Mechanical vs. Quartz Watches
Thorsten Hofmann
Sorry about my total ignorance, but as I pointed out in my previous
threads, I am completely new to this topic.
It seems like every high grade watch is mechanical, i. e. no quartz,
no battery, plain "automatic" or winded by hand. Is there a technical
reason from that, apart from the mechanical approach being more
skilled?
If you compare a good quartz watch with a mechanical one, what can be
said about the accuracy of both? Is a very high grade movement needed
to get a comparable accuracy or what does one have to spend for
getting equal precision?
I'm looking forward to getting some deeper insights.
Thanks in advance
Thorsten
--
Suche: Günstige Mamiya RB(RZ) 67 mit 90 mm Sekor
Günstigen 6x7 Projektor (Haha)
Thore Karlsen
<thorste...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Hi everybody!
>
>Sorry about my total ignorance, but as I pointed out in my previous
>threads, I am completely new to this topic.
>
>It seems like every high grade watch is mechanical, i. e. no quartz,
>no battery, plain "automatic" or winded by hand. Is there a technical
>reason from that, apart from the mechanical approach being more
>skilled?
No real technical reason, apart perhaps from longevity. Mechanical
watches are typically meant to and made to last longer than your typical
quartz watch. But you're right, there are very few good high end watches
that are quartz, compared to mechanical watches. There are some good
ones, but I think people (I know I do) want more than a "cheap" quartz
movement when they spend this kind of money on a watch.
>If you compare a good quartz watch with a mechanical one, what can be
>said about the accuracy of both? Is a very high grade movement needed
>to get a comparable accuracy or what does one have to spend for
>getting equal precision?
Mechanical watches is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you
gonna get. You may get an accurate one, or you may get an inaccurate
one. Price doesn't matter. Most quartz watches are more accurate.
--
Be seeing you.
camfam
Jim
"Thorsten Hofmann" <thorste...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:tg5c50tepiaoc5ll2...@4ax.com...
Jack Denver
Most watches, mechanical or otherwise, have no intrinsic value - they are
just a couple of ounces of brass and steel and glass.
The reason most "high end" watches are mechanical has to do with the history
of the development of the quartz watch. As electronic devices, quartz
watches followed the very rapidly declining price curve common to computer
chips. More complicated or more accurate versions just meant a few more
lines of computer code and did (do) not cost much more to implement. Since
more expensive versions (Swiss) of quartz offered no significant benefits
over cheaper (Japanese) movements, the Swiss rather rapidly gave up on
making "high end" quartz watches and concentrated on mechanical where they
had a marketing and manufacturing advantage.
"camfam" <jmcamer...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:WJOdnTUvHLW...@adelphia.com...
Kent Betts
"Thorsten Hofmann"
> I'm looking forward to getting some deeper insights.
Thorsten, I have consulted the tea leaves and arrived at the solution. You
need to look for an Accutron tuning fork watch.
Olaf Peuss
> Sorry about my total ignorance, but as I pointed out in my previous
> threads, I am completely new to this topic.
>
> It seems like every high grade watch is mechanical, i. e. no quartz,
> no battery, plain "automatic" or winded by hand. Is there a technical
> reason from that, apart from the mechanical approach being more
> skilled?
Technical reason? Quartz watches are - on the average - much better (and
cheaper!) timekeepers; little wonder if you consider that quartz
movements run at an amplitude of 32 kHz whereas most mechanical
movements run at only 4 Hz, i.e., the consequence of even one "missed
beat" or "wrong beat" on the overall error rate in 24 hours is much
higher with mechnical than with quartz movements. OTOH, mechanical
movements are built to last longer. Provided that it's properly
maintained, i.e., cleaned, lubricated and adjusted every five years or
so, a mechanical watch will easily outlive you even if you're in your
twenties or thirties and intend to live at least the average Western
countries' life span. :-)
> If you compare a good quartz watch with a mechanical one, what can be
> said about the accuracy of both? Is a very high grade movement needed
> to get a comparable accuracy or what does one have to spend for
> getting equal precision?
The precision you can get with a well tuned quartz movement (without
radio control!) is such that you shouldn't get a deviation of more than
15 seconds - per year! AFAIK Breitling builds such movements into their
quarz watches (I don't know if Seiko still builds such movements but
they used to do so for some of their up-market models). In general,
precision is more predictable as a quartz movement isn't as prone to
temperature and position changes as a mechanical one. With any
run-of-the-mill quartz watch (Casio, Citizen etc.) any (more or less
constant) deviation between 5-15 seconds per month should be considered
normal regardless outside temperature and position changes.
You could call yourself lucky if you happened to buy a watch with a
mechanical movement that gets the same deviation in a month. Such
watches, however, aren't exactly the cheapest available, usually come
with a chronometer certificate and a prestigious brand name on their
dial and cost well above EUR 1,500. And even those watches will most
likely run fast by a minimum of 30 seconds in a month. My Omega
Seamaster GMT is on the wrist 24/7 and needs to be adjusted once a month
to be within the correct minute whereas my Tissot PR200 Diver Quartz
didn't gain more than 15-20 seconds in 6 months when worn in the same
fashion as the Seamaster.
Kind regards,
Olaf
--
E-Mail only to reply-to address, please.
Thorsten Hofmann
>[...] My Omega
>Seamaster GMT is on the wrist 24/7 and needs to be adjusted once a month
>to be within the correct minute whereas my Tissot PR200 Diver Quartz
>didn't gain more than 15-20 seconds in 6 months when worn in the same
>fashion as the Seamaster.
Thanks for your answer. Since (as I pointed out several times so far)
I am just looking for a nice, unobtrusive, accurate, reasonably rugged
and priced watch for which I get a new strap or glass albeit it's
older than two years, I'm getting the impression that I'll better go
for a quartz watch.
Sorry for wasting your time by posting special questions before
becoming clear what I actually want by posting more basic questions.
Thanks also to everybody else who answered.
So maybe I should start a new thread about recommendations concerning
quartz watches :D
Kind regards
Thorsten
John Llort
>
> Sorry about my total ignorance, but as I pointed out in my previous
> threads, I am completely new to this topic.
>
> It seems like every high grade watch is mechanical, i. e. no quartz,
> no battery, plain "automatic" or winded by hand. Is there a technical
> reason from that, apart from the mechanical approach being more
> skilled?
>
> If you compare a good quartz watch with a mechanical one, what can be
> said about the accuracy of both? Is a very high grade movement needed
> to get a comparable accuracy or what does one have to spend for
> getting equal precision?
>
> I'm looking forward to getting some deeper insights.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Thorsten
The difference is Mechanical watches permit markups of thousands of dollars,
even some watches retail for 60,000 dollars. Quartz is a superior technology
and the only reason mechanical watches exist is so rich people can have
something to spend money on to seperate themselves from the unwashed masses
wearing reliable working class Quartz. A quartz watch beats the accuracy of
a 35,000 dollar Vacheron Contstantin Toledo limited edition Platnium watch.
John Rowland
news:c36ps9$ms2$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
> The quartz can't compete in <snip> price with the mechanical.
From the manufacturers' point of view, not from the customers' !
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
michael turner
> The difference is Mechanical watches permit markups of thousands of dollars,
> even some watches retail for 60,000 dollars. Quartz is a superior technology
> and the only reason mechanical watches exist is so rich people can have
> something to spend money on to seperate themselves from the unwashed masses
> wearing reliable working class Quartz. A quartz watch beats the accuracy of
> a 35,000 dollar Vacheron Contstantin Toledo limited edition Platnium watch.
I got you sussed Mr Llort.
--
Michael Turner
Email (ROT13)
zvxr.gh...@ivetva.arg
Richard Sexton
That's about right although I'd like to add a couple
of points: fitst the thinness of quartz movements gives some
lattitude in design unobtainable with a mechanical
movement in all practical terms (1) which is sorta lost
in todays "huge watch" fashion, but none the less...
And, there are expensive qyartz watches. Look at Cartier
for example. The difference is mechanical watches
can or in some cases are appreciated for the movement. That's
seldom likely to ever happen with a quartz.
(1) Yes I know about the concord Delerium, I said "practical
terms" and I don't thin the case bending from normal wearing
of the watch is practical.
--
Usenet special: on cases of any filters for BMW: http://u.bmwz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
2 X 280SE | Watches list: http://watches.list.mbz.org
Richard Sexton
Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>A gold watch has a little intrinsic value as you can melt the case down.
>Most watches, mechanical or otherwise, have no intrinsic value - they are
>just a couple of ounces of brass and steel and glass.
Great Jack, I'll paypal you $97 for the actual cost of the 14K
gold. Now go make me a Lemania 15TL case.
Platinum is evrn more dear to machine. Way more.
>The reason most "high end" watches are mechanical has to do with the history
>of the development of the quartz watch.
No it doesn't it has to so with the fact they can sell them. They
could really give a shit about this they jsut make what people will
buy, and for cheap watches wuartz works best and for collectible
stuff quartz is worthless.
germ
>
> Technical reason? Quartz watches are - on the average - much better (and
> cheaper!) timekeepers; little wonder if you consider that quartz
> movements run at an amplitude of 32 kHz whereas most mechanical
> movements run at only 4 Hz, i.e., the consequence of even one "missed
> beat" or "wrong beat" on the overall error rate in 24 hours is much
> higher with mechnical than with quartz movements.
I think there are a couple of misconceptions here:
1. The higher precision of quartz watches is NOT due to the fact that
they run at a frequency (not amplitude) of 32 kHz (or more) while
mechanical movements top out at 4 Hz. What determines the accuracy of a
watch is how "good" an oscillator is, technically known as the Q
factor. A quartz watch has a much higher Q factor, therefore its
frequency is much better defined than in any mechanical watch (assuming
the frequency does not shift due to temperature variations etc.).
2. The reason watches go faster or slower is NOT that they "miss a
beat". I don't think good mechanical movements ever miss a beat. People
who know more than me please correct me if I am wrong.
--
germ Remove "nospam" to reply
zog
> The difference is Mechanical watches permit markups of thousands of dollars,
> even some watches retail for 60,000 dollars. Quartz is a superior technology
> and the only reason mechanical watches exist is so rich people can have
> something to spend money on to seperate themselves from the unwashed masses
> wearing reliable working class Quartz. A quartz watch beats the accuracy of
> a 35,000 dollar Vacheron Contstantin Toledo limited edition Platnium watch.
right, so how do you explain a Seiko 5 with a 7S26 automatic movement that
sells for $50???
Olaf Peuss
> I think there are a couple of misconceptions here:
> 1. The higher precision of quartz watches is NOT due to the fact that
> they run at a frequency (not amplitude) of 32 kHz (or more) while
> mechanical movements top out at 4 Hz. What determines the accuracy of a
> watch is how "good" an oscillator is, technically known as the Q
> factor. A quartz watch has a much higher Q factor, therefore its
> frequency is much better defined than in any mechanical watch (assuming
> the frequency does not shift due to temperature variations etc.).
Ok, thanks for the rectification.
> 2. The reason watches go faster or slower is NOT that they "miss a
> beat". I don't think good mechanical movements ever miss a beat. People
> who know more than me please correct me if I am wrong.
What is it then that causes a movement to go fast or slow? If we assume
that the frequency is always constant (no "missed beats") and we exclude
mechanical errors by using a quartz movement with a digital display,
such a watch should theoretically keep time as precisley as an atomic
clock without any need for adjustment ever (unless the battery gives out
but that could be avoided by deploying a mini dynamo and a capacitor
like they build into Seiko Kinetic watches).
Olaf Peuss
> Thanks for your answer. Since (as I pointed out several times so far)
> I am just looking for a nice, unobtrusive, accurate, reasonably rugged
> and priced watch for which I get a new strap or glass albeit it's
> older than two years, I'm getting the impression that I'll better go
> for a quartz watch.
IMO, Certina offers good value for money watches that have a sporty
touch, Tissot has both sporty and classic watches and Rado (although
pricy but definitely worth the money) is almost legendary for building
virtually scratch-proof watches (not only the crystal but the enire
watch is made from scratch-proof materials). I've never heard from
anyone who bought a Rado watch that they were disappointed with what
they acquired. A customer satisfaction rate of practically 100 % is even
better than Rolex or Breitling could claim, at considerably lower
prices. :-)
Seiko is definitely a brand worth a look or two although they seem to be
retreating from the German market - I've noticed that many shops in
Germany that used to sell Seiko aren't selling them anymore.
No matter which style and design you prefer, I recommend to buy a watch
with a sapphire crystal to save you from the trouble and cost of
frequently having the crystal replaced. Mineral glass (you could also
say "window glass" instead) scratches quite easily, and plastic is even
worse.
> So maybe I should start a new thread about recommendations concerning
> quartz watches :D
Feel free to do so. Before you start, however, you might want to have a
look at the following websites:
http://www.seiko.de/content/index.htm
http://www.tissot.ch/cgi-bin/cgi2.exe?mnu=4&SECT=PRODUCTS
http://www.certina.ch/flash/index.php
and if you're willing to spend a bit more than a grand:
http://www.rado.ch/100/109/734/121.asp
mcesar
>> 2. The reason watches go faster or slower is NOT that they "miss a
>> beat". I don't think good mechanical movements ever miss a beat. People
>> who know more than me please correct me if I am wrong.
Neither mechanicals nor quartz watches miss any beat. Simply,
neither the balance nor the quartz crystal oscillate at a constant
frequency. The oscillation frequency of a quartz crystal depends on things
like aging, temperature and, in some cases, battery condition. The
oscillation frequency of balances depends on temperature, position, aging,
moisture, mainspring tension & others.
>What is it then that causes a movement to go fast or slow? If we assume
>that the frequency is always constant (no "missed beats") and we exclude
>mechanical errors by using a quartz movement with a digital display,
>such a watch should theoretically keep time as precisley as an atomic
>clock without any need for adjustment ever (unless the battery gives out
>but that could be avoided by deploying a mini dynamo and a capacitor
>like they build into Seiko Kinetic watches).
Then that scientists will not spend mega-euro (or giga-euro)
quantities building such atomic clocks, then will build mains-powered LCD
watches.
Greetings.
Mike Lipphardt
watches. And being on a limited budget, I tend to own watches that are
below $500US. There are several places that sell watches that are
mechanical, very good in terms of accuracy (for mechanical, that is) and are
terrific values.
One is at Reto Castellazes' Poor Mans Watch Forum. He sells everything from
Seiko to Citizen to Tissot and Titoni. Of interest may be the Orients - I
have several and love them. The Stars especially are attractive and well
made - great value for money.
Also check out LongIslandWatch.com. Marc is selling some fantastic values
there, in particular a Trias with a Unitas movement, and the Junkers line.
I have a number of quartz watches, which get little wrist time. I am an
electronic engineer, I understand how quartz watches work, and with the help
of some articles at Timezone, havea fair grasp of what's involved in a
mechanical. I am as much a stickler for accuracy as anyone (I have a number
of meters on my bench with .025% accuracy, and figure that's almost good
enough - but have on order one with .005%), but find it just doesn't matter
with the watch.
Quartz or mechanical is a question not answerable in terms of price - they
both run the gamut from cheap $50 and under (mechanical/automatic Seiko 5's
use the workhorse 7S26 movement and are unbelievably good value) to watches
in the tens of thousands of dollars. Nor is it in terms of style. There
are very thin and very chunky mechanical and quartz watches, of all styles.
If absolute accuracy is you thing, you want a radio controlled watch, only
available in quartz. Check out the Junghans line - they're very nice looking
watches.
Nor is it answerable in terms of reliability. A good mechanical, with some
maintenance, will last a very long time. Top end mechanicals will last your
lifetime, and even a relatively inexpensive one like a Seiko 5 should last
10 to 20 years if you take care of it. The same holds true of quartz - as
long as there are batteries available, that is. I think that, unlike the
mercury battery problem with older cameras, silver battery types and sizes
are pretty stable and will be around for a long time.
I just like mechanicals, and that's what it comes down to. Which do you
prefer? Go look at them both. Either way you can spend as much or as
little as you want, and you will find something you will enjoy.
Mike
Darryl Bryant
> If what you want is minimal attention consider a digital quartz --
> they need much less battery power, so some models go several years on
> one battery.
it depends, your Casio probably draws around 2-3 microamps, but it uses a
fairly large battery, more than likely a 3volt lithium cell, you can
easily get 5-6 years or more run time from one battery
one particular ladies Seiko movement uses a Sr421SW battery, battery is
4.8mm dia X 2.1mm thick capacity of 12mAh, put another way if you were to
hold that battery in your bare fingers you would flatten it, yet it can
drive that Seiko movement for 2 years because the movement draws less than
0.4 microamps.
driving an LCD display uses more power than one micromotor
Jack Denver
"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:Hup9M...@T-FCN.Net...
> In article <-PmdnfOoSuY...@comcast.com>,
> Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >A gold watch has a little intrinsic value as you can melt the case down.
> >Most watches, mechanical or otherwise, have no intrinsic value - they are
> >just a couple of ounces of brass and steel and glass.
>
> Great Jack, I'll paypal you $97 for the actual cost of the 14K
> gold. Now go make me a Lemania 15TL case.
>
> Platinum is evrn more dear to machine. Way more.
I don't disagree, but I was explaining the concept of intrinsic value.
Except for those with precious metals or diamonds, most watches have very
little intrinsic value. Watches are like oil paintings - a Van Gogh painting
is $5 worth of canvas and paint. Its value come from market demand, not from
"intrinsic value" of the materials. Even when you take labor into account,
the cost of production of something like a Rolex Submariner is probably a
couple of hundred of $ - the idea that mechanicals are more expensive
because they are much more costly to produce is a myth. They are somewhat
more costly than $10 quartz movements, but not in proportion to the
difference in price.
I also think you overestimate the cost of making a case. While machining is
not free, neither is it very expensive, especially today in the era of CNC
machinery and diamond coated tools. I see very nice cases done in stainless
and even in titanium ( a notoriously difficult metal to machine - at least
as bad or perhaps even more difficult than platinum) on inexpensive watches.
As you say, a gold watch has maybe $100 worth of gold in it, but the retail
price of a gold watch is many hundreds, sometimes thousands, more than the
same watch in stainless (and gold is easier to work with than stainless, a
lot easier than titanium). It would cost a lot to machine 1 chronograph
case, but if you order several thousand of them, the machining cost/ case is
not that high.
>
> >The reason most "high end" watches are mechanical has to do with the
history
> >of the development of the quartz watch.
>
>
> No it doesn't it has to so with the fact they can sell them. They
> could really give a shit about this they jsut make what people will
> buy, and for cheap watches wuartz works best and for collectible
> stuff quartz is worthless.
But why is it that they can sell mechanicals for more than quartz? What
makes mechanicals more desirable in the market? It is the market perception
that quartz watches are "cheap" and therefore people are not willing to pay
for an expensive quartz watch. They are doubly unwilling to pay for an
expensive all digital watch - try selling a LCD digital watch (which is
arguably the most technologically advanced form of watch - would you buy a
cell phone or a PDA with anything other than a digital display?) for more
than $200 and see how many you can sell.
Jack Denver
"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
> That's about right although I'd like to add a couple
> of points: fitst the thinness of quartz movements gives some
> lattitude in design unobtainable with a mechanical
> movement in all practical terms (1) which is sorta lost
> in todays "huge watch" fashion, but none the less...
I suppose this is true, though the "ultrathin" watch craze was just as much
a fashion thing as today's ultra-big fashion - as a practical matter, there
are plenty of mechanical movements that are thin enough to make a
comfortable yet rugged watch that will fit under your shift cuff. No one
"needs" a watch with a 1 or 2mm thick movement. That the distinction of
"thinnest watch" currently belongs to a somewhat obscure Indian brand (Titan
Edge) that sells for about $100 shows how little demand there (currently) is
for such watches.
>
> And, there are expensive qyartz watches. Look at Cartier
> for example. The difference is mechanical watches
> can or in some cases are appreciated for the movement. That's
> seldom likely to ever happen with a quartz.
There is no reason, other than market demand, why this is inherently so. If
one wanted to, one could build a very fine jeweled quartz watch with all the
traditional aspects of a "fine" watch - jewels, decorated plates, polished
wheels, etc. It wouldn't run any better than a $10 watch, but a Patek
doesn't keep better time on the wrist than a Miyota and that doesn't stop
them from charging a lot of money. The Rolex "Oysterquartz" , though not a
true "fine watch", was comparable to Rolex's mechanical movements and points
the general direction of where high end quartz could have gone. I'm fairly
convinced that if Rolex had dropped its mechanical movements and simply put
Oysterquartz movements into its other cases instead of housing it in its own
strange '70s style case, that would have pretty much spelled the end of the
mechanical watch, except for perhaps a handful of haute horology pieces.
Whatever you say about Rolex, we can thank them for keeping the mechanical
alive in its darkest days when everyone seemed ready to chuck them.
michael turner
He's a troll, look carefully at his name.
Richard Sexton
Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
>news:Hup9M...@T-FCN.Net...
>> In article <-PmdnfOoSuY...@comcast.com>,
>> Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >A gold watch has a little intrinsic value as you can melt the case down.
>> >Most watches, mechanical or otherwise, have no intrinsic value - they are
>> >just a couple of ounces of brass and steel and glass.
>>
>> Great Jack, I'll paypal you $97 for the actual cost of the 14K
>> gold. Now go make me a Lemania 15TL case.
>
>
>>
>> Platinum is evrn more dear to machine. Way more.
>
>I don't disagree, but I was explaining the concept of intrinsic value.
>Except for those with precious metals or diamonds, most watches have very
>little intrinsic value. Watches are like oil paintings - a Van Gogh painting
>is $5 worth of canvas and paint. Its value come from market demand, not from
>"intrinsic value" of the materials. Even when you take labor into account,
>the cost of production of something like a Rolex Submariner is probably a
>couple of hundred of $ - the idea that mechanicals are more expensive
>because they are much more costly to produce is a myth. They are somewhat
>more costly than $10 quartz movements, but not in proportion to the
>difference in price.
What you're missing is the labour. The time to paint a van gogh or
make a case is onot trivial. We all know the price of the
materials is near zero.
>I also think you overestimate the cost of making a case. While machining is
I think you havn't tried to have one made.
--
Usenet special: on cases of any filters for BMW: http://u.bmwz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Orkut:RS79 Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
Richard Sexton
Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
>news:Hup9F...@T-FCN.Net...
>> That's about right although I'd like to add a couple
>> of points: fitst the thinness of quartz movements gives some
>> lattitude in design unobtainable with a mechanical
>> movement in all practical terms (1) which is sorta lost
>> in todays "huge watch" fashion, but none the less...
>
>I suppose this is true, though the "ultrathin" watch craze was just as much
>a fashion thing as today's ultra-big fashion - as a practical matter, there
>are plenty of mechanical movements that are thin enough to make a
>comfortable yet rugged watch that will fit under your shift cuff. No one
>"needs" a watch with a 1 or 2mm thick movement. That the distinction of
>"thinnest watch" currently belongs to a somewhat obscure Indian brand (Titan
>Edge) that sells for about $100 shows how little demand there (currently) is
>for such watches.
Nobody may "need" a 1-2mm thin watch but they may want one
and they're not going to get it in mechanical. I've one
on my desk here, some concord mariner that looks like an old
Piaget Polo but in steel and gold that could not have been
made mechanical, and I like it quite a bit. It's my
only quartz :-)
>>
>> And, there are expensive qyartz watches. Look at Cartier
>> for example. The difference is mechanical watches
>> can or in some cases are appreciated for the movement. That's
>> seldom likely to ever happen with a quartz.
>
>There is no reason, other than market demand, why this is inherently so. If
>one wanted to, one could build a very fine jeweled quartz watch with all the
>traditional aspects of a "fine" watch - jewels, decorated plates, polished
>wheels, etc. It wouldn't run any better than a $10 watch, but a Patek
>doesn't keep better time on the wrist than a Miyota and that doesn't stop
>them from charging a lot of money. The Rolex "Oysterquartz" , though not a
>true "fine watch", was comparable to Rolex's mechanical movements and points
>the general direction of where high end quartz could have gone. I'm fairly
>convinced that if Rolex had dropped its mechanical movements and simply put
>Oysterquartz movements into its other cases instead of housing it in its own
>strange '70s style case, that would have pretty much spelled the end of the
>mechanical watch, except for perhaps a handful of haute horology pieces.
>Whatever you say about Rolex, we can thank them for keeping the mechanical
Cartiers, IWC and pAtek all make highly decorated quartz watches that
are fabulosuly expesnive for what they are. Once you've paid for labour
and the distribution network and profit they cannot be sold cheaply.
--
Usenet special: on cases of any filters for BMW: http://u.bmwz.org
http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Orkut:RS79 Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
Richard Sexton
Whatever. At any rate the answer economy of scale, automation
and a design that paid for itself ages agi. This is no more difficult
to explain than why my newest HP printer cost $200 and does
what a $10,000 printer 10 years ago could not do. And no it's not
all electrnoics.
Jack Denver
"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
>
> What you're missing is the labour. The time to paint a van gogh or
> make a case is onot trivial. We all know the price of the
> materials is near zero.
Van Gogh probably painted some of his paintings in an afternoon. The value
of art or collectibles has nothing to do with the labor that went into
them - there are some item that require intensive labor and are almost
worthless and others that were dashed off and are worth millions. The same
thing with mechanical watches - yes, it costs Rolex a little more money and
labor to make a Submariner than it costs Seiko to make a quartz dive watch,
but not $3,000 more, or anything close to that.
>
>
> >I also think you overestimate the cost of making a case. While machining
is
>
> I think you havn't tried to have one made.
ONE is the operative number here. I think if you had tried to place an order
for 10,000 with a Chinese factory you would have been pleasantly surprised.
>
Jack Denver
temperature and also as the crystal ages. If you enclose the crystal in an
"oven" as some lab grade clocks do, the frequency becomes more constant but
still not as good as cesium ("atomic") clocks. No clock is "constant", not
even the cesium. The question is what is the proportion of the error. Is it
one part in 10 to the 9th or one in 10 to the 12th, etc. There is no such
thing as "constant", only varying degrees of error - it's just that the
error in a cesium clock is infinitessimally small, while in the very best
quartz clocks it's only very small. If the cesium clock had not been
developed, no doubt by now we'd have very high grade quartz clocks that
would be almost, but not quite as good as cesium, as their designers went
after and tried to eliminate the major causes of error. But this kind of
work costs money. In most home grade clocks, very little effort is made to
achieve superior accuracy, in keeping with their very low price point.
Regarding the influence of beat frequency, we had this discussion here some
months ago and someone pointed out that the Shortt clock, which only had a
frequency of 1BPS, was one of the best timekeepers on earth, much better
than most modern quartz watches . The "secret" was that the pendulums were
kept in underground concrete vaults, in a vacuum chamber, at constant temp.,
so that they were free from all perturbance. Watches live a much harder
life. While they rarely skip beats altogether, shocks and changes in
position cause them to change the length of each beat considerably - the
most obvious effect being that the amplitude of the balance wheel drops due
to higher friction when the watch is in a vertical position, and shorter
swings complete in less time. Quartz crystals are indifferent to position.
"mcesar" <mce...@sec.upm.es> wrote in message
news:36ag50lq4dqiat68e...@4ax.com...
Olaf Peuss
> If what you want is minimal attention consider a digital quartz --
> they need much less battery power, so some models go several years on
> one battery.
[...]
Thorsten wrote in another thread that he was looking for an analogue
watch with a day/date function, so something rather classic. I can't
imagine that a Casio G-Shock (or something to that effect) would be a
real alternative.
Richard Sexton
Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>"Richard Sexton" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
>news:HuqCy...@T-FCN.Net...
>>
>> What you're missing is the labour. The time to paint a van gogh or
>> make a case is onot trivial. We all know the price of the
>> materials is near zero.
>
>
>Van Gogh probably painted some of his paintings in an afternoon. The value
>of art or collectibles has nothing to do with the labor that went into
>them - there are some item that require intensive labor and are almost
>worthless and others that were dashed off and are worth millions. The same
>thing with mechanical watches - yes, it costs Rolex a little more money and
>labor to make a Submariner than it costs Seiko to make a quartz dive watch,
>but not $3,000 more, or anything close to that.
Well sure, they spend a fortune on advertising and distribtion,
manipulate demand and turn what should be an $800 watch into
a $3K "must have". That's one business model and you can hardly
fail to admire them for that.
>> >I also think you overestimate the cost of making a case. While machining
>is
>>
>> I think you havn't tried to have one made.
>
>ONE is the operative number here. I think if you had tried to place an order
>for 10,000 with a Chinese factory you would have been pleasantly surprised.
If you want a painting for your living room do you want one
of 10,000 of the same one made in China?
Eric Jorgensen
ric...@vrx.news (Richard Sexton) wrote:
> In article <UtCdnSwNpvn...@comcast.com>,
> Jack Denver <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >ONE is the operative number here. I think if you had tried to place
> >an order for 10,000 with a Chinese factory you would have been
> >pleasantly surprised.
>
> If you want a painting for your living room do you want one
> of 10,000 of the same one made in China?
Works for Thomas Kinkade.
germ
>
>
> > 2. The reason watches go faster or slower is NOT that they "miss a
> > beat". I don't think good mechanical movements ever miss a beat. People
> > who know more than me please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> What is it then that causes a movement to go fast or slow? If we assume
> that the frequency is always constant (no "missed beats") and we exclude
> mechanical errors by using a quartz movement with a digital display,
> such a watch should theoretically keep time as precisley as an atomic
> clock without any need for adjustment ever (unless the battery gives out
> but that could be avoided by deploying a mini dynamo and a capacitor
> like they build into Seiko Kinetic watches).
>
OK, here's my attempt at an explanation of why watches go slow or fast.
For quartz watches, the frequency of oscillation is determined by the
dimensions of the crystal and its mechanical properties. Think of it
like a musical string, which produces standing waves (sounds) at a
frequency that is related to the length of the string and the
"stiffness" of its material. If none of these variables changes over
time, then the frequency will stay the same. But in practice, you will
have temperature variations, humidity variations, etc. All these
environmental variations will cause changes in the length of the string
(thermal expansion) and possibly in its mechanical stiffness as well.
Therefore the frequency will vary. A quartz crystal is hard and inert,
therefore I believe temperature is the main factor. (Some extremely
stable quartz oscillators, used as frequency standards, have
incorporated oven with stabilized temperature controllers to guarantee
the constancy of the frequency over time). High-quality quartz watches
have some sort of temperature compensation built in.
As for mechanical watches, you can think of many more reasons for
variations in their rate of oscillation. For example:
- during the discharge of the spring, the force that it applies to the
mechanism is not constant as it progressively looses tension
- mechanical parts are subject to gravity. The friction is probably
different in different positions of the watch.
- maybe the oil used to lubricate the mechanism will slowly flow
towards the "bottom", again modifying the friction over time
-variations in air pressure (altitude, wheather) will change the drag
that rotating parts feel
- ...
I am sure people who know more about mechanical watches can add to this
list.
The art of mechanical watches consists of reducing all these variations
as far as possible.
Jack Denver
crystal's orientation a microscopic distance is a lot less than the energy
you need to drive a set of relatively massive hands. However, the devil is
always in the details - real world implemenations of LCD may come nowhere
close to theoretical efficiency - and increasing that efficiency would
require massive R&D or high manufacturing cost (e.g. you'd need ultrapure
materials that are costly to refine to a high state of purity or gold
contacts, etc.). And perhaps micromotors as a more mature and well
understood technology come closer to their theoretical best performance. The
point is that the winner on paper is not always the winner in real life - if
this were true all our cars would be electric or have rotary engines.
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:c3bs4h$6or$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
> There are some watch LCD displays which use more than some watch
> micromotors, but in general this is not true, and theoretically
> speaking, if aiming at very low consumption, the physics of LCD
> display energy consumption can be driven down very much lower than
> micromotor energy consumption.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>
Jack Denver
also has an influence on performance, though much less so since the
discovery of Invar and other materials that have low co-efficients of
expansion. In watches equipped with a regulator, the hairspring can contact
the curb pins at different points depending on position as the spring sags
with gravity and if the pins are not exactly parallel this will cause the
spring to have a different effective length depending on position. The
balance wheel may be improperly poised - i.e. heavier on one side than
another, like an out of balance tire. There are many others - some of which
can be corrected in the process known as "adjustment for position" and
others which are irreducible, again especially in a watch that is worn on
the wrist. Something like a marine chronometer is fundamentally no different
than a wristwatch but keeps better time because it is kept under more
controlled conditions.
"germ" <germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:170320042235479708%germi...@nospam.fastmail.fm...
germ
<nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Something like a marine chronometer is fundamentally no different
> than a wristwatch but keeps better time because it is kept under more
> controlled conditions.
Funny.... I read in a book about John Harrison how he was worried about
the harsh environmental conditions aboard ships, so he undertook the
trip in person to keep an eye on its precious creation on its first
voyage.
Richard Sexton
Go find the book about Harrison. You won't be able to put it down.
Darryl Bryant
> Funny.... I read in a book about John Harrison how he was worried about
> the harsh environmental conditions aboard ships, so he undertook the
> trip in person to keep an eye on its precious creation on its first
> voyage.
go hire or buy the DVD or video of "Longitude"
Sea Biscuit
"John Llort" <jll...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c389mb$24slve$1...@ID-155262.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Thorsten Hofmann" <thorste...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:tg5c50tepiaoc5ll2...@4ax.com...
> > Hi everybody!
> >
> > Sorry about my total ignorance, but as I pointed out in my previous
> > threads, I am completely new to this topic.
> >
> > It seems like every high grade watch is mechanical, i. e. no quartz,
> > no battery, plain "automatic" or winded by hand. Is there a technical
> > reason from that, apart from the mechanical approach being more
> > skilled?
> >
> > If you compare a good quartz watch with a mechanical one, what can be
> > said about the accuracy of both? Is a very high grade movement needed
> > to get a comparable accuracy or what does one have to spend for
> > getting equal precision?
> >
> > I'm looking forward to getting some deeper insights.
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> > Thorsten
>
> The difference is Mechanical watches permit markups of thousands of
dollars,
> even some watches retail for 60,000 dollars. Quartz is a superior
technology
> and the only reason mechanical watches exist is so rich people can have
> something to spend money on
Whats the need for all those ake Rolexes then?
Watch King
being so misleading in their answers to what seem like two questions
you have posed. The first being whether quartz watches are more
accurate than mechanical watches, and this does not even begin to
cover all of the many ways that quartz watches are vastly superior to
mechanical watches. Your second question seems to ask why
manufacturers of expensive watches advertise or produce a large array
of mechanical watches but not as many models of quartz watches. A bit
of additional information should be included in this discussion, which
is why so many people who have been conned by the makers of mechanical
watches, have their choice of wearing a mechanical watch so bound up
with their egos.
To start with quartz watches are inherently superior to mechanicals in
so many ways it takes a long list to specify these major
superiorities. We'll stick to analog quartz watches that may look
similar if not almost identical to their mechanical counterparts (like
the near matching Omega Seamasters, one quartz and one mechanical). It
will help explain why the vast majority of watch buyers for the last
30 years have bought quartz watches, and why there are still so many
models of quartz watches made by high end watch companies today.
Yes quartz watches are generally more accurate than any mechanical
watch ever made, and substantially more accurate, on an order of about
50:1. Jaeger LeCoultre says in their own literature that the reason
they use a quartz drive in their chronograph is because it is almost
100 times as accurate as a mechanical movement with a mainspring
escapement. Thus the JL chronograph is a quartz watch, and I'll take
their word for it. Rolex makes huge profits on their mechanical
watches but they also make a quartz watch and many of the Rolex
service management trainers wear this watch BECAUSE it is more
accurate and they don't need to fiddle with it all the time. For
people like watchmakers quartz watches are preferred because many
watchmakers don't have ego and self esteem issues that they try to
assuage by wearing a watch "that pretends to make them more special"
than someone who doesn't wear a watch as expensive or anachronistic.
One only need to look at the "chronometer" rating to see the
ridiculously low accuracy of the mechanical movement. The standard
that is used to rate a quartz drive watch as a chronometer is so
difficult to meet that COSC test techs I have talked to, all agree
that if the same standard were applied to a mechanical watch THERE
WOULD NEVER BE a mechanical watch that could ever be rated as a
chronometer ever again. And yet thousands of quartz drive watches pass
the chronometer test every year, thus doing something a mechanical
watch could never do.
But why stop at accuracy. The better made quartz silicone filled dive
watches made by Roven Dino, Sinn and a few others are pressure rated
to depths that mechanical watche companies can only dream of (many
over 2000m rated). These watches are pretty much guaranteed NEVER to
get water into them, but if you check with any Rolex service center
they can tell you horror stories about dozens and dozens of the most
water resistant Rolex dive watches that arrived full of water even
those watches that had recently been pressure tested. There is no way
that a mechanical watch can ever be rated for the depths that many
quartz watches can reach with no problems.
So what about shock resistance? Well due to the laws of physics the
quartz analog watch with plastic parts (and thus very low moving mass)
can withstand shocks that no mechanical shock protection system can
ever hope to be protected against. Check with Swatchgroup and you'll
see that quartz Omega Seamaster suffer internal shock damage at a much
lower rate than mechanical Omega Seamasters. The balance is suspended
on two ultra-thin needle bearings in all mechanical watches. No such
part exists in a quartz drive watch. This is the weak link in the
mechanical design and nothing can ever be done to make a mechanical
watch that can accept a side direct shock to the same extent as a
quartz watch.
So what about the cost of maintenance that conscientious watch owners
should do to prolong the life of their watches. On the basis of cost
the cleaning, lubrication and battery change done to a quartz watch
(except Citizen Eco-drive watches that only need a battery change
about every 15 years), is much lower than the cost of the normal
cleaning and lubrication done on a mechanical watch. This is the case
with the Omega Seamaster for example. It's just simpler and easier to
do this work on quartz watches and so it's less expensive, as are the
watches themselves usually even if they look identical.
What about which type of watch offers more features? Well in this case
as in depth rating, quartz watches are vastly superior. Look at the
Gerald Genta moonphase perpetual calendar chronograph and there is a
number of other features added. The same is true for the Fortis alarm
chrono etc. Mechanical watches can't ever incorporate the same number
of features that quartz watches can offer easily.
And the list goes on and on, with quartz watches being model for model
lower in weight and less obtrusive on the wrist, and or thinner and
more elegant in their design. Again Jaeger Lecoultre, renown
watchmakers that they are, still speak dreamily of their super
ultrathin watch with a case 2mm thick measured from the outside of the
crystal to the back of the case. This watch is so thin that the case
IS, in fact, the battery. A $500 battery may be a little too expensive
for most of us but there are very long waiting lists of people who
have no concerns about money to buy one of these watches. It is
rightly called the worlds thinnest analog watch ever.
Finally we come to the part where mechanical watch fans say that their
watches will still be working 50 years from now and quartz watches
won't. If we assume that comparable watches have been maintained
properly I wonder what they are suggesting because there are quartz
watches from the 60s that still function perfectly today. At the same
time there are numerous mechanical watches from the 60s for which
there are no longer any parts. The Lemania 5100 chronograph movement
is a case in point as Swatchgroup/Lemania doesn't sell repair parts
for this movement any more because there just aren't any parts to
sell. There are fully geared quartz watches made by Girard Perregaux,
Lecoultre and especially Piaget made in the 60s that these companies
claim can be repaired forever, as long as the companies exist or as
long as a watchmaker is around to make a part. The gears used on early
Piaget Polos are still being made today. Thus any quartz drive watch
with metal parts can be made to work for as long as any mechanical
watch will ever be made to work. So perhaps these mechanical watch
lovers are only referring to quartz watches using self lubricating
plastic movements. I wonder why these people want to pick such a
narrow view (although it is true that Rolex quartz movements are
mostly plastic). Since we don't wear watches inside out, it shouldn't
matter that the movement is swapped out every decade or two. It is
strictly splitting hairs to find ANY possible contest that mechanical
watches can win at because they don't compete well doing the things
watches were intended to do like keep good time and withstanding the
everyday bumps and knocks of life.
So how about ease of usage, and here quartz is vastly superior as
well. Leave a mechanical watch off your wrist for a 3 week vacation
and unless you want to add the complication of having outboard
equipment to babysit your mechanical watch, all mechanical watches
will have stopped. But own a Citizen Eco-drive watch and when you come
back from your 3 week or 3 month vacation the watch will still be
keeping perfect time. I like a watch that makes my life easier not one
that requires extra work and complications in my life.
The real reason that most mechanical watch making companies push
mechanicals is that they make much greater profits on them now and
forever into the future. It is very much an ego thing and the watch
companies have marketing experts who have developed numerous ways to
exploit the lower self esteem felt by the vast majority of men between
the ages of 21 and 49. Men are told in advertising from a very early
age (especially using role model endorsees from sports or
entertainment, paid to say what they are told) that these mechanical
watches are a "badge" that shows a guy has "made it". Thus the watch
is used as a way guys can show other guys that the wearer of a
particular watch is better than other guys because he has that watch
and those other guys don't. That way the watch marketing companies can
make a big profit when they sell a mechanical watch, and then these
same companies can make very large profits keeping those same watches
serviced for years and years. Even watches as expensive as the Rolex
Datejust can cost the owner much more than the original cost of the
watch in service over the next 2 decades.
Many watch companies at the high end make quartz watches like Patek
Philippe (I like their mid-sized Nautilus), IWC, Jaeger Lecoultre,
Gerald Genta, Cartier and Piaget who make mostly quartz watches even
though their Polo is one of the most popular $20,000+ each models of
watch ever made. There have been a very few companies that never made
a qurtz watch mostly to use a marketing ploy. Of more interest are the
companies like Vacheron and Audemars Piguet who used to make men's
quartz watches and stopped because their quartz watches made their
seem like they didn't work as well (for timekeeping, shock resistance,
cost of maintenance etc) and so they stopped making quartz watches.
You see it is very difficult for most high end watch companies to make
a quartz model of watch because then many people will wonder why they
are so expensive if other good watch companies can make a quartz watch
as accurate etc. in a similar gold case etc. Some companies have brand
names so strong (Rolex, Patek, Lecoultre, Genta, Cartier for example)
that they don't really care what people in the market think. But
companies that feel the need to say "We make watches that other people
can't make", must forego making quartz watches (as superior as they
might be as useful, convenient timekeepers) so that men will find
their sales pitch more acceptable. Of course women don't buy that kind
of a con job so women buy many more quartz Patek Philppe watches than
mechanical.
Psychologists and many women tend to think that men are fascinated by
shiny glittering objects that make interesting noises much the same
way that kittens are easily distracted by a jingling set of keys and
puppies are comforted by the ticking of a clock. But I just think that
the reason why men are so easily exploited by watch company marketing
is that they want high-end mechanical watches that show other guys
that not only can they afford a high end mechanical watch as a badge
to display their superior manliness, but these same men are also
saying that they can afford the extra cost and hassle of maintenance
that comes with a mechanical watch and it's inherently lower accuracy
because the whole world is waiting on them and not the other way
around. Men who don't need to show off for other men (and themselves)
might not wear a watch at all. If they have a cellphone or a Palm
Pilot they don't need a watch, or at the very least they have
assistants who can tell them the time.
The same people who proclaim the qualities of mechanical watches have
lost perspective. There are beautiful mechanical calculators that were
made 30 years ago, but they aren't as good as computers or calculators
today. The rotary dial telephone worked great and was pretty much
perfected but the increased features of chip-based telephones made the
mechanical telephone the choice today of only a minuscule number of
people (in fact cellphones are winning the battle for market share and
there are no mechanical cellphones, or even rotary dial cellphones).
Cars perform so much better now-a-days because the car's computer
checks the fuel/air ratio and monitors most of the other features so
that fans operate properly etc. That's why tune-ups and warranties are
spaced so far further into the future than they ever were in the days
of purely mechanical cars.
So while we bemoan constantly moving technology or perhaps our
selective memories wish the world would go back to a few of the "good
old days" we remember, the real reason there are so many
non-mechanical things in our live today compared to 10 or 20 years ago
is because newer computer driven things perform their functions better
and they make our life easier. Technology improvements can be scary
sometimes like the belt driven dental drill vs the air drill but when
we view these new technologies without getting our egos or fears
involved, our objective selves can clearly see these new technologies
are vastly superior. If we don't see this obvious fact then we just
can't be objective about something. Mechanical watches, rotary
telephones, non-computerized cars, steam locomotives, and various
other old technologies should be collected, enjoyed and even used, but
we shouldn't lie to ourselves and others by saying that these old
technologies are better, not unless we can back up our definition of
"better" with facts, not a con job arguements developed by a marketeer
who is trying to exploit people with small egos to increase the
profits of companies that make mechanical watches. Whatever else,
don't ever believe that any kind of watch can make anyone a better
person than they are. Why be saddled with the need to support a
watchmaker while you own and inferior timekeeper, when a less
expensive technological approach to the best timekeeping can be had?
Buy watches that make your life easier. Buy watches that make your
life easier. Watchking
We don't get enough sand in our glass
Simon Bryquer
One thing for sure you must have lots of free time on your quartz hand to
write the same diatribe over and over in all soapbox fire and brimstone
quartzology relegio fanaticism variation sermon. So in turn I will post once
again my reply to your last quartzology preaching which this time almost
sounded like a rant.
Your Majesty Watchking ---
Suit yourself but my definition includes the words :The science of measuring
time, or the principles and art of designing and constructing instruments
for measuring and indicating portions of time, as clocks, watches, dials,
etc.
But be as it may. I would venture that none of your soapbox hell fire and
brimstone 'quartzology' (maybe the Watchking's -- it seems the title may
have been taken too seriously in spite of the subjects of the Horological
Kingdom no listening and above all not caring -- version of Horological
Scientology) sermons reached, nevermind convincing a single individual with
a love and appreciation of everything concerning and associated with
mechanical watches to run out and buy a quartz watches or even accept any of
your repeating sermonizing. You're simply spitting in the wind of people
who have no kinship or affinity with your foolhardy diatribe about the
benefits of quartz.
The vehemence of your repetitions seems like a warning for those who you
believe have strayed from the true faith of the heavenly reward of
quartzology -- and those who deny and ignore your message are living in
Horological Sin that will lead them to the hell of horological financial
destitution missing the great rewards of Quartz Heaven.
Good luck in your pointless crusade.
Simon Bryquer
"Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com...
Jack Denver
magazine and you'll see that you are shouting into the wind. The "problem"
with quartz is that even a $10 quartz watch will work pretty much as well as
an expensive one so it is hard to get consumers to perceive value in
expensive quartz watches, especially men's watches (outside of "jewelry
watches" such as Cartier). With a mechanical watch the manufacturers can at
least pretend that you are paying for craftsmanship and many people fall for
it - surely hunchbacked little Swiss gnomes with loupes put all those little
gears together. But while in some mechanical watches there is at least some
slight relationship between the cost of the movement and the cost of the
watch, in many quartz watches the consumer is right to perceive the utter
lack of value. Recently I was looking for a replacement movement for a
Tissot I had in a drawer. The ESA/ETA 980.163 movement it uses is about $25
retail. But I came across the fact that this same movement was used in a
Technomarine watch that retails for over $2600. This kind of markup is
inexecusable. (BTW, the Techomarine has a fraction of a carat worth of tiny
pave diamonds - these are worth a couple of hundred $, tops).
Of course mechanical watches have their own dirty little secrets - $1000
watches with $50 movements, etc. And the other secret of modern watchmaking
is that since the development of Nivarox springs and laser poised balances,
the gap between "fine" watches and "ordinary" movements has shrunk almost to
the point of insignificance, when actual performance on the wrist is
considered. So what is it that you are getting when you buy a $3000 diver
instead of a $300 one?
The same thing goes on in some other fields - a 50 cent rolling ball pen
works better than a fancy fountain pen, but people still buy fountain pens.
There are still people who buy Morgan sports cars, etc.
"Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com...
Watch King
crusade, it is answering the question that a new watch collector asks.
Rather than respond on an individual basis to all the hogwash about
whether mechanical watches are "better" which was the common response
to this new collector's question (how better??? better at keeping
time-Nope, better at being shock resistant-Nope, Water
resistance-Nope, More features-Nope) I pointed out that even
prestigious manufacturers like Jaeger Lecoultre never say that
mechanical watches are better. They may say that they make mechanical
watches better than other manufacturers. But JL also says that they
use a quartz drive in their chronograph because chronographs are used
to measure time and since quartz is much more accurate and this is an
absolute fact the chronograph wearer should know.
Maybe you don't like facing facts, or perhaps you prefer to live your
life in denial. But when a new collector asks a reasonable question it
deserves an honest, complete and accurate answer. Worst of all the
watch manufacturers know that mechanical watches are mostly just
status symbols, and mechanicals are second rate as personal timepieces
no matter how pretty their innards are. The chairman of Swatchgroup
who owns Blancpain, Omega, Breguet, ETA, Valjoux and others, can wear
a cheap Swatch as a way to be cool but he never wears a cheesy
mechanical that sells for the same price, and he says so in
interviews.
There are old-tech things that can be collected and comparisons can
show that a few of the old things may be superior in a few ways. Vinyl
records and factory produced reel to reel tapes may not be better than
compact discs or DVD sound in many ways, but in a few ways their
superiority can actually be demonstrated. The same is possible with
cars from the 60s. In most ways they aren't better but a few examples
can still demonstrate superiority in a few ways. But with mechanical
watches it's fine to collect them, it's fine to wear them and show
them off as artistic forms of an old craft or art form. But mechanical
watches just aren't better at timekeeping or integrating themselves
conveniently into people's life. I encourage watch collecting and I
especially encourage new watch collectors in the columns I write for
WatchUSeek and Time4watcheS. But I don't mislead new collectors and I
try to explain why mechanical watches are old technology that most
people don't want any more than they want rotary dial telephones or
mechanical calculators.
By the way, it doesn't take much time to compose a response to the
same old inaccuracies that people use when saying that mechanical
watches are better than quartz drive watches. I have this thing called
a computer and as long as the same inaccuracies keep being repeated by
old-tech watch fans, my computer stores the responses to the same old
mistakes about mechanical watches for easy retreival. It's not like I
have to use a typewriter to rewrite the responses to these
misconceptions every time. Watchking
We don't get enough sand in our glass
"Simon Bryquer" <sbry...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<vrS8c.5407$1C1.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
Jack Denver
ever pay more than say $100 for a watch that has a $20 movement in it?
"Badger" <-...@-.com> wrote in message
news:0cv8609mqecncme2s...@4ax.com...
>
> Hmm - I rather agreed with what Watchking wrote.
> FWIW I have a collection of over 250 watches, 50/50 mech/quartz. The
> mech are fine to play & pose with. But for everyday practical wear
> quartz is the way to go. Oh - and they are easy to "service". Just
> drop a new movement in. Even the top of the range ETA quartz movements
> are cheap.
> But, each to his own...
>
> Regards,
>
> Badger
Watch King
looking for good value for their money and it just so happens that
quartz watches have been one of the great technological innovations of
the last 200 years. But there are many many things people get with a
watch purchased from a real company or even a retailer that they can't
get with a no brand watch, quartz or mechanical.
For one thing there is much more to a watch than the movement.
Breitling for example puts allot of design time and research into
their bracelets and they have 3 different bracelets that are extremely
comfortable. Hand finishing a bracelet can make it a pleasure to wear
from day one. I've tried many many watches at the request of the
manufacturers, with bracelets so uncomfortable that they convinced me
these inexpensive watch companies really weren't selling a product
that made the user's life easier. I like the Seiko company but I've
had some bad experiences with some of their bracelets, it's just so
unpredictable that I'd hesitate to buy one mail-order because I'd need
to test the bracelet and case finish before I'd ever want to buy the
watch. I've had some very nicely finished Seiko cases and bracelets
but I've had some bad one's too. Casios have been equally as
unpredictable except with Casios I always got better bracelets when I
bought more expensive models (same for Citizen). So at least I knew
what to expect. Comfortable but solid gold watch cases and bands are
another quantum leap more expensive again.
Breitling is another company that assembles and sells quartz and
mechanical watches. Breitling also developed the Emergency and there
is no mechanical counterpart to that watch. Tissot's T-Touch is also a
very user friendly device. Both Tissot and Breitling sell two timers
as well. This is a watch that has the analog time and a secondary LCD
window set that can be used for day/date, second time zone, alarm etc.
This is just a small part of what people can get from quality
manufacturer. Rado is another one of these. Their watches might be 90%
quartz models but their cases and bracelets are amazing. Not only are
most Rado bracelets comfortable but their watch cases and bracelets
look new nearly forever. This takes allot of research. Research costs
money, especially since Rado is making something unique and so their
economies of scale are minimal. In spite of pricing that is high to
write off the R&D costs Rado watches are still the largest selling
brand in Switzerland. So if you want a watch to look new practically
forever buy a Rado and probably a quartz model.
I know quite a few Jaeger Lecoultre and Piaget owners. I have seen
Jaeger make repairs to their quartz chronograph watches for free
during the warranty period
even though the mountain climbing, hang gliding, yachting and race car
driving owners of the watches probably contributed quite a bit of
abuse that resulted in the watches failure. The same is true for a
number of Piaget Polo wearers who have had numerous repairs made
during the last 30 years including the hand production of internal
gears, because they weren't babying their watches. Piaget has always
been gracious with these owners and that kind of support is expensive
so while it was hard to justify $5000 for a Piaget Polo in 1980, the
company has backed their product admirably in the years since. This is
unlike Rolex which has charged their patrons huge sums to fix problems
inherent in the Rolex design. Rolex made a QuartzDate model that was
incredibly unreliable and then stuck the owners with no warranty for
service even on watches that had been at the Rolex service center for
75% of their life. At least with Piaget and Breitling, while you might
pay allot for a watch, you DO get worldwide support that is a surprise
in today's world.
It isn't an accident that a company can make a quartz watch and get
ahead. Sinn is an example. Almost everything they make quartz or
mechanical is similar to something else already on the market. They
just pay attention to the details and they charge reasonable prices.
Their dive watch rated for 5000+ meter depth is an example. The quartz
movement inside might be inexpensive but the reason you don't see no
brand models of these watches is because they are difficult to make
period. There are only about 7 or 8 watch companies in the world that
even try to make watches like this, and they are all bound to be $1000
retail or more. TAG Heuer is another example. 80% of their watch sales
are quartz models. They grew with an expensive product because their
service is incredible, their wearer-comfort is high and they don't
mind if retailers discount. Now they've stolen Tiger Woods away from
Rolex as their endorsement personality. Let's hope they can still
afford their excellent worldwide service. There are so many unique
quartz watches that it is difficult to cover why all the expensive
one's Might be worth the money. Just do your research before buying.
I also disagree somewhat with the premise that cheap no brand quartz
watches perform as well as more expensive ones. I have been given 5
Casio G-Shock watches by well meaning relatives in my life. They are
not bad. But one gains about 23 minutes a year and another one loses
12 minutes a year. Hardly a good track record. A number of my friends
have Krieger quartz chronometers which I considered costly but not
ridiculous. Still the G-Shocks were about $40 and the Kriegers were 10
times that much or even 15 times as expensive. But the Kriegers all
kept time to within a few seconds a year and none was off by as much
as a minute a year. So testing and culling are worth the money if you
want and accurate watch and you can't get good reception for a radio
controlled watch. RC watches are another great quartz innovation.
Those watches were $500 when Junghans introduced them but now that the
idea has caught on they can be had for around $100. This is the way
horology and technology should work.
Given the choice between watches with $20 mechanical movements and $20
quartz movements, installed in the same case and all other things
being equal I'd always take the quartz watch, but that seems to be the
way the consumer have spoken the last 20 years as well. There is
nothing at all wrong with watch collecting and that means mostly
collecting mechanicals. I encourage people to collect watches because
it can teach us allot about the intelligence of past generations and
it is an artistic link with past craftsmen. But to say that mechanical
watches are better than quartz watches is ridiculous. The world just
went through a boom bubble economy and there was a great deal of
disposable income in the hands of people who didn't know what to do
with it. This is the formula for inflating prices of goods labeled
charitably as "conspicuous consumption". So this is why there are so
many mechanical watch models selling one-upsmanship to the world
market. While there may actually be some innovations in the mechanical
market like the Daniels escapement, in general it is the same old same
old, but for allot more money than the old tech stuff used to sell
for. As long as people have a realistic perspective on watches it may
be nice to have a Zeno Explorer or even an Angelus quarter hour
repeater (both mechanical), but see it for what it is, not as
something important to "manhood". Good luck and have fun. Watchking
We don't get enough sand in our glass
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<5IidnWd4Apv...@comcast.com>...
Russell W. Barnes
"Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com...
> Jack, you are absolutely right about the fact that consumers should be
> looking for good value for their money and it just so happens that
> quartz watches have been one of the great technological innovations of
> the last 200 years. But there are many many things people get with a
> watch purchased from a real company or even a retailer that they can't
> get with a no brand watch, quartz or mechanical.
<big snip>
Are quartz owners assured of continual replacement cell production for their
models? If quartz mov'ts have popular size cells fitted, the market will
probably continue to produce them. Surely, though, there are bound to be
some (older) quartz models, though, where it would be uneconomic for the
battery manufacturers to go on producing replacement cells?
--
Regds,
Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
Please take out dog before replying by Email!
Jack Denver
yrs. old) the market has responded by producing adapters. The Accutrons pose
a special problem because the mercury cells that they used ran at a lower
voltage than the current watch batteries and are no longer produced due to
environmental consideration. So the adapters change not only the form factor
but drop the voltage too.
Watch batteries are now a mature technology and it is unlikely that the
voltage will change in our lifetime. What is possible to change is the form
factor - typically the direction is toward greater miniaturization so it
should always be possible to get a smaller battery and build a larger
adapter for it, even if the original is NLA. But for any device that was
produced in large quantity, parts remain available for an amazingly long
time - there are still people making replacement parts for Ford Model Ts. I
don't see this as a problem.
I also don't understand this whole obsession with watches lasting forever.
We don't demand this of anything else we buy. Computers are obsolete in 2 to
5 years. 5 1/4 floppies are almost impossible to get, though they were
current technology 15 years ago, but no one cares. Most other devices (cars,
TVs, appliances, etc.) have a lifespan of perhaps 10 to 15 years. Why is is
that a watch is supposed to last long enough to serve our grandchildren and
why should we care? "Time value of money" means that a dollar of utility in
the future is worth much less than a dollar now. If we have the choice
between a watch that costs X and lasts 20 years and one that costs Y and
lasts 80 years, discounting for present value means that the utility from
years 21 to 80 count for very little - the reason being that you could take
the difference between X and Y, invest it and at the end of 20 years you
would have (depending on investment returns) say quadrupled it due to the
magic of compound interest. Not to mention of course that if you count in
the cost of cleaning, the "forever" mechanical watch will cost even more
over it's life cycle. Your car would last forever too if you tore it down
and rebuilt it every 5 years but no one does this because it's cheaper to
just replace the whole thing. The same would be true of mechanical watches
if they were not so outrageously marked up - what is the sense of spending
$100 to clean a watch with a $50 movement?
"Russell W. Barnes" <rwba...@DOGglobalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SoSdnTFy-Mh...@brightview.com...
Russell W. Barnes
> It's possible, but in the case of the Accutron tuning fork watches (now
40
> yrs. old) the market has responded by producing adapters. The Accutrons
pose
> a special problem because the mercury cells that they used ran at a lower
> voltage than the current watch batteries and are no longer produced due to
> environmental consideration. So the adapters change not only the form
factor
> but drop the voltage too.
I did hear from a jeweller that some of the gears in the Accutron were
plastic-toothed, and that many were starting to wear down about now. Don't
know how true this is, mind! (I wish I'd kept mine; - owned it for
half-a-day then returned it, as the humming put me off when I was sitting
quietly, reading....)
>
> Watch batteries are now a mature technology and it is unlikely that the
> voltage will change in our lifetime. What is possible to change is the
form
> factor - typically the direction is toward greater miniaturization so it
> should always be possible to get a smaller battery and build a larger
> adapter for it, even if the original is NLA. But for any device that was
> produced in large quantity, parts remain available for an amazingly long
> time - there are still people making replacement parts for Ford Model Ts.
I
> don't see this as a problem.
Ten years seems par for the course for many appliances in the UK. A cunning
ploy by the manufacturers and sales-people. As watches don't seem to suffer
the same amount of built-in obsolescence, a clever sales pitch is required,
so that thing on your arm makes you better at sex, business, diving,
shooting, hanging about looking cool, etc - until a new model is introduced.
> I also don't understand this whole obsession with watches lasting forever.
> We don't demand this of anything else we buy.
I don't think you do in the US, but here over the pond we (or many of us)
tend to hoard things, make them eke out, and are dismayed when appliances,
etc, fail prematurely. It may be inbred and something to do with WWII -
austerity, scrimping and saving, and all that....
> Computers are obsolete in 2 to
> 5 years. 5 1/4 floppies are almost impossible to get, though they were
> current technology 15 years ago, but no one cares. Most other devices
(cars,
> TVs, appliances, etc.) have a lifespan of perhaps 10 to 15 years. Why is
is
> that a watch is supposed to last long enough to serve our grandchildren
and
> why should we care?
I get the impression that many people buy a watch and become emotionally
attached to it (at least initially) and 'want it to last forever'. They
look it up on the NG's and the manufacturers' sites, compare it, seek
others' opinions on the model, hunt out forums to chat to like-minded
individuals about the brand, what it means to them, etc. Harmless fun and
part of the fascination and magic. I also suspect (as it has been
mentioned - was it by 'Watchking?') that many attach individuality to their
watch, and suspect it to have been lovingly created by little gnomes in
Zurich tapping away by hand, and they don't wish to see that little piece of
individuality eroded by finding out that their nice shiny new timepieces
have been churned out by robots.
Then they see a better model and the bedside drawer awaits (see above
comments about built-in obsolescence). It may also be that - having been
presented with a watch to mark a salient point in their lives, they see the
watch as an heirloom to be passed down to future generations.
"Time value of money" means that a dollar of utility in
> the future is worth much less than a dollar now. If we have the choice
> between a watch that costs X and lasts 20 years and one that costs Y and
> lasts 80 years, discounting for present value means that the utility from
> years 21 to 80 count for very little - the reason being that you could
take
> the difference between X and Y, invest it and at the end of 20 years you
> would have (depending on investment returns) say quadrupled it due to the
> magic of compound interest. Not to mention of course that if you count in
> the cost of cleaning, the "forever" mechanical watch will cost even more
> over it's life cycle. Your car would last forever too if you tore it down
> and rebuilt it every 5 years but no one does this because it's cheaper to
> just replace the whole thing. The same would be true of mechanical watches
> if they were not so outrageously marked up - what is the sense of spending
> $100 to clean a watch with a $50 movement?
I can only think of sentimental reasons.
--
Regds,
Russell W. B.
>
>
>
>
> "Russell W. Barnes" <rwba...@DOGglobalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:SoSdnTFy-Mh...@brightview.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > "Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > > Jack, you are absolutely right about the fact that consumers should be
> > > looking for good value for their money and it just so happens that
> > > quartz watches have been one of the great technological innovations of
> > > the last 200 years. But there are many many things people get with a
> > > watch purchased from a real company or even a retailer that they can't
> > > get with a no brand watch, quartz or mechanical.
> >
> > <big snip>
> >
> > Are quartz owners assured of continual replacement cell production for
> their
> > models? If quartz mov'ts have popular size cells fitted, the market
will
> > probably continue to produce them. Surely, though, there are bound to
be
> > some (older) quartz models, where it would be uneconomic for the
cesium
inherently much longer lived than quartz.
1) Most mechanicals don't last a long time. The better ones have that
potential, the mediocher ones don't unless they're lightly used. The
VAST majority of mechanicals from 50 years ago are dead.
2) To last that long, they need to be regularly (5 years) serviced by
a skilled technician, including disassembly and proper lubrication. If
this process is ignored, or worse, performed by someone with
insufficient skill, or if the wrong type of lube is used (for example
hi beat watches REQUIRE very special lube, Rolex watch performance is
dependent, in part on the factory specified lube) the watch will
simply die.
The big weakness for mechanicals is lubrication failure. Once this
happens, wear proceeds at an accelerated rate (this is even more fatal
for mechanical clocks, being less sealed, the lube actually attracts
dust and creates a grinding paste).
3) Comparing to quartz watches from the 60s or early 70s is not really
valid, because admittedly at that time chip technology was in its
infancy. The majority of quartz watch failures are due moisture
penetrating the chip enclosure and damage to contacts, two areas that
have markedly changed. Basically chip failure is a statistical
function, dependent to a large degree on the number of transisters in
the chip. Whereas now, computer CPU chips are in the millions of
transistors, and watches in the thousands, the statistical failure
advantage of a watch is about 1000 to 1, and yet CPU chips rarely
fail.
4) Plastic movements are not necessarily a problem. Indeed they enable
a quartz watch to run with zero lubrication and all the problems that
involves. The skill level (as well as cost) to replace the battery is
vastly less than the mechanical watch service. The need for incredible
precision, jewels, and lubrication in mechanicals is due to the
unfortunate confluence of high loads, extreme sensitivity to fricion
and extreme sensitivity to wear and misalignment. Plastic quartz
movements have extremely low loads, are not very sensitive to friction
(so large diameter shafts can be used), are not sensitve to tolerance
(so a bit of wear in a shaft hole is no biggie.
Basically, a reasonably cared for, reasonable quality quartz watch has
virtually nothing to wear out or to fail.
Robert de Ridder
"Terence Lynock MSW" <Modelshi...@zetnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:200403280...@zetnet.co.uk...
> I may have missed the point on though with these super-accurate watches
> is who actually needs a watch accurate to 1 second a month? I tell the
> time by looking out of the workshop window, if there are no leaves on
> the trees I know its winter,
>
> regards, Terry
Why have a watch approximate time, when it can tell accurate time?
I think as long as a watch isn't extremely accurate, the problem exists how
unaccurate is it allowed to be.
And how do people in Hawaii tell when it's winter in your view of things?
Greetinx,
Robert
Jack Denver
several fail over the years.
"cesium" <ja...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:f2f68852.04032...@posting.google.com...
Frank Adam
<nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Funny for a device with nothing to fail, they fail pretty often - I've had
>several fail over the years.
>
Indeed. Analogues are just as prone to failures as mechanicals.
In fact not having a huge amount of force driving them, they are not
at all as "self repairing" as mechanicals. Sadly a lot of those with a
decent size spring, will struggle on even when dry and wear themselves
out. The old "Had this watch for 25 years and it never stopped" thing,
which is where i say "if it does stop, please don't bring it to me."
;-)
>
>"cesium" <ja...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:f2f68852.04032...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Basically, a reasonably cared for, reasonable quality quartz watch has
>> virtually nothing to wear out or to fail.
>
What exactly is a "quality" quartz movement ? A divider chip bundled
on top of maybe 6 wheels covered by a flimsy .2mm plate ? Pleeaase..
I won't argue the superiority of quartz over mechanicals as far as
practicality goes, then again the Swatch and the Flik-Flaks (to
mention just a couple) did create a craze that is hard to explain from
a strictly practical point of view.
However, buying a quality mechanical watch, you can be ascertained
that both the design and workmanship that went into it's internals is
far more impressive than that of quartz watches. Even if done on the
assembly line.
Of course, if someone needs seconds accuracy over even a day, then the
choice is obvious, but i will never be impressed by a quartz watch (a
few exceptions to be expected), when compared to a similarly equipped
mechanical watch.
Even a quartz chrono is still just a few more wheels being flicked
about by a bit of code. As far as software engineering goes it's lack
lustre and as far as mechanical engineering goes, it's not even as
exciting as a hammer.
...but that's just my 2 cents.. I make good money from repairing the
myriads of quartz watches and i prefer them for their simplicity. I
can probably do 3:1 timewise, so may quartz live forever ! ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Frank Adam
<no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>And how do people in Hawaii tell when it's winter in your view of things?
>
They look at the quartz calendar ? ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Norman Schwartz
"Robert de Ridder" <no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:40664e75$0$139$3a62...@reader1.nntp.hccnet.nl...
>
> "Terence Lynock MSW" <Modelshi...@zetnet.co.uk> schreef in bericht
> news:200403280...@zetnet.co.uk...
> > I may have missed the point on though with these super-accurate watches
> > is who actually needs a watch accurate to 1 second a month? I tell the
> > time by looking out of the workshop window, if there are no leaves on
> > the trees I know its winter,
> >
> > regards, Terry
>
> Why have a watch approximate time, when it can tell accurate time?
> I think as long as a watch isn't extremely accurate, the problem exists
how
> unaccurate is it allowed to be.
For the same reason(s) people attempt to climb Mt. Everest rather than doing
the 'monkey bars' in your kid's park.
Robert de Ridder
news:aMC9c.29978$tY6.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Which is actually the argument for super accurate watches. Why settle with
19th century design, when you can improve to perfection. The fact that
quartz watches are mostly machine fabricated, as are most parts of
mechanicals BTW, doesn't take away from the fact that they are a huge
achievement in engineering.
So how is making mechanical watches, which is basically copying old designs,
maybe shaving a bit on lubrication and design, not like doing the "monkey
bars" in the park?
Robert
R.L. Horn
<no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Why settle with 19th century design, when you can improve to perfection.
I think "perfection" is stretching things a bit.
However, in answer to your question, I "settle" for mechanical watches
because I _like_ mechanical watches. What other justification could anyone
possibly require?
--
If you can see the FNORD, remove it to reply by email.
Norman Schwartz
> So how is making mechanical watches, which is basically copying old
designs,
> maybe shaving a bit on lubrication and design, not like doing the "monkey
> bars" in the park?
Because nearly entirely plastic accurate quartz watches can be found in the
likes of Cracker-Jack boxes in kids' parks.
(Gives quartz a 'bad name', although we do have 2 Aerospaces and several
Tags in my family).
Robert de Ridder
news:slrnc6fbd...@hani.compact.bogus...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:37:21 +0200, Robert de Ridder
> <no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Why settle with 19th century design, when you can improve to perfection.
>
> I think "perfection" is stretching things a bit.
>
> However, in answer to your question, I "settle" for mechanical watches
> because I _like_ mechanical watches. What other justification could
anyone
> possibly require?
>
To get back to the point. It wasn't about wether it's bad to have a
mechanical, it was about the deal with superaccurate watches. Once you go
the quartz way, go the distance and make it as good as you can get it.
Robert de Ridder
Guilty by association? But the fact that there are mechanical watches made
to the same specification as those cheap quartz watches doesn't matter?
Seems like a double standard to me.
But in reference to my point, it was suggested that making mechanical
watches is somehow a higher standard of doing things, while most of them are
production line produced ETA movements. So what's the difference with quartz
then? $ 0.50 in material?
All this aside, I'm not pounding on mechanicals. I understand the appeal. I
was just making a point for a super accurate watch. It's a shame that by
design a mechanical watch can never be that, without making it too large to
wear.
Robert
Jack Denver
mean by "mechanical" e.g is a spring drive quartz a mechanical? What about
an electrically impulsed and read balance wheel? Or a tuning fork - these
were, despite the rudimentary electronics, purely mechanical in that the
escape wheel was directly and mechanically impulsed by the tuning fork, one
tiny tooth per vibration.
Also the problem of accuracy has very little to do with size. Marine
chronometers were often the size of pocket watches and could have been made
wrist watch size just as well. Rolex's best performing current movement is
its ladies size. Rather the problem for wristwatches is that they are
subject to all kinds of perturbing forces of acceleration, gravity,
positional change, temperature change, etc. that cannot be reduced no
matter how big or small the watch is. At one time, the limits of precision
machine tools meant that smaller movements did not run as well as big ones,
but with modern manufacturing techniques this is not the issue it once was.
The real problem is that there no impetus for making a more accurate pure
mechanical in the age of quartz and atomic, any more than there is any good
reason left to design better horse drawn stage coaches.
"Robert de Ridder" <no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:406860f6$0$131$3a62...@reader1.nntp.hccnet.nl...
snip
Alex W.
I'm not sure the comparison with appliances in general holds
water. With dryers or VCRs, there appears to be an active
attempt to force the owner into replacing his appliance. If
the cost of ordering and fitting a door for my six-year-old
Zanussi dryer runs to more than half the price of a new one,
the decision isn't difficult. We are not yet at that stage
with watches.
>
> > I also don't understand this whole obsession with
watches lasting forever.
> > We don't demand this of anything else we buy.
>
> I don't think you do in the US, but here over the pond we
(or many of us)
> tend to hoard things, make them eke out, and are dismayed
when appliances,
> etc, fail prematurely. It may be inbred and something to
do with WWII -
> austerity, scrimping and saving, and all that....
Also general culture. We live with antiquity. Our homes
are mostly old (often older than any of our colonies). Most
of us own at least a few antiques. This is an environment
which fosters an appreciation of all things old.
Personally, I find it immensely attractive to hold a watch
and know that it was ticking when Hitler cowered in his
bunker, ticking when Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg
address, ticking while Napoleon was planning Waterloo.
Of course. Watches are objects of desire.
Ask a woman whether she feels differently about her
jewellery.
R.L. Horn
<no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> To get back to the point.
This thread has a point?
Robert de Ridder
"R.L. Horn" <ne...@eastFNORDcheap.org> schreef in bericht
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:34:09 +0200, Robert de Ridder
> <no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > To get back to the point.
>
> This thread has a point?
>
Yeah, this is it: .
Frank Adam
<no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"R.L. Horn" <ne...@eastFNORDcheap.org> schreef in bericht
>news:slrnc6hb90...@hani.compact.bogus...
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 19:34:09 +0200, Robert de Ridder
>> <no-email=for-new...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> > To get back to the point.
>>
>> This thread has a point?
>>
>
>Yeah, this is it: .
>
A 'period' ? So this all started because of someone's PMS ?
--
Regards, Frank
Norman Schwartz
No double standard at all, I have quartz, including Wave Ceptor, for DEAD
accuracy and mechanicals to offer some amount of LIVING interest.
Max Stahl
Honestly, I think you're forgetting something fundamental. Why do you
think that mechanical wristwatches are still around??? Do you actually
think it's because they make people feel like they're better than other
people?
That explanation may fly for a Rolex that costs two large, but what
about a cheap Seiko automatic fresh from Singapore that costs a
pittance? What about family heirlooms that have been around for decades???
What you're forgetting -- and I think it's a damn shame -- is the fact
that a mechanical watch, to most people, has a more human touch to it.
Mechanical wristwatches, unlike quartz wristwatches, have funny stories
that go with them; they have moving parts that tick and tock and twitch
and you know it's alive while it's on your wrist. They're not soulless
automata whose only purpose is to tell time. They are also there to keep
us company.
Sure they require more maintanance, but by your arguments you'd rather
have a Honda Civic than a 1967 MG B, because the MG requires more
maintanance. But it's the MG, rather than the Civic, that's seen nearly
40 years of history and traveled hundreds of thousands of miles. It's
the MG that can win a race at the track.
I realize that my fascination for mechanical timepieces is driven by my
childish desire to see the way things work, but I'm comfortable with
that. That's why I'm into this hobby, why I'm on this newsgroup, and why
you need to mind your quartz propaganda and recognize that this isn't
always about ultra-accurate time. It's just about time in general.
Love,
- max
> life easier. Watchking
>
> We don't get enough sand in our glass
>
>
Max Stahl
company that makes quartz wristwatch movements? You seem to be pulling a
pretty hard sell and I refuse to believe it's a personal thing.
Were you beaten up by watchmakers as a child? What's with the
anti-mechanical vendetta???
- max
Watch King wrote:
------------ And now a word from our sponsor ------------------
For a quality usenet news server, try DNEWS, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. For home servers or carrier class
installations with millions of users it will allow you to grow!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_dnews.htm ----
Watch King
articles for both WatchUSeek.com and Time4watches.com helping new
collectors to collect watches. Considering the number of years that
mechanicals have been produced vs quartz or even electronic watches,
most watches people will collect will be mechanical. Mechanical
watches are inferior to quartz watches as timekeepers, and in all the
ways that make an appliance serve its owner like shock resistance,
water resistance, cost of maintenance, types of features and even
innovations, and it's been that way for at least 20 years. European
watch companies can't compete in the quartz marketplace very
profitably (Rado being an exception) and so they have adopted a
different way to sell an inferior product, pandering to the
insecurities of men aged 18-50. So the same market segment that
wouldn't consider buying mechanical calculators, or rotary telephones
which are comparably inferior, are sucked into buying an inferior
product by the heavily subsidized use of sports and entertainment
personalities and ad campaigns that imply that a man who doesn't buy a
mechanical watch is inferior to men who waste their money on watches
that make noises and sparkle like a ring of glittery keys.
Actually I think it's great for watch enthusiasts to buy vintage
mechanical watches because a 21 jewel USA made Lord Elgin or Bulova
with a 21 jewel Swiss movement is every bit as good for less than
$200, as 99% of the new mechanical manual wind watches available
today. Buying vintage mechanical watches preserves examples of a craft
or art that was important to the development of our modern society.
The maintenance costs of a vintage mechanical watch might be high
compared to a quartz watch but at least the initial costs will be low.
Today's machine made mechanical movements are fine too (for an
inferior timekeeper) and Zeno, dFreemont and Davosa sell watches with
ETA 2428-2 and 2892 movements that are reasonable price performers.
But somehow this forum is full of silly advice extolling the 2nd rate
virtues of ridiculously overpriced mechanical watches that enthrall
the paid shills at most watch magazines, and are highlighted in ads by
watch companies in men's magazines that should insult people's
intelligence. Mechanical watches are just not better than quartz
watches using almost any objective standards of judgment. And new
mechanical watches are a really bad value compared to vintage
mechanical watches.
I've been in the watch business since long before quartz watches were
made. I've been in the NAWCC since before most of the people visiting
this forum were even born. I've seen the success that mechanical watch
makers have had exploiting the insecurities of young and middle aged
men. Unlike the fixes for body odor, bad breath, flabby guts or the
improvements technology has brought to most men's car's, mechanical
watches are costly, fussy and inaccurate compared to quartz watches.
Hearing people in this forum say that the best thing someone can do
who wants a really good watch is to buy one of the many overpriced
mechanicals on the market is ridiculous. It resembles the way it would
strike you if you saw an ad for rotary dial telephones with a photo of
James Dean or Steve McQueen or Mickey Mantle using one (which they all
did even though "the Mick" likely switched to touch tone phones when
better technology came along). I've seen photos of Albert Einstein
using a mechanical calculator but when better technology came along he
used computers. And Tiger Woods would never use an old technology golf
ball, or clubs or even old tech clothing when he lived his real life
job, but Rolex exploited men's desires to associate themselves with
purchased athletes to sell their old tech watches.
I've personally owned hundreds of mechanical watches and only dozens
of quartz watches as a collector. Like most watchmakers who are mostly
immune to the hype and baloney fantasy surrounding mechanical watches,
perhaps once you've seen 5000 watches up close, they aren't that
mystical any more. Mechanical watch status is an example of the
stupidity of herd mentality combined with testosterone one-upsmanship.
For example, 90% of the guys I've seen wearing Ulysses Nardin
Astrolabium watches had them on in groups to show up the watches other
guys were wearing. These insecure little people, thought their watches
were a way of saying they were better than the next guy. Any time some
technologically second rate bauble becomes a badge of superior
maleness there is clearly something wrong with the person hiding
behind the badge. If you need a high priced watch to brag about
yourself, then you don't have much of a life, personality, exemplar
character or all three. I'm sure that most watch companies would have
given Bill Clinton any of their mechanical watches just to say he wore
it, but of course, Bill Clinton didn't need an ego boost by way of an
expensive mechanical watch (He wore a Timex digital). Ralph Nader who
is one of the most honest consumer advocates who ever lived gets by
with a $20 wind-up mechanical watch that he carries in his pocket,
because he also doesn't need to have people judge him by the status of
his watch. On the other hand Al Capone wore a Rolex and bragged to
many people he met about it.
Anyone who believes that clothes make the man, is easy prey for other
status symbols like high end mechanical watches. European companies
making mechanical watches have convinced millions of men seeking
status to be label whores for their watches as if that was a good
thing. Less easily taken in, the Swiss (almost all of whom know
someone in the watch business) have made Rado the best selling
expensive watch in Switzerland and Rado makes very few mechanical
watches. Swiss people are relatively immune to the hype surrounding
watches because they all know someone who can debunk the mythology of
mechanical watches, BUT the fact that a watch like a Rado can look
nice and new for the lifetime of the owner really IS something worth
paying for. If people in this forum explained that mechanical watches
were old technology that doesn't work as well as quartz and will cost
the owner more to use and require more effort to maintain, I'd be okay
with that. I would prefer that new aquirers of watches start with
their heads on straight before they get sucked in by the vacuous ad
babble of the label-whore market. And since those who have already
been sucked in need others to admire their second rate mechanicals (or
what's the point of having a status symbol), it might be helpful to at
least point new watch buyers in the direction of vintage mechanicals.
But of course I stick to the facts that differentiate quartz from
mechanical watches instead of trying to poke fun at the advocates of
mechanical watches. Fortunately the facts concerning quartz and
mechanical watches favor quartz timepieces, so I don't need to make
personal attacks to score points. Or maybe I'm just cynical about the
motives of the makers of mechanical watches, so perhaps it is just a
personal thing. Good luck, have fun and don't ever believe anyone who
tells you that any watch will ever make you a better person than your
actions show you to be. Watchking
We don't get enough sand in our glass
(AND Now a word from MY SPONSOR, Check out the first 4 galley/editing
chapters of my completed novel, "The Physics of Crime", the adventures
of Tom T. Gradeczek, watch maven and accidental detective at
http://www.geocities.com/tomtgradeczek/Chapter1.html)
Max Stahl <max@nine_two_eight.com> wrote in message news:<4069cdab@darkstar>...
omniscient idiot
---- --- ---- --- ------- ----------- ------
The world of horology is under grave threat from those infidels who
use the wrong watch type. As loyal followers of our faith, we horology
followers have a religious duty to exterminate those people, to
destroy their implements, and to alert those wretched sould who do not
seem to be blessed with the spiritual ability to discern the ultimate
horological truth.
Therefore, if you see a watch which does not use a movement based on
<your favourite timekeeping technology goes here>, destroy it. Don't
worry that you may get into trouble. Our mortal bodies, which life in
this world only temporarily, is not worth much; it is the absolute
horological truth that we must pursue. Truth alone must we pursue.
Don't worry about what those horological pagans who wear the <the
timekeeping technology you hate goes here> watches think. As pagans,
they are fair game. We believers are called to correct the ways of
those who would follows, and to exterminate those who won't.
Look at the <little endian / big endian, or whatever side of the
egg-breaking holy war you are in>'s example. The bodies of those
brave, holy <big/little> endian warrior brethrens of ours have
perished, but their souls have entered egg heaven. The horological
heaven, promised to those who defend the right religion of horology,
is much greater than an egg!
Take a <your favourite timekeeping technology> watch - and kiss it
piously. Make sacrifices and burn incense before it, and make a
prayer. Then, wage the holy horological war!
Regards, oi
The Grand Khan and Supreme Shaman of the Heavenly Horological Empire
PS: BTW, I actually sort of respect the informative way the great King
Watch has followed so far. However, I sometimes tend to think that we
horology folks may be too high-strung. Otherwise, how can you explain
the fact that this thread - which started from someone simply asking
about the relative merits of various timekeeping techs - devolve into
something almost resembiling a flame war?
watchki...@lycos.com (Watch King) wrote in message news:<c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com>...
Olaf Peuss
> CALL FOR HOLY WAR AGAINST HOROLOGICAL PAGANS
> ---- --- ---- --- ------- ----------- ------
[...]
Holy war? Will I also go straight to paradise and get my seven virgins
when I sacrifice my life fighting horological pagans, or, even worse,
horological heretics? :-)
SCNR & Kind regards,
Olaf
--
E-Mail only to reply-to address, please.
omniscient idiot
I suppose so - or, rather, horological paradise
> and get my seven virgins
Perhaps you will get the souls of seven timepieces instead - one
manual wind, one automatic, one primary battery-powered ("ordinary")
quartz, one kinetic, one solar, one atomic, and one sundial. Regards,
oi
John Rowland
news:c4dk09$pdf$1...@online.de...
> Our great spiritual leader Usama bin Rolex aka omniscient idiot wrote:
>
> > CALL FOR HOLY WAR AGAINST HOROLOGICAL PAGANS
>
If you support mechanical watches, you'll get 7 verges.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
randee
more reliable than the current batch of do-everything electronic
phones. I've probably replaced the porta-phone a half dozen times, yet
the 40+ year old rotary keeps on working. There really has been no
advance in phone reliability near as I can tell, now the switching
equipment (frame room equipment) may be a different story. Now as to
mechanical watches, I would argue that some folks, I know at least one,
have bought expensive mechanical watches simply because a person made
all, or virtually all of it. That one person I know makes model working
steam engines, machining or otherwise fabricating all the parts
himself. He said that's the appeal of the mechanical watch, knowing
somebody does what he does - makes things by hand, just watches instead
of steam engines.
--
wf.
Watch King wrote:
>
> Max I am not in the least anti-mechanical. I write a series or
> articles for both WatchUSeek.com and Time4watches.com helping new
> collectors to collect watches. Considering the number of years that
> mechanicals have been produced vs quartz or even electronic watches,
> most watches people will collect will be mechanical. Mechanical
> watches are inferior to quartz watches as timekeepers, and in all the
> ways that make an appliance serve its owner like shock resistance,
> water resistance, cost of maintenance, types of features and even
> innovations, and it's been that way for at least 20 years. European
> watch companies can't compete in the quartz marketplace very
> profitably (Rado being an exception) and so they have adopted a
> different way to sell an inferior product, pandering to the
> insecurities of men aged 18-50. So the same market segment that
> wouldn't consider buying mechanical calculators, or rotary telephones
> which are comparably inferior, are sucked into buying an inferior
> product by the heavily subsidized use of sports and
<<snip>>
Jack Denver
mechanical watches, mostly they get recommendations for very moderately
priced brands on alt.horology - see the recent thread on recommended
chronographs.
Look - nobody forces anyone to buy a mechanical watch, cheap or expensive.
People choose to do so, and generally people who buy expensive mechanicals
are not using the rent money like some of the folks addicted to gambling or
drugs. These are people with excess disposable income and if they choose to
waste it on worthless baubles, that's their business. Our whole capitalist
system more or less depends on convincing people to buy stuff they don't
really "need", in the sense of being necessary for survival, so the watch
industry is well within that mainstream, celebrity endorsements and all.
Everything you say about "label whores", etc. is equally applicable to
quartz watches - the biggest sinners, in fact are quartz fashion watches
where a $1000 watch may have a $20 movement.
Despite their inherent and admitted inferior accuracy (which BTW in modern
mechanicals is not too bad - over time mechanical errors on a properly
regulated watch tend to cancel out so that the watch experiences very little
net drift - quartz errors OTOH tend to be all in the same direction) a
mechanical watch can still be fun - the popularity of glass backs means you
get to see the balance wheel and escapement doing its little dance - quartz
watches don't have glass backs because there's nothing to watch and they are
BORING. Maybe if you've been looking at them for 30 years the thrill is
gone, but for the newbie mechanical watch owner it's a little thrill - hell
my kids are thrilled when they see a dial telephone because they never get
to see one. And they can be very practical - a modern automatic is a very
reliable watch for everyday use, and one that won't have its battery die at
an inconvenient time.
As for the Swiss and their watch buying habits, for some odd quirky reason
(and the Swiss are odd, quirky people, and I mean that in a good way) and
not the reasons you give, Rado is a top selling brand there. 99% of the
people in Switzerland nowadays no longer work in the watch industry. The
fact that they are #1 there is no more influential on me that what the #1
brand is in Belgium or Austria. Perhaps Rado has a particularly strong
dealer and sales network in Switz. Switzerland is a tiny country and while
prosperous, it's not one that people look to for fashion leadership the way
they do say to Milan just over the mountains. No one emulates the Swiss
taste in clothes or cars or anything except perhaps chocolate. The ceramic
Rados, while very scratch resistant, strike me personally as just plain
ugly. A minute ago you told us not to rely on "celebrity" endorsements, but
then you put the entire Swiss nation up as an endorser of Rado. I buy what I
want, not what Jean Claude in Geneva or Hans in Zurich wants.
"Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c184e934.04033...@posting.google.com...
snip
> Today's machine made mechanical movements are fine too (for an
> inferior timekeeper) and Zeno, dFreemont and Davosa sell watches with
> ETA 2428-2 and 2892 movements that are reasonable price performers.
> But somehow this forum is full of silly advice extolling the 2nd rate
> virtues of ridiculously overpriced mechanical watches that enthrall
> the paid shills at most watch magazines, and are highlighted in ads by
> watch companies in men's magazines that should insult people's
> intelligence.
snip
Spock
>A couple thoughts come to mind - one is that rotary telephones are far
>more reliable than the current batch of do-everything electronic
>phones. I've probably replaced the porta-phone a half dozen times, yet
>the 40+ year old rotary keeps on working. There really has been no
>advance in phone reliability near as I can tell, now the switching
>equipment (frame room equipment) may be a different story. Now as to
>mechanical watches, I would argue that some folks, I know at least one,
>have bought expensive mechanical watches simply because a person made
>all, or virtually all of it. That one person I know makes model working
>steam engines, machining or otherwise fabricating all the parts
>himself. He said that's the appeal of the mechanical watch, knowing
>somebody does what he does - makes things by hand, just watches instead
>of steam engines.
I like both mechanical and quartz watches. They each offer something
to be admired. That is, to those of us that would argue the
difference. The truth is, your watch will most likely never be noticed
by anyone. Unless, you like watches.
The one and only watch I wear that was ever noticed noticed by a "lay"
person was my Schwarz-Etienne Flight Controller. Probably because of
the big hands. The watch is as accurate as my Citizen Eco-drive quartz
models. It is state of the art for a mechanical watch.
You do have to wind it though. That may be too much trouble for some.
Frank Adam
wrote:
>Max I am not in the least anti-mechanical. I write a series or
>articles for both WatchUSeek.com and Time4watches.com helping new
>collectors to collect watches. Considering the number of years that
>mechanicals have been produced vs quartz or even electronic watches,
>most watches people will collect will be mechanical. Mechanical
>watches are inferior to quartz watches as timekeepers, and in all the
>ways that make an appliance serve its owner like shock resistance,
>water resistance, cost of maintenance, types of features and even
>innovations, and it's been that way for at least 20 years. European
>watch companies can't compete in the quartz marketplace very
>profitably (Rado being an exception) and so they have adopted a
>different way to sell an inferior product, pandering to the
>insecurities of men aged 18-50. So the same market segment that
>wouldn't consider buying mechanical calculators, or rotary telephones
>which are comparably inferior, are sucked into buying an inferior
>product by the heavily subsidized use of sports and entertainment
>personalities and ad campaigns that imply that a man who doesn't buy a
>mechanical watch is inferior to men who waste their money on watches
>that make noises and sparkle like a ring of glittery keys.
>
You seem to have an interesting idea about inferiority.
I'm a watch maker, with 25 years behind me at the bench and more than
half of that solely a trady for various retail outlets.
I've seen a lot of different watches come and go through my workshop..
Just to further underline my stance on this issue, i don't mind quartz
watches and i don't have any love interest in mechanicals. As a matter
of fact, the two of my watches, that i wear regularly for work and
occasions, are both quartz.
Having put that part down.. There is absolutely no merit to your claim
that mechanicals are less reliable than quartz and/or cheaper to
maintain. I see more quartz repairs than mechanicals. Much more.
So do all my collegues. The repairs in most of the mechanicals
generally comprise of a clean and lube and the occasional set lever
spring. Pretty much the same with most quartz repairs, however a lot
of them do in a coil or a circuit for no reason at all. Quite
regularly.
In a mechanical watch it is very rare that a mainspring will break
within the warranty period, given that the spring was inspected at
service time. You can inspect the hell out of a coil and it will still
break down whenever it feels like.
The recommended service interval is the same and the cost is also
about the same (at least here in OZ) given equal quality rating.
Keeping in mind that restoration work is another matter...
The weakest point of a mechanical is the balance and pallets. As we
know, a large enough shock can cause damage to either or both of
those, but i can't even remember when i've changed a staff last in a
shock protected watch. Let alone pallets, an impulse pin or even just
reset a pallet jewel.
I can however, show you 6 coils and 2 circuits just from this weeks
workload.. Each of those customers paid the price of 4 mainsprings or
that of a complete balance for that coil.
There is also a point to be made over how these two behave when
something goes wrong. When a quartz grinds to a halt due to it's
service intervals having been neglected, it will more often than not
become unusable. With a mechanical this will usually happen quite
gradually and giving quite a lot of notice to it's user. The customer
will find that the watch will not go for 36 hours anymore, and may
need to be wound every 20 hours, maybe even every 8, but the watch
will still be usable and will provide a somewhat realible time keeping
in most of that period..
When they are dropped with a force that cause internal damage, the
quartz in most cases will cease to operate. The mechanical too,
although i have seen many that would still operate with a broken
balance staff and even give a surprisingly accurate and stable reading
in one position.
If after a schock the dial moves across (quite common, this) it will
stop the quartz, very rarely will it stop or even effect the manual.
To sum up, when you make statements about reliability and maintanence
needs and costs, you should really consult those who actually do this
all day and keep in mind that you are supposed to be comparing peers.
Restoring a 60 year old Elgin will no doubt cost more than servicing a
10 year old quartz. But 50 years from now, replacing circuits, coils
and just about any part in that quartz will be quite difficult and it
will be reflected in the price. Which will probably exceed that of a
same age mechanical's restoration costs. The tuning forks are a prime
example, their service costs, ex-Omega are higher than that of their
mechanicals, or at least the last time i've asked for a quote, it was.
I think the problem here (on the group) is that all these Mech vs
Quartz arguments are pivoted on the extremes. Most people do not
mistreat their watches and most reasonable quality mechanicals will
withstand the "normal" everyday occurances in our lives.
Accuracy-wise, there is no doubt about the quartz being more superior,
but even there, if you were to ask the average person's need for that
accuracy, it is not really there.
Of course nowdays we are getting very lazy and adjusting to time and
god forbid, winding a watch evey day is simply not acceptable.
--
Regards, Frank
robbo1981
"Norman Schwartz" <nm...@att.net> wrote in message
news:aMC9c.29978$tY6.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Alex W.
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
message news:37bp60d2f7fhgc1tf...@4ax.com...
No glass?
In my (amateur) experience, the most common actual repair
(as opposed to maintenance) is scratched or broken glass.
> In a mechanical watch it is very rare that a mainspring
will break
> within the warranty period, given that the spring was
inspected at
> service time. You can inspect the hell out of a coil and
it will still
> break down whenever it feels like.
For what it's worth, I own a number of watches whose
mainsprings are original, unrepaired and two- to three
hundred years old -- and they work perfectly. I rather
doubt that any quartz -- or any other electrical appliance,
for that matter -- would survive that long.
Jack Denver
will be dead in 200 years. No one buys are car or a fridge or a computer or
anything else with the expectation that it will work in 200 years, nor
should they - if you deposit a penny a compound interest today, there will
be enough to buy 100 watches 200 years from now. Your descendants would
rather have that money than a lousy old watch.
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c4l0hc$p0n$1...@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
Frank Adam
<nunu...@netscape.net> wrote:
<tp adjust>
>> For what it's worth, I own a number of watches whose
>> mainsprings are original, unrepaired and two- to three
>> hundred years old -- and they work perfectly. I rather
>> doubt that any quartz -- or any other electrical appliance,
>> for that matter -- would survive that long.
>>
>Personally, I don't care - I'll be dead and my children and grandchildren
>will be dead in 200 years. No one buys are car or a fridge or a computer or
>anything else with the expectation that it will work in 200 years, nor
>should they - if you deposit a penny a compound interest today, there will
>be enough to buy 100 watches 200 years from now. Your descendants would
>rather have that money than a lousy old watch.
>
um.. yeah, but those holographic, multiple space time imaging
chronometers, weighing 0.001 grams, will still be better, more
accurate and much more reliable. Aaaand it was proven to be the only
timepiece to still funtion perfectly while the wearer was being sucked
into the vacuum through a 2 inch tube out of his space craft. ;--p
Alex, i would have those old "blue" springs changed. When they finally
do go, it can be very not pretty. They generally break in the middle
or at the center and that leads to quite a jolt to the rest of the
train. For the past 4-5 years i've been changing those springs, even
if the quote didn't cover it. Just piece of mind to me..
--
Regards, Frank
Alex W.
> Personally, I don't care - I'll be dead and my children
and grandchildren
> will be dead in 200 years. No one buys are car or a
fridge or a computer or
> anything else with the expectation that it will work in
200 years, nor
> should they - if you deposit a penny a compound interest
today, there will
> be enough to buy 100 watches 200 years from now. Your
descendants would
> rather have that money than a lousy old watch.
What money? In the US during the past 200-odd years, you
had the dollar, the French franc, the Spanish real, the
Mexican peso, the British pound, Dutch guilders and Russian
rubles as legal tender in at least parts of the country. If
a Californian ancestor of yours had done what you
recommended, the "fortune" would have been lost several
times over. In Europe, the situation was far worse. The
only currency that has survived without interruptions for a
thousand years is the English Pound. If you believe that
your descendants will still enjoy the US Dollar, the chances
are less than fair. A collectable antique, OTOH, can always
be turned into the currency of the day. As a bonus, he
chances aren't half bad that it is still functional and
therefore useful.
I value durability. I find it objectionable that we buy
items which are designed to fall apart within a few short
years. I love the fact that when I took my
great-grandfather's watch out of the safe where it had lain
for fifty-two years, it kept good time and struck the hours,
quarters and minutes faultlessly (yes, I know, it was a
stupid thing to do). I do not expect a car or a fridge or a
computer or anything else to survive for two hundred years,
but I like to see them built as if they were going to try.
Alex W.
> Alex, i would have those old "blue" springs changed. When
they finally
> do go, it can be very not pretty. They generally break in
the middle
> or at the center and that leads to quite a jolt to the
rest of the
> train. For the past 4-5 years i've been changing those
springs, even
> if the quote didn't cover it. Just piece of mind to me..
Thank God I never came to you then...
:-)
A mainspring in an old Brockbanks chronometer (to pick a
name) is likely as not signed by its maker, and its presence
or absence can seriously affect the value of a watch.
I'm not sure how often the spring breaks, anyway. In almost
twenty years of collecting, I have never had it happen to
me.
John and Beverly
I couldn't agree more. There is wisdom
in your words.
Regards, John C.
"Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com...
> life easier. Watchking
>
> We don't get enough sand in our glass
>
>
Norman Schwartz
"John and Beverly" <Nan...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:kKGdnYFYHLG...@centurytel.net...
> Excellent !
>
> I couldn't agree more. There is wisdom
> in your words.
>
> news:c184e934.04032...@posting.google.com...
> > Thorsten, it is unfortunate that many of the people in this forum are
> > being so misleading in their answers to what seem like two questions
> > you have posed. The first being whether quartz watches are more
> > accurate than mechanical watches, and this does not even begin to
> > cover all of the many ways that quartz watches are vastly superior to
> > mechanical watches.
Watch *enthusiasts* own both types and wear whichever satisfies them at the
current time! (Period.)
Thorsten Hofmann
really helped me getting an idea of what I actually want.
"Norman Schwartz" <nm...@optonline.com> wrote:
>Watch *enthusiasts* own both types and wear whichever satisfies them at the
>current time! (Period.)
Since I am no enthusiast and not willing to spend lots of money for
expensive watches (I know that "expensive" is a stretchy term) and
just want a good looking, accurate and adequate rugged watch with a
classic design and everything but a metal strap I'll clearly go for a
quartz watch.
After searching around quite studiously I came down to a Tissot Watch.
I've looked at many of them and my local watch dealer was so kind to
order one specific model for me which I can take or leave. I chose the
Tissot PR 50 Chrono, the T34.1.428.52 to be more specific. You can
have a look on it by following this
lengthy link.
It has a leather strap, a date, chronograph design, quartz movement
and sapphire "glass".
So, thanks again everybody and forgive my ignorance.
Thorsten
--
Suche: Günstigen 6x7 Projektor (Haha)
Norman Schwartz
choose (above), with the exception of the sub dials being a bit too
prominent.