than analogue ones, of course I
meant that it isn't a big secret among people who are at least slightly
literate in horology, something which "the man in the street" certainly
isn't.
KLEE
> Jack Denver wrote:
>
> I bet that the "man in the street" wouldn't even know that a typical Rolex
> is a mechanical watch, or they wouldn't even know that there are still
> mechanical watches around. :-> When I said that it isn't a big secret that
> digital watches are more shock-restistant than analogue ones, of course I
> meant that it isn't a big secret among people who are at least slightly
> literate in horology, something which "the man in the street" certainly
> isn't.
>
> Kind regards,
> Olaf
...Which reminds me of me walking into the watch store some years ago and
wanted
to look at some Seamasters. I didnĀ“t know the differences between a quartz vs
mechanical back then. I thought the mechanical watch was equivalent to the
Kinetic. ;). The clerk told me a battery-run watch is much more rugged than
the mechanical and she recommended me to purchase the quartz version.
Which I did.
/Keko
Jack Forster
for us to forget but I think most people (whatever that means!) don't have
the slightest idea what's inside their watches and aren't interested for the
most part. Despite all our impassioned discussion I have a feeling that it
would come as a big surprised to many people who nonetheless recognize the
Rolex name to find out that they don't run on batteries :-) .
Jack Forster
"Olaf Peuss" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:bt5sp8$7ln$1...@online.de...