Interesting remark on tourbillons
Jack Forster
Giulio Papi, of Renaud & Papi, (Audemars Piguet's high end complications
house) on tourbillon accuracy. This remark was made in an interview in the
Singapore Business Times, during a discussion of GP's collaboration with
Lange & Sohne on the Lange Pour Le Merite Tourbillon (which is the only
modern wristwatch AFAIK with a fusee- in fact I think the only wristwatch
ever made with a fusee.)
"WK: Please end the controversy for us. Is a tourbillon more accurate than a
normal wristwatch, all things being equal?
GP: Interestingly, it was during our work on the Pour Le Merite Tourbillon
that we discovered the truth about how a tourbillon escapement affects the
accuracy of a watch. As to your question, the answer is that it all depends
on the size of the balance. Think of the balance of the tourbillon like an
amplifying device. If the balance is too light it only amplifies faults, but
if it's heavy enough it amplifies the good qualities of a watch. This means
that in two watches of equal quality, one with a normal escapement and the
other a tourbillon escapement (with a balance that is 10 mm in diameter or
more), the tourbillon will be more accurate.
WK: So size does matter? GP (laughs): Yes, you could say in this instance
size does matter. It is for this reason that tourbillons are very effective
in pocket watches because their balances are bigger. It is a question of the
inertia created by the balance."
The question of whether a tourbillon can even theoretically contribute to
wristwatch accuracy is very much debated, with the usual strong opinions and
personal insults ;-) thrown around for lo these many years, and it's
interesting to read these remarks for two reasons: first, GP is
authoritative (one of the great modern horological talents) and also because
at least from his comments, it seems clear that the usual arguments
pertaining to positional issues and wristwatch tourbillons are actually not
relevant.
An extremely arcane debate but for those of you who are interested, it's a
revelatory comment.
Jack Forster
Admin, ThePuristS.com
Jack Denver
why balances have all their weight concentrated at the rim. And also why
balances with larger diameters are better than smaller. But since the
tourbillon cages takes up space, in an equal sized watch the tourbillon
balance has to be smaller than the largest possible non-T balance in the
same watch. If you rig the game by using the same size balance in both as
Papi describes, then the T may win, but it is not a fair comparison.
Papi advocates a 10mm or larger balance. For reference, this is the
balance size in the Valjoux 7750 and the Rolex movements, both known for
good timekeeping. In its 24xx series, ETA uses a 9mm balance and they also
achieve very good results with a high grade assortment. Papi also does
not address beat rate - the pocket watches of yore had large balances but
their leisurely beat rates limited their accuracy vs. a modern hi-beat that
is much smaller.
Also, Papi is speaking in very general terms and does not offer any timing
results. In the absence of those, nothing is really proven. He also does
not address whether his (not disclosed) results were measured on the wrist
or by the usual static timing methods - the latter would give the T an
advantage that would not appear in real life wear.
And of course even the best performing tourbillon does not outperform a $10
Timex quartz. In the modern era, tourbillons are not built because they
offer better performance (if they do at all, the improvement is likely to be
marginal at best) but as a way of showing off the art of mechanical
horology. It's a waste of time to even think of them in terms of "accuracy"
because they are not about that at all.
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:od%Pe.3734$x43.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Mij Adyaw
mechanical watch = $3000. Tourbillion = $50,000. Why?
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:h4CdnZ2dnZ1pdvGinZ2dn...@comcast.com...
Jack Forster
is never very large to begin with, has to move not only the usual components
(escape wheel, lever, balance) but in the case of the tourbillon the cage
also, as well as the mass of all the parts of the escapement. Generally
this means that you have to construct the thing pretty carefully in order
for it to run at all- they're laborious to construct, adjust, and make run
properly. They certainly can be mass produced- the Million Smart company of
China is producing tourbillons that can be had for under a thousand dollars
on eBay (unfortunately many of them are knockoffs of other company's
designs, but they are genuine tourbillons) and on superficial examination
they don't look half bad. They may not last particularly well and they
certainly don't exhibit the level of craftsmanship found in a good modern
tourbillon (some designs are better than others and timing results in modern
tourbs range from unbelievably accurate to absolutely dreadful, depending on
the manufacturer, the design, and even the individual watch for that
matter)- one way you can get a power hungry complication to run is to just
throw in a more powerful mainspring but this increases side load on the
pivots, wear on the lubricant and eventually wear on the piece.
Tourbs are fussy- there have been pocket watch tourbillons which ran to
within quartz specs but they take a fairly tremendous amount of massaging to
get them to do so. Of course as with any luxury goods a big part of the
reason they cost so much is because people are willing to pay so much ;-) .
Jack Forster
"Mij Adyaw" <mija...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:oa6Qe.50800$Ji4.24366@fed1read03...
Jack Denver
down the cost thru economies of scale, you have to have mass demand. It's
not clear that the demand for large quantities of tourbillons exists at any
price. If the demand existed, the technical challenges of mass production
would have been solved long ago. The reputation of T's as finicky dates
from the era of manual production. If Rolex or ETA were to apply the
techniques and tools that they use to mass produce chronometers to a T,
they would have no problem churning them out by the thousands.
"Mij Adyaw" <mija...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:oa6Qe.50800$Ji4.24366@fed1read03...
Olaf Peuss
> It's a chicken and egg problem - in order to have mass production and drive
> down the cost thru economies of scale, you have to have mass demand. It's
> not clear that the demand for large quantities of tourbillons exists at any
> price. If the demand existed, the technical challenges of mass production
> would have been solved long ago.
I'd rather say that the watch industry has been trying to keep the
prices up by spreading the propaganda of high-precision tourbillons that
are infinitesimally complicated to build, adjust and therefore extremely
expensive. In our economies of scale, scareness is nothing but the
suppliers artificial means to keep prices at a high level.
I don't think that anyone in this group has ever built their own small
series of tourbillon movements and can therefore reliably report if
after the difficulties with the first movement were solved, the
subsequent movements caused the same amount of work.
> The reputation of T's as finicky dates
> from the era of manual production. If Rolex or ETA were to apply the
> techniques and tools that they use to mass produce chronometers to a T,
> they would have no problem churning them out by the thousands.
Demand or no demand, IMHO they don't even want that. Why should they
ruin themselves an extremely lucrative business? By keeping the number
of T watches low, they can practically charge whatever they want for
them and get away with it. If they started to mass produce them due to
an increasing demand, they'd soon be forced to sell ten or more T
watches to get the profit that they now get on one.
Best regards,
OP
Jack Forster
rather large number of tourbillons being produced lately- it seems that
everyone and his brother is making one these days. Your remarks re: mass
production are interesting. It's true, apparently, that mass production of
tourbillons per se is possible- witness the relatively large volume of
Chinese tourbs- but on the other hand to produce any watch with a high level
of manual craftsmanship and careful adjustment will always be an expensive
proposition and the more so for tourbs. IMHO, the appeal is not to have a
tourbillon per se but rather to have one that exhibits the traditional high
level of craftsmanship that was associated with them in the past. To me
it's less a question of owning a tourbillon- which is not all that
interesting per se- and more a question of whether or not the tourb or
indeed any watch has an attractive combination of history, workmanship, and
precision in operation. I do agree that the value of many modern
tourbillons may not hold very well over the years; the market value is
rather artificially inflated at present by a combination of the
voraciousness of the present collector market and the low numbers (yes,
still low relative to other complications, the fact of a 'glut' relative to
the even lower numbers in the past notwithstanding) produced.
I think there will always be something of a market for really well made
tourbillons. There's a world of difference between one of the Million Smart
tourbs and, say, the Patek 10-day- or, of real interest to me, one of the
vintage Patek observatory tourbs with a Guillaume balance- or one of the
vintage Omega tourbs. A little pricey though. . . ;-) .
Jack Forster
"Olaf Peuss" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:dest5d$r9s$1...@online.de...
the swisswatchguy
In the days the tourbillon system was invented, in order to neutralise
the terrestrial attraction, it presented an advantage for a watch's
accuracy. Now, for all above explained reasons, it is not anymore, as
the application of all the modern manufacturing and regulating
techniques allow for a high average precision in all positions.
Therefore, tourbillons have to remain a watch lovers and collectors
"man made" system to treasure.
Jack Denver
"nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded."
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mDnQe.3769$x43.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Jack Forster
greatly exaggerated (at least so far) to paraphrase another great American.
Despite the relatively large numbers in production they still seem to be
selling well, and the nosebleed inducing, ultra-expensive multi-axis tourbs
are doing extremely well. I'm holding out for a Bonniksen karrusel with a
Kew Class A certificate, personally ;-) .
Jack F.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TfWdnRaRCIM...@comcast.com...
Olaf Peuss
> In the days the tourbillon system was invented, in order to neutralise
> the terrestrial attraction, it presented an advantage for a watch's
> accuracy.
When Breguet invented the tourbillon, he did so as to cancel out the
effects of gravity on the movement. However, back in those days, pocket
watches were all the rage, and wristwatches were - if at all - a thing
for the ladies (Breguet made at least one for Napoleon's sister Louise,
using a miniaturised pocket watch movement). And pocket watches were
usually kept in the watch pocket of a vest or jacket, so they
practically stayed in the same upright position 24 h/day. For such
watches, a tourbillon helped improve accuracy.
> Now, for all above explained reasons, it is not anymore, as
> the application of all the modern manufacturing and regulating
> techniques allow for a high average precision in all positions.
Much more to the point: The effect of tourbillons on the smaller
movements of wristwatches is neglectable because
a) the movements of modern wristwatches are considerably lighter than
those of pocket watches, thus gravity effects the lighter mass of
wristwatch movements far less than the heavier mass of pocket watch
movements and
b) as wristwatches, when worn, are hardly ever in an upright position,
but a tourbillon can only effectively cancel out gravity effects when
the movement is turned upright to the centre of gravity, a tourbillon is
hardly ever able to function properly - unless you decide to store the
watch with its dial (and movement) in an upright position.
> Therefore, tourbillons have to remain a watch lovers and collectors
> "man made" system to treasure.
... and with the watch industry aptly pulling the right emotional
strings with watch enthusiasts so as to persuade them that they acquire
something ultra-precise when they get themselves a tourbillon
wristwatch. :-) As this doesn't really take any bread away from people
in need, that's all right with me, and probably with everybody else
around in this group. I just wonder how many (or few) collectors are
acutally aware that tourbillons in wristwatches are merely more than
highly complicated gimmicks.
Best regards,
OP
the swisswatchguy
Olaf Peuss wrote:
> ... and with the watch industry aptly pulling the right emotional
> strings with watch enthusiasts so as to persuade them that they acquire
> something ultra-precise when they get themselves a tourbillon
> wristwatch. :-) As this doesn't really take any bread away from people
> in need, that's all right with me, and probably with everybody else
> around in this group. I just wonder how many (or few) collectors are
> acutally aware that tourbillons in wristwatches are merely more than
> highly complicated gimmicks.
People are getting increasingly badly in need of satisfying their urge
for "emotions" and "identification", through any kind of luxury,
including philosophy, religion and various oddities & perversion:
Luxury watches are just a few drops in this ocean of needs, where
"believing in" is more important than any actual use, proofs & facts.
Most people are unlike St. Thomas.
"Animals have these advantages over man: they never hear the clock
strike, they die without any idea of death, they have no theologians to
instruct them, their last moments are not disturbed by unwelcome and
unpleasant ceremonies, their funerals cost "
Voltaire (French Philosopher and Writer, 1694-1778)
Jack Forster
improve accuracy and actually makes it harder to achieve a stable rate-
that's certainly the opinion of a significant number of very respected
professional independents. However I am not sure that the tourbillon can
NEVER offer theoretical advantages. The whole 'wristwatch as a natural
tourbillon' argument sounds plausible but if it were in fact true that the
variety of different positions that the watch is in throughout the day
effectively average out the positional variations, then adjusting a high
grade watch to positions ought not to ever be necessary, yes?
Historically, of course, tourbillon wristwatches have shown superb
performance in observatory time trials, but the very low number of
wristwatch tourbillons tested relative to those without doesn't give us much
of a data set to work with. To return to the beginning of the thread, GP's
comment was interesting to me b/c he seems to be saying that his team
discovered that the balance mass was really critical to whether or not the
tourbillon could theoretically improve stability of rate. Of course as Jack
D pointed out in two identical calibers, the additional size of the cage
might take up space that could be put, arguably, to better use by simply
making the balance larger. One caveat to this argument is that you can't
make the balance itself arbitrarily larger without adversely affecting
stability of rate at some point.
I think that for most of us the tourbillon (even if we could afford one) is
precisely what most posters to this thread have been saying- a complication
of historical rather than practical interest. Whether or not it is
theoretically useless in a wristwatch, which is a different argument, is
less clear to me, and even amongst industry professionals the opinions have
been very divided AFAIK. I find the theoretical argument far more
interesting since it will be a cold day in hell before I can actually afford
a tourb ;-) unless I decide to get one from Million Smart ;-) .
Jack F.
"the swisswatchguy" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125310044....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jack Denver
The whole 'wristwatch as a natural
> tourbillon' argument sounds plausible but if it were in fact true that the
> variety of different positions that the watch is in throughout the day
> effectively average out the positional variations, then adjusting a high
> grade watch to positions ought not to ever be necessary, yes?
The answer really is yes. I am at this moment wearing a watch with a
mid-grade 2824 (Zodiac) that I have closely regulated to my wear pattern.
It is almost dead even with the atomic clock. The last time I synchronized
the watch was a couple of weeks ago and it has only been off a few seconds
at most at any point. The watch has NOT been adjusted to position.
Now this watch would almost certainly fail chronometer testing - if you
were to hold it in various static positions for a day at a time (as the
COSC test requires), expose it to hot & cold, let the spring run down for 24
hrs, etc. it would fail. However, kept as it is on my wrist, fully wound,
at a relatively even temperature and on my "wrist tourbillon", it keeps near
perfect time and a tourbillon would be hard pressed to improve on the actual
wrist results.
>
> Historically, of course, tourbillon wristwatches have shown superb
> performance in observatory time trials, but the very low number of
> wristwatch tourbillons tested relative to those without doesn't give us
> much of a data set to work with.
Again, the typical observatory testing methods are completely outdated to
the point of being quaint in this age of remote real time measurement.
What is needed is a testing method that simulates the way wristwatches are
actually worn. I believe in such a true simulation, the "theoretical"
advantage of the T, if any, would disappear.
To return to the beginning of the thread, GP's
> comment was interesting to me b/c he seems to be saying that his team
> discovered that the balance mass was really critical to whether or not the
> tourbillon could theoretically improve stability of rate. Of course as
> Jack D pointed out in two identical calibers, the additional size of the
> cage might take up space that could be put, arguably, to better use by
> simply making the balance larger. One caveat to this argument is that you
> can't make the balance itself arbitrarily larger without adversely
> affecting stability of rate at some point.
Balance size is also limited by the diameter of the caliber in a movement
with a modern layout. In a 26mm wrist caliber you have a theoretical 13mm to
work with, so allowing for the thickness of the center shaft and a little
clearance a 10mm balance is not far off. Rolex and Valjoux use 10 mm
balances in their men's calibers. The ETA 24xx series have 9mm balances. I
don't know about arbitrarily large (something the size of a dinner plate)
but within the constraints imposed by layout, if you could squeeze in an 11
or 12mm balance I think it would work even better than a 10. And as you
state, the space taken up by the cage would probably be put to better use
filled with a large balance all other things being equal.
>
> I think that for most of us the tourbillon (even if we could afford one)
> is precisely what most posters to this thread have been saying- a
> complication of historical rather than practical interest. Whether or not
> it is theoretically useless in a wristwatch, which is a different
> argument, is less clear to me, and even amongst industry professionals the
> opinions have been very divided AFAIK. I find the theoretical argument
> far more interesting since it will be a cold day in hell before I can
> actually afford a tourb ;-) unless I decide to get one from Million Smart
> ;-) .
"Theoretically", I'd say that given two identical calibers with the same
size balance, the T would do marginally better on observatory trials if not
real life conditions. But this is a rigged contest for the reasons
previously stated. I agree with you that the real interest in T's is as an
exercise in the watchmaker's art and not for any compelling increase in
performance, especially not "real life" performance. And remember again
that even top performance for a mechanical is completely lame in this age of
GPS, RC controlled watches, etc. which are accurate to milliseconds (and
which can be had for a pittance).
>
> Jack F.
>
>
Olaf Peuss
> Well, there is already starting to be something of a backlash against the
> rather large number of tourbillons being produced lately- it seems that
> everyone and his brother is making one these days.
Conversation between 2 low-life bums, recently picked up on the
underground: "Got myself a really nice tourb watch the other day." -
"You too? They've become as common as muck and cheaper than a bottle of
booze, haven't they?" - "Terrible, isn't it? Half the world and his wife
seems to have one these days." :-)
> Your remarks re: mass
> production are interesting. It's true, apparently, that mass production of
> tourbillons per se is possible- witness the relatively large volume of
> Chinese tourbs- but on the other hand to produce any watch with a high level
> of manual craftsmanship and careful adjustment will always be an expensive
> proposition and the more so for tourbs.
You're right with what you say. Companies like Patek Philippe or A.
Lange & Söhne take pride in handcrafting things that could be mass
produced. Even if tourbillons need to be adjusted manually, the parts
could be machined, even without any loss in quality - perhaps it'd be
just the opposite as machines usually work with a lot more precision
than any human hand. It's likely to be the same as Rolex with their 80+
% automated production or Seiko with their /de facto/ 100 % robot-
assembled watches: Neither precision nor reliability suffers from a high
or even a total degree of automation. Why should that be different with
tourbillons, of all watch components?
> IMHO, the appeal is not to have a
> tourbillon per se but rather to have one that exhibits the traditional high
> level of craftsmanship that was associated with them in the past.
Right, tourbillons epitomise the "grand old days" of the watch industry,
sorry, watch handcraft. They're probably good for their sentimental
value, their technical value in wristwatches is at least very debatable.
In pocket watches, this might be completely different - even today.
> To me
> it's less a question of owning a tourbillon- which is not all that
> interesting per se- and more a question of whether or not the tourb or
> indeed any watch has an attractive combination of history, workmanship, and
> precision in operation.
For me, precision and reliability in mechanical watches come first. Good
workmanship is important in order to achieve those virtues, and
"history" is one of those buzz words I can't really deal with. What is
"history": 50 years since the brand came into being, or 60, or 100? A
name that inspires respect or even awe, such as Patek or Lange? Or would
Omega, IWC, Rolex, Breitling suffice? Or Seiko? :-)
> I do agree that the value of many modern
> tourbillons may not hold very well over the years; the market value is
> rather artificially inflated at present by a combination of the
> voraciousness of the present collector market and the low numbers (yes,
> still low relative to other complications, the fact of a 'glut' relative to
> the even lower numbers in the past notwithstanding) produced.
The watch companies grub what the market bears, and nobody can blame
them. As I said before: Selling T watches at artifically inflated prices
to a well-heeled clientele isn't exactly robbing the poor to help the
rich. If people are willing to pay over the odds for a technically
fascinating but practically useless gimmick in a wristwatch, I'm the
last person in the world to stop them.
> I think there will always be something of a market for really well made
> tourbillons. There's a world of difference between one of the Million Smart
> tourbs and, say, the Patek 10-day- or, of real interest to me, one of the
> vintage Patek observatory tourbs with a Guillaume balance- or one of the
> vintage Omega tourbs. A little pricey though. . . ;-) .
Just a little ... ;-)
Best regards,
OP
Paul Raposo
or a sense of place; which no amount of wealth, status, sense or feeling of
being *needed*, or self-importance can quench. However, the great majority
of homo sapiens are quite comfortable in their skin and in "a good place" in
regards to their lives and their standing within the infinitum that is the
universe.
Paul R.
the swisswatchguy
Jack Forster wrote:
I find the theoretical argument far more
> interesting since it will be a cold day in hell before I can actually afford
> a tourb ;-) unless I decide to get one from Million Smart ;-) .
Jack, welcome back to this NG!
How is dentistry going? Here in Switzerland, it still generates enough
income for a genuine Swiss tourbillon. :-)
Jack Forster
science- human anatomy and neurology. Here in America it generates enough
income to buy a subscription to magazines with pictures of tourbillons ;-) .
Warm regards,
Jack
"the swisswatchguy" <swissw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125386881.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Jack Forster
against exigencies such as variations in personal habits. Although, as with
so many other satisfactions in horology, the satisfaction of positional
adjustment is probably more intellectual than practical. A good friend
who's a watchmaker tells me that the best positional performance he has seen
(and he's worked on most of the major movements used by the luxury Swiss
brands) was in an unadjusted Valjoux 7750 that happened to have a maximum
positional variation of one second. Which, I assume, is a rarity, but who
knows? -it could be more the rule than the exception given modern
manufacturing methods. I've had the same experience you have with most of
my watches- I spend a few days regulating them to my personal wear pattern
and they hardly ever go off as long as they're worn. Of course not everyone
is comfortable taking the backs off their watches and fiddling with the
innards.
Jack F.
"Jack Denver" <nunu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1YCdnSCI5PA...@comcast.com...
Jack Denver
precision of modern machine tools) has done wonders for the accuracy of
mechanical watches and explains why even very modest movements today offer
such good performance.
Even those uncomfortable with regulating their own watches can take them to
the watchmaker and ask him to trim X seconds off the regulator. A lot of
people are unhappy with their mechanical watches (even expensive ones)
because they consistently gain or lose a certain # of seconds/day - it's not
unusual for a new mechanical to end up 30 secs/day off if you don't regulate
it post-purchase. A lot of mechanical buyers don't realize that any kind of
consistent gain/loss can be trimmed away fairly easily and that all you
should be left with is non-directional gain/loss, e.g. under some conditions
you gain and others you lose. Even better, because such inaccuracy is
non-directional it tends to be self-cancelling so that over the long run the
loses and gains more or less balance each other out. A $10 regulator
adjustment would make tons of people much happier with their mechanical
watches. I for one would go nuts with a watch that was gaining/losing
several minutes a week.
"Jack Forster" <tcm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:%sZQe.10903$ZG2.1...@twister.nyc.rr.com...