Shock resistance: quartz v. mechanical
Tony Stanford
I have a Seiko 7S26 in a 100m case, and a Seiko quartz 7N36 in a 200m
case.
Which of these two watches is best suited to withstand shocks? I'm not
talking about anything excessive - the odd jar gardening, doing odd
jobs, etc.
I've had a Seiko quartz SQ100 day/date 100m (not divers) with an 8123
movement for 20 years without a service, only battery changes. That
seems pretty robust to me. Or don't quartz movements need servicing that
often?
Thanks
--
Tony Stanford
Jack Denver
balance wheel to break. Quartz LCD watches can be most shock resistant of
all since there are no moving parts - the Casio G-shock have the movement
cushioned in a rubber mount and they test them by throwing them off the roof
of a several story building, which would destroy any mechanical watch.
For ordinary use, a modern shock resistant mechanical is likely to withstand
any forces that would not break your arm. Typically damage comes from having
the watch dropped onto a hard surface while off the wrist, not from anything
that would happen while you are wearing it. That being said, gardening, etc.
can be rough on a watch cosmetically - scratches, dirt, etc. so it is not a
bad idea to have a very inexpensive "beater" watch than you can wear on such
occassions - this will keep your better watches looking better for a longer
time. If you scratch a $10 drugstore watch you won't feel bad about it.
Generally quartz movements do not generally need service unless they are not
keeping time and in that case it is generally cheaper to replace rather than
service the movement, as few quartz movements cost over $40 and most cost
much less. They should be regarded as modern "planned obsolesence" products
like VCRS and toasters that are no longer economical to service - it is
cheaper to build a whole new one down a robot automated assembly line than
have a skilled technician diagnose and repair faults in an old one.
"Tony Stanford" <tony_s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:e6WKRXCY...@dsl2.net...
Olaf Peuss
> I have a Seiko 7S26 in a 100m case, and a Seiko quartz 7N36 in a 200m
> case.
>
> Which of these two watches is best suited to withstand shocks? I'm not
> talking about anything excessive - the odd jar gardening, doing odd
> jobs, etc.
Both would be OK for that purpose. Just use the cheaper one for the
"dirtier jobs". ;-)
> I've had a Seiko quartz SQ100 day/date 100m (not divers) with an 8123
> movement for 20 years without a service, only battery changes. That
> seems pretty robust to me. Or don't quartz movements need servicing that
> often?
Usually not. Most movement parts are made of plastic anyway, so what
would you want to service. And the critical part in mechanical movements
is the escapement, where most of the friction appears, and where proper
lubrication (= regular service) is essential to keep the watch ticking.
You simply don't have that in a quartz movement.
Best regards,
OP
Frank Adam
<tony_s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>I have a Seiko 7S26 in a 100m case, and a Seiko quartz 7N36 in a 200m
>case.
>
>Which of these two watches is best suited to withstand shocks? I'm not
>talking about anything excessive - the odd jar gardening, doing odd
>jobs, etc.
>
Both should do well, but the mechanical will take much more abuse.
It would have to be a hell of a jolt to break the 7S26, the automatic
rotor may brak off, or the balance may jump out. I have *never* seen a
Seiko 7 series with a broken balance and can count on one hand the
number of rotors i've replaced.. in many years at the bench.
It can take much less to break/stop quartz modules like the 7N36.
>I've had a Seiko quartz SQ100 day/date 100m (not divers) with an 8123
>movement for 20 years without a service, only battery changes. That
>seems pretty robust to me. Or don't quartz movements need servicing that
>often?
>
Not being spring driven, they can go much longer without any signs of
a problem, than mechanicals. None the less they do require standard
service just like other oiled equipment, especially if you want to
keep that watch much longer.
Virtually nothing is available for those things anymore, so if
anything wears out, it may be hard to slot a different movement in its
place. Luckily, torque is virtually non existent in quartz watches so
even when ran dry for a long time, they rarely show any wear.
--
Regards, Frank
Tony Stanford
<fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> writes
[Snip]
Thanks for all the helpful replies. Your point about never having seen a
Seiko rotor arm fall off interested me. I bought a new Rolex once (I've
mentioned this before). I was very careful with it - never subjected it
to abuse. Because it packed up every 18months - 2 years, it was serviced
regularly, at great cost. The rotor arm fell off *twice* inside 3
years. Had it repaired and sold it to a bloke in a pub for not much less
than I had paid. Bought a Seiko SQ100, no problems in 20 years.
--
Tony Stanford
dAz
ummm well yes there is a weakness in that the jewel bearings the rotor
axle runs thru can pull out of the auto plate with a good knock.
in comparision the ball raced rotor on the Seikos is about as solid as
you can get
Jack Denver
was not invented by Rolex they stubbornly refuse to adopt it 50 years after
the rest of the watch industry switched away from jeweled rotor bearings.
"dAz" <dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau> wrote in message
news:434a5ba4$0$28528$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Tony Stanford
<dazb@zipDOTcomDOTau.?.invalid> writes
>
>ummm well yes there is a weakness in that the jewel bearings the rotor
>axle runs thru can pull out of the auto plate with a good knock.
>
>in comparision the ball raced rotor on the Seikos is about as solid as
>you can get
So much for the Rolex advertisements up Mount Everest, in the deserts,
etc. Since they are not particularly robust, or accurate ... what's the
fuss about? I know so many people who have had problems with Rolex, but
nary a one with Seiko.
--
Tony Stanford
Olaf Peuss
> Quartz movements are generally more shock resistant. There is no delicate
> balance wheel to break.
Analogue quartz movements more shock resistant than mechanical ones? I
don't really think so. Particularly the Seiko 7S26 movement is virtually
indestructible. I've never heard of a Seiko 7S26 movement with a broken
balance wheel, only of one (out of how many I can't recall) that
suffered from a defective rotor after more than 15 years of faithful
service. Not a bad job for a $50 watch, is it?
> Quartz LCD watches can be most shock resistant of
> all since there are no moving parts - the Casio G-shock have the movement
> cushioned in a rubber mount and they test them by throwing them off the roof
> of a several story building, which would destroy any mechanical watch.
And any analogue quartz, too. I agree that them G-Shocks are the most
shock resistant watches in the world. OTOH, they're so butt ugly that I
wouldn't want to be found dead in the street with one on my wrist. ;-)
> If you scratch a $10 drugstore watch you won't feel bad about it.
My sentiments exactly.
> Generally quartz movements do not generally need service unless they are not
> keeping time and in that case it is generally cheaper to replace rather than
> service the movement, as few quartz movements cost over $40 and most cost
> much less. They should be regarded as modern "planned obsolesence" products
> like VCRS and toasters that are no longer economical to service - it is
> cheaper to build a whole new one down a robot automated assembly line than
> have a skilled technician diagnose and repair faults in an old one.
Yes, quartz watches usually have that reputation of being cheap and
disposable pieces of junk that don't really justify any higher
maintenance cost than the price of a new battery.
Best regards,
OP
Fraser Johnston
> So much for the Rolex advertisements up Mount Everest, in the deserts,
> etc. Since they are not particularly robust, or accurate ... what's the
> fuss about? I know so many people who have had problems with Rolex, but
> nary a one with Seiko.
It's advertising. Rolex are in the business of promoting the image of their
brand, watches are secondary.
Fraser