Tag Heuer or Omega
sellimaster
i am in the process of desicion between a tag heuer monaco -(the steve
mcqueen re-edition - the blue one) and a omega seamaster (the 007 one)
fact is i don't really know much about them or watches in general-so i
am basically influenced only by the appearance of them.
i would be very thankful for any pros/cons or comment about
quality,unique features,.... of those two watches
thx
tata h.
ps: what do you all think of the tag heuer 2000 classic quarz,too????
Thore B. Karlsen
>Hi! I am a kinda newbie to watches!!
>
>i am in the process of desicion between a tag heuer monaco -(the steve
>mcqueen re-edition - the blue one) and a omega seamaster (the 007 one)
>
>fact is i don't really know much about them or watches in general-so i
>am basically influenced only by the appearance of them.
TAG Heuers don't get any respect from those that know watches, while
Omegas have generally been considered good value for money. I have a
Seamaster (the newer model, not the Bond), and I'm very happy with it.
If you are looking to impress people, buy a TAG, it's probably more well
known to the general public. If you are interested in watches and want a
_good_ watch, get an Omega.
>ps: what do you all think of the tag heuer 2000 classic quarz,too????
Don't buy a quartz watch in this price range, it is just throwing your
money away.
--
Be seeing you.
WKF
buy the TAG.
But, if you want to spend your money on a better watch, worth more in resale
value, and will impress serious watch collectors, get the OMEGA.
I say, don't get anything to impress people, get what you like.
The more you learn about watches, the more you'll want the OMEGA.
"Thore B. Karlsen" <s...@6581.com> wrote in message
news:2b47pu8dhcb30fmrf...@4ax.com...
Ricky
"Thore B. Karlsen" <s...@6581.com> wrote in message
news:2b47pu8dhcb30fmrf...@4ax.com...
Thore B. Karlsen
<js...@notavailidaddress.com> wrote:
>A colleague showed me his Omega 007 watch the other day.
>It's a genuine chronometer so the movement is impressive
>but the watch case is positively tacky.
The case itself? What's tacky about it?
>When I turned the outer ring the sound was like tin on tin.
Mine sounds completely normal, very solid. It's not a musical box, so
don't expect it to play Für Elise as you turn it.
>The dial itself is hardly anything to write home about and for £1300 pounds
>here in the UK I thought he'd been ripped off.
Hell yeah, you can get a new Bond model for half that!
>I suppose there will be a future market for these boys toys but it's not a
>watch for a discerning gentleman.
James Bond would disagree. :) Although I think the Bond model looks
hideous beyond description.
--
Be seeing you.
Allan
Forget the tAg, go for Omega. It's a much better watch. You are paying tAg
for
the hype and the marketing, that's all. As for Omega, you are paying for the
quality
of the watch. Besides, tAg is just so tAgkIe.
And yes, for this kind of money, do not buy a quartz watch! You will just be
buying a jewellery, not a watch.
- Al
"Thore B. Karlsen" <s...@6581.com> wrote in message
news:2b47pu8dhcb30fmrf...@4ax.com...
Thore B. Karlsen
>Well, I'm not surprised Thore is the first to reply on this issue. :)
I'll take that as a compliment. ;)
--
Be seeing you.
John Rowland
news:VF%k9.153$XH4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> And yes, for this kind of money, do not buy a quartz watch!
> You will just be buying a jewellery, not a watch.
What a bizarre statement. Since quartz outfunctions mechanical in every way,
it is the quartz which is the watch and the mechanical which is the
jewellery.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 28th Nov.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
Jim Wayda
same claim for the quartz?
"John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:an33gf$q9$2$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Freddie Freeloader
> "John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>> "Allan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:VF%k9.153$XH4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >
>> > And yes, for this kind of money, do not buy a quartz watch!
>> > You will just be buying a jewellery, not a watch.
>>
>> What a bizarre statement. Since quartz outfunctions mechanical in every way,
>> it is the quartz which is the watch and the mechanical which is the
>> jewellery.
>>
>
> The mechanical will last 100 years if properly services. Can you make the
> same claim for the quartz?
Just how many people base their decision to purchase an item on
whether or not it will last 100 years? Not everyone sees a watch as
an heirloom, some people, strange as it may seem, would rather have an
accurate timekeeper. In any case, it's rather hard to predict the
life-time of quartz watches, or anything else for that matter, over
the next 100 years, although there are certainly many quartz watches
from the 70s which are still running today. On the other hand, I have
a couple of automatics from the same period which are now useless due
to the lack of spare parts.
NE333RO
>it is the quartz which is the watch and the mechanical which is the
>jewellery.
Actually not in every way. Mechanicals win for longevity. They are also
more heat resistant and hold up better if the movement gets wet. Really the
only thing quartz movements are better for is accuracy. I would agree that
mechanicals are jewelry (art) and quartz is just a watch.
NE333RO
>whether or not it will last 100 years?
I do, if at all possible. Why would you want to buy something you will have
to replace over and over, when there is an alternative? Particularly when the
alternative is around the same price.
Not everyone sees a watch as
>an heirloom, some people, strange as it may seem, would rather have an
>accurate timekeeper.
Personally, I'm not so anal that I have to have my watch set to exactly the
time displayed on the atomic clock. Being two seconds late or having to reset
my watch every six months is not that big a deal to me.
In any case, it's rather hard to predict the
>life-time of quartz watches, or anything else for that matter, over
>the next 100 years, although there are certainly many quartz watches
>from the 70s which are still running today.
There are a few, but the 70's isnt a hundred years, and most of the ones
still running have had a movement replacement.
On the other hand, I have
>a couple of automatics from the same period which are now useless due
>to the lack of spare parts.
Every one of your automatics is repairable.
Ult
Tiger (Prince Date) Submariner w/automatic movement, model 89190. I
recently bought one and it's an excellent value. There are plenty
available on ebay.
atu...@hotmail.com (sellimaster) wrote in message news:<cb282087.02092...@posting.google.com>...
Allan
> > You will just be buying a jewellery, not a watch.
>
> What a bizarre statement. Since quartz outfunctions mechanical in every
way,
> it is the quartz which is the watch and the mechanical which is the
> jewellery.
Why bizarre? You pay for the craftmanship in building a mechanical watch.
What do you pay for quartz?
- Al
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
John Rowland <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Allan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:VF%k9.153$XH4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> And yes, for this kind of money, do not buy a quartz watch!
>> You will just be buying a jewellery, not a watch.
>
>What a bizarre statement. Since quartz outfunctions mechanical in every way,
>it is the quartz which is the watch and the mechanical which is the
>jewellery.
That's very logical, but wrong. There's very few collectible
quarts watches. The rest just get cheap fast.
--
Richard Sexton | Mercedes Parts: http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
W108, W126 Mercedes Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
sellimaster
well thanx for all the comments guys!!!although it drifted of to a
quarz vs. automatic battle :-)
i am basically looking for a everyday wearable (not just a super
collectors item - beeing afraid of wearing it) watch.
i don't know if the tag heuer monaco steve mcqueen can stand my
demands.thats why i asked for the tag 2000 quarz too-it looks cool
too.
are there any quality pros and cons (not just image ones!!)??????
thx dudes
p.s.:another thing - what do you all think of the luminox navy seal
series II????
sellimaster
i almost forgot!!!if we go into a battle quartz against automatic -
what about omega seamaster quartz vs. automatic vs. tag heuer 2000
classic quartz????
thx guys. i am still deciding!!!
tata H.
Thore B. Karlsen
>hi again!!!
>
>
>i almost forgot!!!if we go into a battle quartz against automatic -
>what about omega seamaster quartz vs. automatic vs. tag heuer 2000
>classic quartz????
Still the same. Omega good, TAG crap.
--
Be seeing you.
Freddie Freeloader
>>Just how many people base their decision to purchase an item on
>>whether or not it will last 100 years?
>
> I do, if at all possible. Why would you want to buy something
> you will have to replace over and over, when there is an
> alternative? Particularly when the alternative is around the same
> price.
>
Yes, you might have a point. It must be a nuisance to have to buy a
new watch more frequently than once every hundred years.
> Not everyone sees a watch as
>>an heirloom, some people, strange as it may seem, would rather have an
>>accurate timekeeper.
>
> Personally, I'm not so anal that I have to have my watch set to
> exactly the time displayed on the atomic clock. Being two seconds
> late or having to reset my watch every six months is not that big a
> deal to me.
>
It's not just that mechanical watches are slightly less accurate than quartz,
they're less accurate by an order of magnitude. I know that accuracy
isn't the most important factor for many people but I don't think that
it's an unreasonable thing to look for in a watch.
> In any case, it's rather hard to predict the
>>life-time of quartz watches, or anything else for that matter, over
>>the next 100 years, although there are certainly many quartz watches
>>from the 70s which are still running today.
>
> There are a few, but the 70's isnt a hundred years, and most of
> the ones still running have had a movement replacement.
Granted, It's hard to come up with examples of quartz watches which
have been running for 100 years.
>
> On the other hand, I have
>>a couple of automatics from the same period which are now useless due
>>to the lack of spare parts.
>
> Every one of your automatics is repairable.
I'm sure that I could get the required parts made. I could also spend
the money on a new watch instead. If you're prepared to pay enough
any watch can be made to last as long as you like, although you may
end up like the janitor who's had the same broom for 20 years: it's
only needed 5 new handles and 6 new brushes.
John Rowland
news:azal9.81601$S32.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
>
> The mechanical will last 100 years if properly services.
So where have they all gone? The mechanical market is tiny today compared to
what it was in the 1960s, so there should be a huge surplus of 1960s mech
watches floating around with 60 years of life in them available for a pound
each - and yet people are paying thousands of pounds for new ones just so
that they can get 100 years of use instead of 60 - I don't think so...
> Can you make the same claim for the quartz?
A quartz watch will easily last a hundred years: so long as you buy a new
battery, a new strap, a new case and a new movement every few years. It will
be cheaper than servicing the mechanical, and it will keep the right time.
And every few years you get new functions.
Darrell Miles
Darrell
Freddie Freeloader
>>Just how many people base their decision to purchase an item on
>>whether or not it will last 100 years?
>
> I do, if at all possible. Why would you want to buy something
> you will have to replace over and over, when there is an
> alternative? Particularly when the alternative is around the same
> price.
>
Yes, you might have a point. It must be a nuisance to have to buy a
new watch more frequently than once every hundred years.
> Not everyone sees a watch as
>>an heirloom, some people, strange as it may seem, would rather have an
>>accurate timekeeper.
>
> Personally, I'm not so anal that I have to have my watch set to
> exactly the time displayed on the atomic clock. Being two seconds
> late or having to reset my watch every six months is not that big a
> deal to me.
>
It's not just that mechanical watches are slightly less accurate than quartz,
they're less accurate by an order of magnitude. I know that accuracy
isn't the most important factor for many people but I don't think that
it's unreasonable thing to look for in a watch.
> In any case, it's rather hard to predict the
>>life-time of quartz watches, or anything else for that matter, over
>>the next 100 years, although there are certainly many quartz watches
>>from the 70s which are still running today.
>
> There are a few, but the 70's isnt a hundred years, and most of the ones
> still running have had a movement replacement.
>
Granted, It's hard to come up with examples of quartz watches which
have been running for 100 years.
> On the other hand, I have
>>a couple of automatics from the same period which are now useless due
>>to the lack of spare parts.
>
> Every one of your automatics is repairable.
I'm sure that I could get the required parts made. I could also spend
Kat
<jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> thoughtfully scribbled
>A quartz watch will easily last a hundred years: so long as you buy a new
>battery, a new strap, a new case and a new movement every few years. It will
>be cheaper than servicing the mechanical, and it will keep the right time.
>And every few years you get new functions.
Ah, but will it be the same watch?
--
>Kat<
Jim Wayda
Real watches are mechanical. I would suggest the Seamaster Automatic in
steel or titanium. It is a very good watch. Tag watches are like costume
jewelry. They are just all flash.
"sellimaster" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb282087.02092...@posting.google.com...
NE333RO
>new watch more frequently than once every hundred years.
With quartz's, if you buy quality, it's about once every ten years (or a
new movement, which ever comes first)
>It's not just that mechanical watches are slightly less accurate than quartz,
>they're less accurate by an order of magnitude.
What order of magnitude? I'm personally not terribly worried about one
minute a month (or whatever it is) when I'm perfectly able to reset the time.
If we were talking about ten minutes a day you might have an argument.
I know that accuracy
>isn't the most important factor for many people but I don't think that
>it's an unreasonable thing to look for in a watch.
Just like anything else you buy, there's usually a tradeoff. Mechanicals
are a bit less accurate. Quartz watches are obsolete and mostly unrepairable in
ten years. Everyone has to make their own choice.
>Granted, It's hard to come up with examples of quartz watches which
>have been running for 100 years.
Ummmmmmmmmmm, you mean like none?
>I'm sure that I could get the required parts made.
If you knew a decent watchmaker he would probably have the contacts to get
the parts. Barring that, he would be able to make them. Can the same be said
for quartz? Movement replacement doesn't count.
I could also spend
>the money on a new watch instead.
That's true. I understand that Burger King has quartz watches this week for
$1.98 and they keep amazingly accurate time.
If you're prepared to pay enough
>any watch can be made to last as long as you like, although you may
>end up like the janitor who's had the same broom for 20 years: it's
>only needed 5 new handles and 6 new brushes.
The question is, did the janitor replace a few bristles every once in a
while, or replace the broom every few weeks?
Freddie Freeloader
>>Yes, you might have a point. It must be a nuisance to have to buy a
>>new watch more frequently than once every hundred years.
>
> With quartz's, if you buy quality, it's about once every ten years (or a
> new movement, which ever comes first)
>
Well, I've only owned maybe 4 or 5 quartz watches and the oldest is
only about 20 years old now (and a fairly cheap Pulsar too). They're
all still running fine and on the original movements. This isn't
exactly a statistically significant sample but I'd be surprised if
quartz is generally as unreliable as you suggest.
[snip]
> I know that accuracy
>>isn't the most important factor for many people but I don't think that
>>it's an unreasonable thing to look for in a watch.
>
> Just like anything else you buy, there's usually a
> tradeoff. Mechanicals are a bit less accurate.
You mean "a lot less accurate"
> Quartz watches are obsolete and mostly unrepairable in ten
> years.
Some may be, but I'd be surprised if this is a generally accurate
picture of quartz longevity.
> Everyone has to make their own choice.
>
>>Granted, It's hard to come up with examples of quartz watches which
>>have been running for 100 years.
>
> Ummmmmmmmmmm, you mean like none?
>
Duh. I'm also having trouble locating examples of CD players made in
the 1920s, for much the same reason.
>>I'm sure that I could get the required parts made.
>
> If you knew a decent watchmaker he would probably have the
> contacts to get the parts. Barring that, he would be able to make
> them. Can the same be said for quartz? Movement replacement doesn't
> count.
>
Doesn't it. What's the difference then?
> I could also spend
>>the money on a new watch instead.
>
> That's true. I understand that Burger King has quartz watches
> this week for $1.98 and they keep amazingly accurate time.
>
I happen to think that it is pretty amazing that you can produce and
sell a watch for $1.98 which keeps such accurate time. I'm surprised
that such an achievement evokes scorn on alt.horology of all places.
> If you're prepared to pay enough
>>any watch can be made to last as long as you like, although you may
>>end up like the janitor who's had the same broom for 20 years: it's
>>only needed 5 new handles and 6 new brushes.
>
> The question is, did the janitor replace a few bristles every once in a
> while, or replace the broom every few weeks?
And the difference is?
Freddie Freeloader
It might be slightly more expensive, but what about an Omega X-33?
sellimaster
steel???except for the price or the weight???? is there a better
quality or....???
what about the speedmaster moon with glass??
"Jim Wayda" <jwa...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Dqvl9.87582$S32.5...@news2.west.cox.net>...
Jim Wayda
better looking than the X33 and the Superquartz is much more accurate.
"Freddie Freeloader" <freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m3vg4pa...@ntlworld.com...
Jim Wayda
the weight of the much heavier steel Seamaster.
Ronan O'Leary
"Kat" <*news*@kat22.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpC85NBL...@purplehaze.freeserve.co.uk...
you think?
no shit Sherlock
Thore B. Karlsen
<freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> I know that accuracy
>>>isn't the most important factor for many people but I don't think that
>>>it's an unreasonable thing to look for in a watch.
>> Just like anything else you buy, there's usually a
>> tradeoff. Mechanicals are a bit less accurate.
>You mean "a lot less accurate"
Not always. Most of my mechanicals are/have been _more_ accurate than
the quartz wathces I've had.
--
Be seeing you.
Simon Bryquer
discussion which has now lasted much too long without adding anything new.
It almost borders on the religious element in terms that if you're a
believer in one or the other you won't change each others mind and all that
is happening is the waste of bandwidth.
What it does reveal to me is the person's sensibilities and overall
aesthetics or lack thereof -- and you all can guess which is which.
IMO
SCB
"Freddie Freeloader" <freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m3znu1a...@ntlworld.com...
NE333RO
>steel???except for the price or the weight???? is there a better
>quality or....???
Titanium scratches faster.
sellimaster
Well i am not quite sure about the digital stuff and the water
resistance of the X-33?? do i really need all the thingies and stuff
- i am no astronaut???
but if the quality is allright then why not. but i haven't seen one
real yet and i really don't wanna buy out of the cataloge.
guess why deciding is so hard for me :-)
even the list of omegas i am interested in now is constantly growing -
its really hard to buy a watch.
i have a list of 16 tags and 22 omegas now, and i started with 1 tag
vs. 1 omega 2 days ago!!!
and i have to choose one out of those 38 watches - puuh!!!!!:-)
i spend some time over the weekend and really looked up some nice
pieces.
posting messages can really be confusing :-)
but thx for all the interesting comments
Freddie Freeloader
> I really don't understand the gist of this ongoing quarts vs. mechanical
> discussion which has now lasted much too long without adding anything new.
> It almost borders on the religious element in terms that if you're a
> believer in one or the other you won't change each others mind and all that
> is happening is the waste of bandwidth.
>
Hmm, well I'm very fond of mechanical watches and have a couple which
I wear fairly often, and I also like quartz watches, with my main
watch being a Junghans radio-controlled quartz. I wonder what sort of
believer I'm supposed to be?
There seems to be a tendency to denigrate quartz watches at every
turn, which I just find rather surprising as it's hard to think of a
more significant development in horology than the development of the
quartz movement.
> What it does reveal to me is the person's sensibilities and overall
> aesthetics or lack thereof -- and you all can guess which is which.
>
So you judge peoples character by whether they wear a mechanical or
quartz watch? I'm curious, do my aesthetics change when I'm wearing one
of my mechanical watches vs the quartz?
Paul Cooper
<freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Simon Bryquer" <sbry...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> I really don't understand the gist of this ongoing quarts vs. mechanical
>> discussion which has now lasted much too long without adding anything new.
>> It almost borders on the religious element in terms that if you're a
>> believer in one or the other you won't change each others mind and all that
>> is happening is the waste of bandwidth.
>>
The whole debate is silly. I love mechanical movements - they are
works of art, and connect me with the work of past horologists.
However, by their nature they are delicate and relatively inaccurate
unless they are a) extremely expensive and b) cossetted. So, for real
world applications where I need accuracy and robustness I use a quartz
watch - and I have needed it for airborne survey work in the Arctic.
Paul
Simon Bryquer
add to the 'cyber-noise'.
I believe there is conceptual confusion and misunderstanding between quartz
watches and mechanical watches. Emphasis on the word WATCH not TIME. Yes
they both deal with the telling of time but beyond this they are not
related. It is like saying because mice are gray and elephants are gray
therefore they are related -- both being gray.
With mechanical watches one deals with a history and tradition of
extraordinary inventions of mechanical concepts plus a tradition of craft
and aesthetics that went into the making of complex little machines that yes
at first addressed the issue of telling time -but in time - they evolved
into making these mechanism and all their parts innovative and often
ingenious in terms of function but above all also great effort was spend
into also making all these elements beautiful and works of art in every
detail. I just paged through the latest catalogue of Antiquorium for their
up and coming auction in Geneva devoted to unusual horological works of art.
The majority coming from what I would loosely call the Breguet period (
though there were many brilliant watchmaker during this time I chose the
name Breguet symbolically to name the period as well as honoring his great
contributions) of watchmaking - a period of almost Einsteinian discovery and
innovation in the craft of horology that has really never been matched and
surpassed. I use the Einsteinian note here only as a simile in term of what
occurred as an analogy of break through in the world of subatomic physics.
Yes I believe Breguet was the Einstein of horology in term of genius and
setting a totally new paradigm.
With quartz one deals only with the telling of time and the telling of time
accurately - that is its goal period. There is no craft, aesthetic and etc.
by comparison. The first time I opened up a quartz watch I felt like I was
looking into an empty coffin, there was not body and to be quasi poetic --
no horological soul.
Yes quartz watches tell the time more 'accurately' - but my involvement with
time and watches is not primarily accuracy unless I have a plane to catch
and so on and even in those situation my mechanical watch does the job just
fine -- especially these day when nothing is on time anyway. I am not
engaged in the measurement of time in terms of scientific endeavors --
where I do believe a quartz or atomic clocks should be the time measurement
instrument ( note I use the word instrument not watch) of choice. Now in
terms of quartz having more multi-functions such as alarms, dates, phone
numbers, timers of all sorts and etc - granted. I will not shy away from
using one and in fact I do when I exercise and other things.
But outside of all that to me a watch is a mechanical instrument. Now as to
your (Freddie Freeloader) question as to whether I judge people in terms of
the watches they wear, of course not . But then again it all depend about
their attitude towards the quartz or the mechanical. I know far too many
people that wear mechanical watches ( and some very expensive ones) whose
easthetics and overall social taste and attitudes leave alot to be desired
in terms of refinement and so on and quartz wearers that are artist and so
on -- but the bottom line again is how they relate and understand what they
are wearing on their wrist which finally does reflect and define them.
I didn't not intent for this to be so long -- but anyway greeting one and
all hope you have the right time according to your understanding regardless
of what you're wearing.
Simon Bryquer
"Freddie Freeloader" <freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m3fzvsz...@ntlworld.com...
sellimaster
>
> Titanium scratches faster.
Does it really???damm - then titanium isn't the stuff for me!!! i
probably should buy a tank around my wrist :-) just kidding
no i really want to have a real resitent(as much as possible) watch.
resistence against water and scratches and well as most things as
possible. but if titanium scratches easier then is better should go
for a steel then. the weight doesnt matter that much - and if thats
the only pro, well.....
sellimaster
> If you are going to go with quartz, get the Breitling Aerospace. It is much
> better looking than the X33 and the Superquartz is much more accurate.
>
>
well beauty is in the eye of the beholder and breitling - i don't
know...mhmm i am not really sure about that one.
don'T like that breitling that much.
and the accuracy - what kind accuracy scale do we talk about when
comparing the omega vs. breitling????
dAz
> Titanium is much lighter. I have a Titanium Seamaster because I do not
> like the weight of the much heavier steel Seamaster.
>
its also more corrosion resistant than stainless steel, so there is no
chance of rust on the case
Eric Diamond
"Jim Wayda" <jwa...@cox.net> wrote:
> Stay away from quartz. Quartz is of the devil and should be avoided :-)
> Real watches are mechanical. I would suggest the Seamaster Automatic in
> steel or titanium. It is a very good watch. Tag watches are like costume
> jewelry. They are just all flash.
>
Absolute nonsense. Quartz is fine. I have a Tag Heuer LINK chrono that I
love because of its movement. It is one of the few chrino movements that can
track down to 1/10 sec up to 12 hours. To me that is a very useful feature
that I have not seen duplicated in many watches, certainly not quartz ones.
I also have a Rolex mechanical which I love, but that Heuer is dang useful
and I am loath to part with it. Tag-Heuer makes good, rugged watches. Maybe
not the epitome of horological art, but they do their job and do it well. I
have never been disappointed with a quartz Tag-Heuer, and I have owned
several. A 1000, 2000, F1 chrono and s/el. I bought the LINK because I
missed the usefulness of the F1 chrono so much and the LINK chrono has the
same movement.
That being said, the Seamaster you speak of is one sweet piece of kit,
especially in the titanium chrono. If you do go with the Seamaster stay away
from the steel, it is like wearing a brick (I used to have one in steel).
Also, try it on before you but. They are hard to adjust.
--
Eric Diamond .·.
Oriental Lodge No.33
A.F. & A.M.
Chicago, Illinois USA
Jim Wayda
months and it has not gained or lost one second.
"sellimaster" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb282087.02092...@posting.google.com...
Thore B. Karlsen
wrote:
>> Stay away from quartz. Quartz is of the devil and should be avoided :-)
>> Real watches are mechanical. I would suggest the Seamaster Automatic in
>> steel or titanium. It is a very good watch. Tag watches are like costume
>> jewelry. They are just all flash.
>Absolute nonsense. Quartz is fine. I have a Tag Heuer LINK chrono that I
>love because of its movement. It is one of the few chrino movements that can
>track down to 1/10 sec up to 12 hours. To me that is a very useful feature
>that I have not seen duplicated in many watches, certainly not quartz ones.
>I also have a Rolex mechanical which I love, but that Heuer is dang useful
>and I am loath to part with it. Tag-Heuer makes good, rugged watches. Maybe
>not the epitome of horological art, but they do their job and do it well. I
>have never been disappointed with a quartz Tag-Heuer, and I have owned
>several. A 1000, 2000, F1 chrono and s/el. I bought the LINK because I
>missed the usefulness of the F1 chrono so much and the LINK chrono has the
>same movement.
>
>That being said, the Seamaster you speak of is one sweet piece of kit,
>especially in the titanium chrono. If you do go with the Seamaster stay away
>from the steel, it is like wearing a brick (I used to have one in steel).
Bah. My Seamaster is in steel, and it's far from uncomfortable. I don't
even notice that I'm wearing it unless I'm shaking my arm vigorously.
--
Be seeing you.
dAz
rubbish, I have a friend with a TAG titanium, it was a gift from an
ex-girlfriend, he is not particularly gentle with it, after 2 years it
still looks fine, titanium has better corrosion resistance and less
likely to cause skin rashes, you would be supprised how many "stainless"
steel watches get rust spots from contact with saltwater
Freddie Freeloader
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:05:22 +1000, sellimaster wrote:
>
>> ne3...@aol.com (NE333RO) wrote in message
>> news:<20020929135611...@mb-ms.aol.com>...
>>
>>
>>> Titanium scratches faster.
>>
>> Does it really???damm - then titanium isn't the stuff for me!!! i
>> probably should buy a tank around my wrist :-) just kidding
>>
>> no i really want to have a real resitent(as much as possible) watch.
>> resistence against water and scratches and well as most things as
>> possible. but if titanium scratches easier then is better should go for
>> a steel then. the weight doesnt matter that much - and if thats the only
>> pro, well.....
>
> rubbish, I have a friend with a TAG titanium, it was a gift from an
> ex-girlfriend, he is not particularly gentle with it, after 2 years it
> still looks fine
Some titanium watches have a glass coating, for increased scratch
resistance. This might account for the varying reports of how easily
scratched they are.
sellimaster
spent 4 hours my local watch dealer (Official Omega and Tag Dealer)
and i bought :-) hehe i won't tell. I bought 3 watches 2 mechanical
and one quartz. I think you know what 3 i mean:-)
I really like (apperance, quality and so on and so on....) all of them
. and the desicion was to hard. So i bought all 3 - cause I LIKE them.
Thanks again for all your input and if ya interested in my old and new
(today) watches mail me.
cya guys
Tata h.
dAz
> rubbish, I have a friend with a TAG titanium, it was a gift from an
>> ex-girlfriend, he is not particularly gentle with it, after 2 years it
>> still looks fine
>
> Some titanium watches have a glass coating, for increased scratch
> resistance. This might account for the varying reports of how easily
> scratched they are.
very true, I find some grades of stainless steel seem to scratch easier,
anyway if I had a choice of either st/steel or Titanium, I would always
go for titanium, better corrosion resistance and half the weight.
I have a friend involved in designing pool heating systems, the parent
company has an aerospace division so they have access to exotic materials
like titanium
one thing they do is build a pool heating coil to be used in saltwater
chlorinated pools.
the original tubing for this coil was a an expensive seamless stainless
steel tube from a Swiss supplier, this coil is a wound double layer helix
about a foot and half long by 7" diameter, tube is 10mm dia, heating is
done by pumping heated water from the solar collectors through the coil
they tested copper tube, 2 types of st/steel tube and titanium tube in
saltwater corrosion tests.
I dont have the exact figures but the copper tube was the worst at 25% of
metal eaten away, the stainless steel was next at 10% and 6% for the
seamless tube, titanium was 0.6%
result the pool heating coils are now made of titanium at a cheaper cost
then the st/steel and have a much longer service life.
dAz
dAz
> "Jim Wayda" <jwa...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:azal9.81601$S32.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
>>
>> The mechanical will last 100 years if properly services.
>
> So where have they all gone? The mechanical market is tiny today
> compared to what it was in the 1960s, so there should be a huge surplus
> of 1960s mech watches floating around with 60 years of life in them
> available for a pound each - and yet people are paying thousands of
> pounds for new ones just so that they can get 100 years of use instead
> of 60 - I don't think so...
well in the workshop right now, I have a 1970 rolex auto date, 1953 Omega
auto, 1965 leCoultre manual, 1972 Tissot auto date, a couple of pocket
watches dated around 1890, ladies Rolex 1930, all in for a general service
>> Can you make the same claim for the quartz?
>
> A quartz watch will easily last a hundred years: so long as you buy a
> new battery, a new strap, a new case and a new movement every few years.
> It will be cheaper than servicing the mechanical, and it will keep the
> right time. And every few years you get new functions.
hmmm, sounds like the old grandfather's broom joke ;)
no it won't, most quartz I get in for service are no more than 10 years
old, I have a ladies Omega quartz here that is 12 years old, its finished,
battery leakage destroyed the circuit, I cannot buy a new circuit or
movement, and no current movement on the market will fit in the case or
the dial, so its in the bin.
people have more than one watch these days, so it more likely that a watch
will get left in a drawer and forgotten, a couple of years down the line
the battery has leaked and corroded the movement.
if the watch is mechanical on the other hand all it need is to be wound
up.
if the old quartz watch is swiss standard type from the ETA factories,
yes you most likely will be able to get a new movement to fit the case
and dial/hands.
if its a in-house swiss/german/french brand or japanese, forget it, every
time they design a new movement they change the shape of the movement and
the dial feet placement.
time by my 35year Seiko 7005A autodate is 10:10am, which by the way is
still made today by Seiko as the 7S26A/7S36A
dAz
NE333RO
>ex-girlfriend, he is not particularly gentle with it, after 2 years it
>still looks fine,
Well, how can I possibly argue with your vast experience of one friend.
I've only personally inspected a couple hundred of various makes and models.
I've always been suprised when I've seen fairly new titanium watches come in
looking old and used.
Most watches use the same titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V). This and other alloys
have a Mohs hardness of 5-6, about the same as a glass crystal. Please keep in
mind that hardness has little to do with strength. A thin, natural coat of
titanium oxide makes the surface a bit harder and that helps prevent slight
scratches. Once this finish is breached, the watch is easily scratched.
There are also some treatments that can harden the surface. The two best
IMO are titanium nitride that Ventura uses, and the ceramic coating that Rado
uses. The nitride has a Mohs hardness of 9. To be quite honest with you, I have
no idea what the ceramic hardness is. They are also expensive to do.
Another point. Any decent watchmaker can refinish a stainless case to an
almost new finish. Titaniun doesn't refinish easily even with specialized tools
that the vast majority of watchmakers don't have.
> titanium has better corrosion resistance
True. However if you buy a good quality stainless watch, and take even
decent care of it, there will be no corrosion. Ok, maybe if you lose it
overboard and don't find it for a year or two.
and less
>likely to cause skin rashes,
The best reason to own one, next to its weight to strength ratio (if your
into that). Some alloys of high strength stainless use nickel which can cause
alergy problems for some people.
you would be supprised how many "stainless"
>steel watches get rust spots from contact with saltwater
Not good stainless. Not unless you leave your watch in it.
Jim Wayda
to develop this level of discipline especially if you have own expensive
gold watches. Scratches are the result of carelessness. When you are going
to work on your car, take off the Patek and wear the Timex. It is that
simple.
"Freddie Freeloader" <freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m34rc7p...@ntlworld.com...
dAz
>>rubbish, I have a friend with a TAG titanium, it was a gift from an
>>ex-girlfriend, he is not particularly gentle with it, after 2 years it
>>still looks fine,
>
> Well, how can I possibly argue with your vast experience of one
> friend.
> I've only personally inspected a couple hundred of various makes and
> models. I've always been suprised when I've seen fairly new titanium
> watches come in looking old and used.
whatever, I was only using his watch as an example, it all depends on how
the owner treats their watch, I see the good and the bad after 30+ years
in the trade
> Most watches use the same titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V). This and other
> alloys
> have a Mohs hardness of 5-6, about the same as a glass crystal. Please
> keep in mind that hardness has little to do with strength. A thin,
> natural coat of titanium oxide makes the surface a bit harder and that
> helps prevent slight scratches. Once this finish is breached, the watch
> is easily scratched.
> There are also some treatments that can harden the surface. The two
> best
> IMO are titanium nitride that Ventura uses, and the ceramic coating that
> Rado uses. The nitride has a Mohs hardness of 9. To be quite honest with
> you, I have no idea what the ceramic hardness is. They are also
> expensive to do.
you can scratch anything, I have seen Rado tungsten cases scratched to hell
> Another point. Any decent watchmaker can refinish a stainless case
> to an
> almost new finish. Titaniun doesn't refinish easily even with
> specialized tools that the vast majority of watchmakers don't have.
very true, a bead blaster cabinet comes in handy
>> titanium has better corrosion resistance
>
> True. However if you buy a good quality stainless watch, and take
> even
> decent care of it, there will be no corrosion. Ok, maybe if you lose it
> overboard and don't find it for a year or two.
sorry no, I am on the Northern beaches area of Sydney Australia, there are
a lot of my customers that are surfers, swimmers and divers, the only time
the watch case gets a rinse is when they stand under the shower, two of
the worst for corrosion around the back gaskets, and pitting through the
case leading to failure of water resistance are Seiko and Omega, doesn't
seem to happen to Citizen, Certina, Rolex.
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
>IMO are titanium nitride that Ventura uses, and the ceramic coating that Rado
>uses. The nitride has a Mohs hardness of 9. To be quite honest with you, I have
>no idea what the ceramic hardness is. They are also expensive to do.
Rado doesnt coat anything, they're made out of solids. The "hard metal"
cases are tubgston carbide and the "ceramic" cases are zirconium oxide.
Both have a Mohs scale rating of 9 or greater
--
Richard Sexton | Mercedes Parts: http://parts.mbz.org
http://www.mbz.org Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
W108, W126 Mercedes Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
No you havn't. Rado doesn't make cases out of "tungsten".
If you've seen a tungstan carbide case with scratches then somebody
worked it over with a diamond, as that's the only thing that can
scratch it. Maybe you saw a steel case that was scratched? Keep
in mind as well some Rados has hard metal bezels while the cases themselves
where steel and some Rados are just steel.
Thore B. Karlsen
work)) wrote:
>>you can scratch anything, I have seen Rado tungsten cases scratched to hell
>No you havn't. Rado doesn't make cases out of "tungsten".
>
>If you've seen a tungstan carbide case with scratches then somebody
>worked it over with a diamond, as that's the only thing that can
>scratch it.
Did Enicar make a case out of tungsten carbide? I remember seeing one
that was supposed to be made out of some kind of scratchproof material,
yet it was full of hairline scratches..
--
Be seeing you.
dAz
>>you can scratch anything, I have seen Rado tungsten cases scratched to
>>hell
>
> No you havn't. Rado doesn't make cases out of "tungsten".
>
> If you've seen a tungstan carbide case with scratches then somebody
> worked it over with a diamond, as that's the only thing that can scratch
> it. Maybe you saw a steel case that was scratched? Keep in mind as well
> some Rados has hard metal bezels while the cases themselves where steel
> and some Rados are just steel.
well sorry to bust your bubble!, years ago I worked for the Australian
service agents for Rado ok
Rado Diastar, cases are made from a tungsten carbide powder, the cases and
band were not machined but molded under extreme pressure then placed in a
furnace, finished off by polishing with diamond compounds
http://www.rado.com/
http://www.sonnysonfillmore.com/rado.htm
the particular watch in question was only about 6 months old, this is back
in 1978 or so, new model, thin rectangular case with integral bracelet,
http://home1.gte.net/raedy/ashford/rado.htm
both the case front and bracelet were of hardmetal, the entire case top,
band and sapphire crystal had deep scratches all over.
why?, the owner was a moron, after spending $2000 or so on this watch, he
would show off the watch to his friends and workmates and then brag how
"scratchproof" the watch is, he would take it off his arm and then rub it
on any available surface, footpath, sandstone wall, etc.
he found something that was harder than the case ;), result? he had to
have a new case and band not covered by warrantee and was told not to
that again.
I did a service on a similar 1978 Rado a few months back, except for a
tiny scratch the watch looked like it came out of the factory yesterday
dAz
NE333RO
>the owner treats their watch, I see the good and the bad after 30+ years
>in the trade
I agree that it is dependent on the owner, just as jewelry is. For most
people, watches are an everyday piece of equipment and it's been my experience
that most people are not overly careful with their watches. The only ones that
usually pay a great deal of attention to how they treat their watches are those
whose watches have sentimental value, low/mid income people that save up and
buy a very expensive watch, connoisseurs, and those of us in the buisness.
Everyone else pays little attention to them until they get beat up or stop
keeping time.
>you can scratch anything, I have seen Rado tungsten cases scratched to hell
Yep, anything can be scratched by something of equil or greater hardness.
Tungsten has a Mohs hardness of 9, meaning there are any number of things that
can scratch it (sapphires and diamonds being two examples) including itself.
I ran into a Rado that was sent back to the manfacturer because it was all
scratched up for no apparant reason. Twice. Turns out the girl loved to dance
and also wore her watch so loose it almost fell off. The band was rolling up on
itself and scratching itself. Shortened the band and she never had the problem
again.
>> True. However if you buy a good quality stainless watch, and take
>> even
>> decent care of it,
>sorry no, I am on the Northern beaches area of Sydney Australia, there are
>a lot of my customers that are surfers, swimmers and divers, the only time
>the watch case gets a rinse is when they stand under the shower, two of
>the worst for corrosion around the back gaskets, and pitting through the
>case leading to failure of water resistance are Seiko and Omega, doesn't
>seem to happen to Citizen, Certina, Rolex.
I live on the Gulf coast of Florida and have just as many customers that
are into water sports. We are back again to how the owner treats the watch.
Anyone that buys a high quality stainless watch and abuses it to the point that
it corrodes through the case, will ruin a titanium watch equilly as fast in
some other way. I've seen numerous stainless Omegas, Rolexs, etc., and the only
times I've seen rust is when they have leaked and the water is left inside to
corrode everything in there. Even then, the movement is shot but the case is
usually cleanable.
John Rowland
news:b5jepu4g33acjuod4...@4ax.com...
>
> The whole debate is silly. I love mechanical movements - they are
> works of art, and connect me with the work of past horologists.
Not really, because the past horologists used whatever techniques they could
find to improve accuracy. If Harrison or Breguet had discovered the
properties of quartz they would undoubtedly have used it, rather than
dismiss it as cheating. A temperature-compensated or radio-controlled quartz
watch with solar power is the closest that you can get to the spirit of the
past horologists. To deliberately eschew modern technology is ironically an
extremely modern fashion, which Harrison or Breguet would probably have
found baffling or even hysterical.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 28th Nov.
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
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
>that was supposed to be made out of some kind of scratchproof material,
>yet it was full of hairline scratches..
Dunno. But you can only scratch it with a diamond if it's real
tungstan carbide. It probably wasn't.
NE333RO
>tungstan carbide. It probably wasn't.
Not true. Tungston carbide will scratch tungston carbide, as will sapphire.
dAz
and also it doesn't like shocks, if you are using a tungsten carbide
tipped toolbit in a lathe, you have to make sure you dont get any chatter
on the bit against the workpiece, if you do it will destroy the tungsten
carbide tip very quickly
that guy that scratched the hell out of his watch, I suspect that it
wasn't the hardness of the material he was rubbing the watch against so
much as the roughness, rubbed against a rough granite block the shock of
the uneven surface is what caused most of the deep gouges I saw on the
watch case and band
Watch King
in every measurable way except for the category "ticking sound".
Another oft forgotten part of the discussion is that the same Swiss
companies that push mechanical movement watches now, were racing to
produce as as many quartz watches as they could in the late 60s and
70s. Girard Perregaux developed the quartz oscillation standard. Omega
developed the classic Marine Chronometer for the wrist (and they sell
many many quartz Seamasters today). Rolex rushed to produce a quartz
Datejust and a very large % of Rolex servicemen wear the quartz Rolex
made today. Jaeger, Patek, Audemars and others praised quartz watches
to the skies until they found they couldn't compete with other
manufacturers in the world that made quartz watches. Swatch and Rado
(which is the largest selling quality watch brand in Switzerland) both
point up the fact that genral consumers and even knowledgeable
consumers know quartz watches are superior(the Swiss are much more
knowledgeable about watches and watchmaking as a group than Americans
as a group). If you want to wear art, get a hand painted tie. If you
want the best timekeeping possible get an electronically controlled
watch (quartz or radio). Good luck, have fun and don't ever believe
that the brand or type of watch you wear says anything about the
quality of person that you are. Watchking
"John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<anf9il$be3$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
Yeah yeah so will boron nitride. The implication is though, that
you don't walk around banging a waytch into diamons, tungston carbide
and boron nitride. If it's heavily scratched it probbaly wasn't the
"hardmetal" (as Rado calls it) case.
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
>>>carbide. It probably wasn't.
>>
>> Not true. Tungston carbide will scratch tungston carbide, as will
>> sapphire.
>
>and also it doesn't like shocks, if you are using a tungsten carbide
>tipped toolbit in a lathe, you have to make sure you dont get any chatter
>on the bit against the workpiece, if you do it will destroy the tungsten
>carbide tip very quickly
True, it is more brittle than steel.
>that guy that scratched the hell out of his watch, I suspect that it
>wasn't the hardness of the material he was rubbing the watch against so
>much as the roughness, rubbed against a rough granite block the shock of
>the uneven surface is what caused most of the deep gouges I saw on the
>watch case and band
Granite is lots of different thigns mashed together. I did once scratch
a sapphire crystal when it accidently banged against a granite wall.
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
It's a matter of taste I suppose.
http://watch.gallery/l/lemania/15TL/Steel/3/image14s.jpg
or for the DNS impaired
http://vrx.net/richard/watches/l/lemania/15TL/Steel/3/image14s.jpg
Circa 1935. All original (cept for the strap).
It's large balance wheel make it very near to quartz accurate.
Certainly more accurate than any computer clock I have; those
get reset once a day to the NIST standard and drift anywhere from
7-90 secs a day. Thsi wach is within COSC standards. And ticks.
Paul Cooper
(At work)) wrote:
>
>Granite is lots of different thigns mashed together. I did once scratch
>a sapphire crystal when it accidently banged against a granite wall.
Actually, Granite is mainly Quartz (hardness 7) and Feldspar (somewhat
softer), with minor amounts of other minerals such as mica, pyroxene
and hornblende - all with very strong cleavages and unlikely to
scratch anything. Anything else is going to be very scarce indeed!
However, it only takes one grain to make a scratch. It is worth
pointing out that a lot of what is called Granite is not - lay persons
and stone masons tend to use it for any grey or pink igneous rock with
an obvious granular texture. And that can include rocks such as
eclogites which may contain (scarce) diamond as an accessory mineral.
Paul (an ex geologist!)
Simon Bryquer
If my cat was a dog and my dog a giraffe I would certainly need a higher
ceiling and have a hard time taking any of them for a walk. Fortunately that
is not the case and neither is the premise of your argument. If your idea
of art is a hand-painted tie there is no need to read further for based on
your aesthetic sensibilities your argument is deserving of your presumptuous
as to who would do what and when. In other words, yours and John Rowland's
arguments is bogus and above anachronistically skewed.
Let me say once again -- as I did in a previous post -- I have nothing
against quartz and if it is only a matter of telling time super precisely --
which is not my case -- then quartz is the time measuring instrument of
choice. But analogue mechanical watches are something else now and in the
past..
First none of us know -- what Breguet would have done -- if you insist that
you do you have a job waiting on the Psychic Network -- we only know what
Breguet did by the work he left us. And you can play all the "what if"
games in the world and he certainly
would not have danced according to the quartz box you like to put him in --
because of his sense of invention and a striving for accurate timekeeping
was an integral part of the way that time was told and how it was
resented -- a box that ONLY confirms your suppositions. Breguet was above
all a man of his time. And if telling time was his only concern his watches
would have looked quite different because it was possible to make a watch
without the added elements of finishes and engraving and cloisonné or
whatever other gold and silver craft he chose to place in his work. And
please don't put forth the notion that his is a reflection of catering to
the nobility -- if it was he would have taken a different route. Or make the
analogy that if Bach were alive today he would be a punk rocker or for the
more sophisticated argument an improvising jazz musician.
As to all those great Swiss companies embracing quartz -- well what would
you do if it was a matter of survival. With the onslaught of this ugly
quartz precision what would you do. Survive , hope until people came back to
their senses and it seems many have. But it is also a kind of survival based
on the type of thinking that the new and the modern is always better. Well
my experience tells me it isn't that way across the board. What modernity
has accomplished though is to reduce everything a common denominator and in
art or architecture a common denominator means death and the absence of art
and creation, because true art is not a democracy where the masses decide
what is best. Or better yet take the wonderful world of television and let
us observe the wonderful programming that has evolved since its inception.
Perhaps the common denominator of taste has evolved into thinking Jerry
Springer and company is art as well.as his hand painted ties. And I don't
know what part of Switzerland you're referring to as to it's people knowing
quartz watches are superior to what? Not the Swiss nor Europeans in general
I know.
But enough I just wanted to say that the logic of your argument mixing
commercial motivation at the price of the 70s invasion of an overwhelming
force in the name of quartz really -- I say once again -- has nothing to do
with watches but just with the TELLING of time, the quartz may do it more
precisely but I'll pay the price of losing a few seconds here and there with
a mechanical watch and of course preferably with one of Breguets
masterpieces.
But to each his own.
Simon Bryquer
============================================================================
================
"Watch King" <watchki...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:c184e934.0210...@posting.google.com...
Jim Wayda
even invented.
"Richard J. Sexton (At work)" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:H3H44...@T-FCN.Net...
Foo
hand. These old watches sometimes need parts that just can't be found. I've
seen a number with broken springs and missing bits that either have to be
fabricated or found. One must be very careful. Quartz watches have the
advantage of very few moving parts.
Cheers,
-Foo.
"Richard J. Sexton (At work)" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:H3H44...@T-FCN.Net...
NE333RO
>seen a number with broken springs and missing bits that either have to be
>fabricated or found. One must be very careful. Quartz watches have the
>advantage of very few moving parts.
And the disadvantage of mostly being made of plastic. At least you CAN
fabricate parts for a mechanical watch.
NE333RO
>in every measurable way except for the category "ticking sound".
Oh? Make me a part for a quartz watch.
>Another oft forgotten part of the discussion is that the same Swiss
>companies that push mechanical movement watches now, were racing to
>produce as as many quartz watches as they could in the late 60s and
>70s.
Companys will rush around and produce anything that will sell. It has
nothing to do with quality.
Girard Perregaux developed the quartz oscillation standard. Omega
>developed the classic Marine Chronometer for the wrist (and they sell
>many many quartz Seamasters today). Rolex rushed to produce a quartz
>Datejust and a very large % of Rolex servicemen wear the quartz Rolex
>made today.
Based on what study? Personally, I don't know a Rolex factory trained
repairman that wears a quartz watch.
Jaeger, Patek, Audemars and others praised quartz watches
>to the skies until they found they couldn't compete with other
>manufacturers in the world that made quartz watches. Swatch and Rado
>(which is the largest selling quality watch brand in Switzerland) both
>point up the fact that genral consumers and even knowledgeable
>consumers know quartz watches are superior
What a crock. The average consumer doesn't know crap about watches beyond
what they see on tv.
(the Swiss are much more
>knowledgeable about watches and watchmaking as a group than Americans
>as a group).
Please cite statistics. I'd guess you're talking out of the wrong orifice.
If you want to wear art, get a hand painted tie. If you
>want the best timekeeping possible get an electronically controlled
>watch (quartz or radio).
True....................as far as your argument goes. Come back in 20 years
when you can't get your quartz watch repaired.
Good luck, have fun and don't ever believe
>that the brand or type of watch you wear says anything about the
>quality of person that you are. Watchking
Oh? What does it say about someone when they wear a fake Rolex?
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
Foo <F...@foo.com> wrote:
>> It's a matter of taste I suppose.
>>
>> http://watch.gallery/l/lemania/15TL/Steel/3/image14s.jpg
>>
>hand. These old watches sometimes need parts that just can't be found. I've
>seen a number with broken springs and missing bits that either have to be
>fabricated or found. One must be very careful. Quartz watches have the
>advantage of very few moving parts.
That was actuall the "before" picture, that is, it is as I recived the
watch. It needed a half dozen parts to fix the chrono and a new
crystal which it has now. Almsot all parts for this 30's movement
are still available, but if anybody has access to a hammer spring
this would be a good time to let me know, those parts are indeed
NLA; Ihave other watches that I can restore if I can get these parts.
Basically any old chrono (ie, earlier than Omega Cal 861) has
at least one part that's NLA.
Thore B. Karlsen
And just to add to this discussion, when my father died he left behind
several watches. Most were quartz, but he also left one mechanical Omega
Constellation. All of the quartz watches were broken, I had to throw
them away. The Omega hadn't seen an overhaul in probably decades, but I
just wound it and it ticked happily away.
People may not think that they need to keep a watch a lifetime, but
believe me, your kids will appreciate it after you're gone.
--
Be seeing you.
Foo
Cheers,
-Foo
"Richard J. Sexton (At work)" <ric...@vrx.news> wrote in message
news:H3Inv...@T-FCN.Net...
Foo
As you might know it is a plastic material.
Cheers,
-Foo
"NE333RO" <ne3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021005104650...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Foo
watches?
Perhaps new batteries would have helped the quartz watches to an equal
extent.
Cheers,
-Foo
"Thore B. Karlsen" <s...@6581.com> wrote in message
news:v15upusi32r96rv6k...@4ax.com...
Thore B. Karlsen
>If the constellation was such a great watch, then why did he buy the quartz
>watches?
The Constellation is a gold dress watch. Not the best for everyday wear.
>Perhaps new batteries would have helped the quartz watches to an equal
>extent.
Hell no, they were past the point of any repair.
--
Be seeing you.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Jim Wayda <jwa...@cox.net> wrote:
>I would never wear a tie. It is the most useless piece of clothing that was
>even invented.
The only people I ever see wearing one are lawyers but then I heard they
have to ... it keeps the collar of their shirt tight so the foreskin
won't get out, engulf their head, and suffocate them!
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
Russell W. Barnes
> news:b5jepu4g33acjuod4...@4ax.com...
> >
> > The whole debate is silly. I love mechanical movements - they are
> > works of art, and connect me with the work of past horologists.
I would feel more in touch with past horologists if the watch I
carried was hand-crafted in the mid 19th century.
>
> Not really, because the past horologists used whatever techniques they could
> find to improve accuracy. If Harrison or Breguet had discovered the
> properties of quartz they would undoubtedly have used it, rather than
> dismiss it as cheating.
Are high-cost mechanical watches manufactured using the technology and
manpower originally designed to do so, or are they produced using
CAD/CAM and precision laser tooling? It would seem paradoxical if
this were the case; Wearing a precision mechanical movement designed,
constructed and timed using kit stuffed full of TCXO electronics
etc....
If the transistor had been invented first, would anyone have thought
of inventing the valve (or tube)?
--
Regds,
Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
Alex W.
> >How true John, except for the debate part. Quartz watches
are superior
> >in every measurable way except for the category "ticking
sound".
>
> Oh? Make me a part for a quartz watch.
>
> >Another oft forgotten part of the discussion is that the
same Swiss
> >companies that push mechanical movement watches now, were
racing to
> >produce as as many quartz watches as they could in the
late 60s and
> >70s.
>
> Companys will rush around and produce anything that
will sell. It has
> nothing to do with quality.
Agreed.
Swiss quartz manufacture was a direct reaction to the
collapse of the market due to Asian product.
Explaining quite neatly why the average consumer thinks that
Rolex are the best watch in the world bar none....
>
> (the Swiss are much more
> >knowledgeable about watches and watchmaking as a group
than Americans
> >as a group).
>
> Please cite statistics. I'd guess you're talking out
of the wrong orifice.
Never mind the orifices, I think he's right. Switzerland is
a small country where the watch industry has a high
visibility and is a source of considerable economic impact
and national pride. Which US newspaper publishes regular
supplements dealing with all aspects of the watch industry?
The leading Swiss broadsheet, the Neue Zuricher Zeitung,
does. Chances are thus much higher that any given Swiss man
on the street will have a better awareness and knowledge of
the industry than his American counterpart.
>
> If you want to wear art, get a hand painted tie. If you
> >want the best timekeeping possible get an electronically
controlled
> >watch (quartz or radio).
>
> True....................as far as your argument goes.
Come back in 20 years
> when you can't get your quartz watch repaired.
Who needs repairs? All it takes is a change in battery
format.
Alex W.
"Russell W. Barnes" <rwba...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:f3860a72.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:<anf9il$be3$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > "Paul Cooper" <a.paul....@NOntlworldSPAM.com> wrote
in message
> > news:b5jepu4g33acjuod4...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > The whole debate is silly. I love mechanical
movements - they are
> > > works of art, and connect me with the work of past
horologists.
>
> I would feel more in touch with past horologists if the
watch I
> carried was hand-crafted in the mid 19th century.
What's stopping you? A decent railroad watch may not have
been hand-crafted in all its parts, but it is affordable,
reliable, accurate and has all the hallmarks of horology at
its best. If you want a genuinely handcrafted watch, any
provincial 18th century verge will do; the accuracy is
nothing to write home about, but the escapement is quite
robust. And if you insist on wearing wristwatches, find
yourself a ladies' fobwatch with a decent movement and
recase it (or simply solder on a pair of wire lugs).
>
> >
> > Not really, because the past horologists used whatever
techniques they could
> > find to improve accuracy. If Harrison or Breguet had
discovered the
> > properties of quartz they would undoubtedly have used
it, rather than
> > dismiss it as cheating.
>
> Are high-cost mechanical watches manufactured using the
technology and
> manpower originally designed to do so, or are they
produced using
> CAD/CAM and precision laser tooling? It would seem
paradoxical if
> this were the case; Wearing a precision mechanical
movement designed,
> constructed and timed using kit stuffed full of TCXO
electronics
> etc....
AFAIK, the manufacturers these days do use CAD/CAM to design
their watches; it is simply too complicated and
time-consuming to do it by hand. However, I don't think
that the truly original watchmakers like Oechslin, Pratt or
Daniels use computers. I know for a fact that George
Daniels does not (I happen to know the chap who used to do
the technical drawings for him).
>
> If the transistor had been invented first, would anyone
have thought
> of inventing the valve (or tube)?
Probably. The invention of one method does not preclude the
invention of an alternative. Think VHS/Betamax, various TV
broadcast formats or the current slew of competing mobile
phone formats. And if the alternative has specific
advantages, it will survive -- valves do, and for very good
reason.
Russell W. Barnes
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:anp1hg$ajl$1...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
> What's stopping you? A decent railroad watch may not have
> been hand-crafted in all its parts, but it is affordable,
> reliable, accurate and has all the hallmarks of horology at
> its best. If you want a genuinely handcrafted watch, any
> provincial 18th century verge will do; the accuracy is
> nothing to write home about, but the escapement is quite
> robust. And if you insist on wearing wristwatches, find
> yourself a ladies' fobwatch with a decent movement and
> recase it (or simply solder on a pair of wire lugs).
>
Don't need to! - My Wife's family have some English key-wound pocket-watches
(though I'm not sure who made them), and a couple of ladies' fob-watches
from the same perion (1852). I'll stick with my (ahem!) Seiko 5 auto for
the moment, though :o)
Trouble is, I work on a broadcast station where some clocks are controlled
from a rubidium standard, and some from the Rugby MSF atomic standard. I
have a habit of checking my auto several times daily.....
I wear quartz as well sometimes.
--
Regds,
Russell W. B.
http://www.huttonrow.co.uk
Please take out dog before replying by Email!
Watch King
responses are interspersed with the comments.
ne3...@aol.com (NE333RO) wrote in message news:<20021005105908...@mb-cf.aol.com>...
> >How true John, except for the debate part. Quartz watches are superior
> >in every measurable way except for the category "ticking sound".
>
> Oh? Make me a part for a quartz watch.
RESPONSE
First of all being able to make a part for a watch has nothing to do
with the perceived quality of a watch to the wearer/owner.
Characteristics like precision timekeeping, water and shock
resistance, lighter weight and the convenience of being able to wear
another watch for a week and then come back to a quartz watch that is
still keeping perfect time, these are all "qualities" that consumers
seek. It is also a great quality that a quartz watch can be fixed by
swapping out a complete movement more easily and inexpensively than a
mech watch can get a single gear repaired. It also doesn't take a
$50/hr watchmaker to do a repair on most quartz watches, a technician
will usually suffice, thus eliminating the delays involved with
waiting to get a watchmaker to do service (and when time is money, not
waiting on or paying for watchmakers with a bad attitude is a
quality).
>
> >Another oft forgotten part of the discussion is that the same Swiss
> >companies that push mechanical movement watches now, were racing to
> >produce as as many quartz watches as they could in the late 60s and
> >70s.
>
> Companys will rush around and produce anything that will sell. It has
> nothing to do with quality.
RESPONSE
Which supports my statement, that since the Swiss cannot make a profit
making quartz watches in most cases, they "rush around and produce
any" (mechanical watches) "that will sell. It has nothing to do with
quality." (whether we are talking about quartz or mechanical watches)
>
> Girard Perregaux developed the quartz oscillation standard. Omega
> >developed the classic Marine Chronometer for the wrist (and they sell
> >many many quartz Seamasters today). Rolex rushed to produce a quartz
> >Datejust and a very large % of Rolex servicemen wear the quartz Rolex
> >made today.
>
> Based on what study? Personally, I don't know a Rolex factory trained
> repairman that wears a quartz watch.
RESPONSE
Anecdotally in conversation with the retired (to the Bahamas) former
US Rolex service training manager 3 years ago, I asked why he wore a
Rolex quartz watch when he could have any Rolex he wanted and he had a
dozen of his Rolex trained repair people who could keep his watches
fixed. His response was that while Rolex factory service people almost
all wore Rolexes, most prefered a quartz model because it was less
hassle and kept better time than other Rolex models. Service people
seem to have fewer ego problems about the watches they wear. Also he
said that the service people who wore mech models of Rolex often did
so to sell them off of their wrists, or the watch they wore might not
even be theirs, but rather a watch they were timing in normal use.
>
> Jaeger, Patek, Audemars and others praised quartz watches
> >to the skies until they found they couldn't compete with other
> >manufacturers in the world that made quartz watches. Swatch and Rado
> >(which is the largest selling quality watch brand in Switzerland) both
> >point up the fact that genral consumers and even knowledgeable
> >consumers know quartz watches are superior
>
> What a crock. The average consumer doesn't know crap about watches beyond
> what they see on tv.
RESPONSE
The average consumers in the USA (and around the world for that
matter) know what they like and they have 20+ years experience with
quartz watches. Quartz watches are much prefered by the vast majority
of consumres because they like them and they found that quartz watches
suited their needs even though very inexpensive mechanical watches are
still available.
>
> (the Swiss are much more
> >knowledgeable about watches and watchmaking as a group than Americans
> >as a group).
>
> Please cite statistics. I'd guess you're talking out of the wrong orifice.
RESPONSE
I've worked in Switzerland for a total of 6 years spread over the last
20 and for obvious reasons the Swiss know much more about watches than
almost any other citizens in the world. It is a small country of 7-8
million people that produces hundreds of millions of watches per year
and has most of the good training schools for watchmakers in the
world. I've never been in a group with more than 3 Swiss people where
at least one of them didn't know a few people working in the watch
business, and no Swiss person I've ever known had to go further than
the friend of a friend to find someone working in the watch industry
if they wanted a question answered about watches. Having remained
successful for so many years selling Swiss watches the Swiss take
pride in knowing something about them. They aren't as easily conned by
marketing hype as other less knowledgable citizens are, and the number
one selling watches in the country are made by Rado and are almost
exclusively quartz. The Swiss consider being on time, for less hassle
more important than being a label whore. And it isn't only cost
either, because Rado quartz watches are not cheap, but their
scratchproof cases look new for dozens of years.
>
> If you want to wear art, get a hand painted tie. If you
> >want the best timekeeping possible get an electronically controlled
> >watch (quartz or radio).
>
> True....................as far as your argument goes. Come back in 20 years when you can't get your quartz watch repaired.
RESPONSE
I have many 20+ year old quartz watches from Eterna, Piaget and Jaeger
LeCoultre that are regularly repaired now. Being able to swap an
entire movement out of a watch for repair makes this easy. I also have
many Omega, Rolex and Universal Geneve mech watches that are either
unrepairable according to the factory, or are so ridiculously
expensive to repair they aren't worth getting fixed. It's true that
some of the early very cheap quartz watches can't be repaired now, and
some of the quality quartz watches that were designed without service
considerations are also unrepairable now. But most surviving watch
companies know now that they must design quartz watches that can be
repaired for a long time.
> Good luck, have fun and don't ever believe
> >that the brand or type of watch you wear says anything about the
> >quality of person that you are. Watchking
>
> Oh? What does it say about someone when they wear a fake Rolex?
RESPONSE
It says that people are fools to believe that wearing either a fake
Rolex or a real Rolex makes them any better as people than they would
be if they didn't wear any watch at all. Watches are accessories that
should help their owners get through life on time. Watches are not
symbols of importance, manhood, or anything else. People would do well
to wear a watch that keeps good time, fits well, is a good value for
them, looks like what they want it to look like and suits their
activities. Quartz watches will usually better serve their owners in
these ways when compared to similarly priced mech watches. Watchking
Norman M. Schwartz
> It says that people are fools to believe that wearing either a fake
> Rolex or a real Rolex makes them any better as people than they would
> be if they didn't wear any watch at all. Watches are accessories that
> should help their owners get through life on time. Watches are not
> symbols of importance, manhood, or anything else.
It might perhaps indicate they are willing to take on potential muggers.
Watch King
the largest quantiies was his Souscription model. It was ugly, in an
unadorned plated brass case and had only one purpose which was to keep
good time for a low price. He did in fact make other gaudy watches for
nobility but he considered an accurate and very cheap watch that was a
timekeeper only (it had only an hour hand no minute hand) his greatest
challenge and achievement. The watch only had about 6 moving parts.
Obviously Breguet would have found today's quartz watches supremely
interesting and the best example of what he considered REALLY
important.
John Rowland and I did not say to throw away everything from the past,
just don't expect it to be as good as modern tech stuff. Perhaps you
still use rotary dial telephones, or an abacus or mechanical
calculator instead of a computer. I'm sure you fly only in piston
driven prop airliners and as well you sound like you only drive cars
that don't have computers in them. It's good that you can live in the
past. Perhaps you only visit doctors whose medical methodology is from
the 30s or earlier as well.
Too bad that most mechanical watches today are made on machines with
very little hand work of any kind. But then again that's exactly the
kind of technology that you seem to dislike because there is no art or
craft in it. And in point of fact the Swiss didn't start producing
quartz watches as a reaction to anybody, THEY invented the quartz
watch and described it as the best thing that ever happened to
horology when they finished inventing it. Too bad for them that the
technology was easy for others to use and so they lost out marketing
products they originally developed. It happens all the time. The Swiss
are still doing innovative things with quartz watches as evidenced by
the Tissot P-Touch. Even now Swatch is one of the largest players in
the watch marketplace and 95%+ of their watches are quartz. Swatch is
so successful they own Breguet, Longines, Lemania, Omega, Rado,
Blancpain and many other Swiss watch companies who act elitist because
they make mech watches.
If you subtract all the one-upsmanship watch purchases (Mostly by men,
who seem insecure about being better than the next guy, and I've never
seen a woman who wore a Ulysses Nardin Astrolabium. But all the men I
see wearing them make a special effort to tell other people that the
watch they are wearing is better than the watch anyone else is
wearing), and if you subtract the people who buy watches because they
are fascinated by glinting objects that move and make noise(the way a
puppy is fascinated by a ring of jingling keys in the light), you will
end up with a marketplace that likes quartz watches because they are
more shock resistant than mech watches, more water resistant than mech
watches, lighter than mech watches, more accurate than mech watches,
easier and less expensive to buy and maintain than mech watches and
more convenient than mech watches because they can set their quartz
watches down and in 3 weeks the watch will still be keeping good time.
It is the fact that quartz watches are superior to mech watches in ALL
of these ways that makes then superior in general. Quartz watches
outsell mech watches not only because they are less expensive but
because they are better. There are many mech watches from China that
cost the same as the battery in a quartz watch but quartz still
outsells mech. There are ecologically sound solar watches now too. So
even if you are a "green" you can have accurate timekeeping.
The tie suggestion was an example. If it is art you want then
appreciate it and/or collect it, but if it is a tool to depend on for
day to day living then use the most precise quality technology you can
afford with computers, cars, telephones and of course watches. Good
luck and have fun, but don't ever think that the watch you wear will
ever make you a better person than you would be without any watch at
all. Watchking
"Simon Bryquer" <sbry...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<e2rn9.37817$YI.80...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
Richard J. Sexton (At work)
In article <UaLn9.425$1K3.35...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
Foo <F...@foo.com> wrote:
>Contact me off-line, I may be able to help you.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Foo
>
>> >> http://watch.gallery/l/lemania/15TL/Steel/3/image14s.jpg
>> >>
>> crystal which it has now. Almsot all parts for this 30's movement
>> are still available, but if anybody has access to a hammer spring
>> this would be a good time to let me know, those parts are indeed
>> NLA; Ihave other watches that I can restore if I can get these parts.
WatchingGirl
him. I inherited a collection of chronographs and "foo" (He used a
different email, but I think it is the same person) showed me pictures
of 5 Old Stock Lemania 15TL movements. I sent money to buy one of them
but never received it. It was a nightmare.
I won't go into details, but I would be very careful in dealing with
this man.
WG
---------------------------------
ric...@vrx.news (Richard J. Sexton (At work)) wrote in message news:<H3MC1...@T-FCN.Net>...
Foo
detective to my house guarantees you will never do business with me again!
This girl is a liar.
Cheers,
-Foo
"WatchingGirl" <Watchi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16b67b66.02100...@posting.google.com...
Brendan Ward
And for God`s sake just buy a watch.
BEW
On 30/9/02 7:01, in article cb282087.02092...@posting.google.com,
"sellimaster" <atu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It might be slightly more expensive, but what about an Omega X-33?
>
>
> Well i am not quite sure about the digital stuff and the water
> resistance of the X-33?? do i really need all the thingies and stuff
> - i am no astronaut???
> but if the quality is allright then why not. but i haven't seen one
> real yet and i really don't wanna buy out of the cataloge.
>
>
>
> guess why deciding is so hard for me :-)
>
>
>
> even the list of omegas i am interested in now is constantly growing -
> its really hard to buy a watch.
>
> i have a list of 16 tags and 22 omegas now, and i started with 1 tag
> vs. 1 omega 2 days ago!!!
> and i have to choose one out of those 38 watches - puuh!!!!!:-)
>
> i spend some time over the weekend and really looked up some nice
> pieces.
>
> posting messages can really be confusing :-)
>
> but thx for all the interesting comments
John Rowland
news:ao4foj$291$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> "Russell W. Barnes" <rwba...@DOGglobalnet.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >I'll stick with my (ahem!) Seiko 5 auto for
> >the moment, though :o)
> >
> > Trouble is, I work on a broadcast station where some clocks
> > are controlled from a rubidium standard, and some from the
> > my auto several times daily.....
>
> watch which only needed checking several times a year...
Or a radio-controlled watch, which wouldn't need checking at all!
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 28th Nov.
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
RHersh
>If the transistor had been invented first, would anyone have thought
>of inventing the valve (or tube)?
>--
Way off topic here, and right up my alley. They're diffferent devices and have
different strengths. I'm an audio buff and can have just about whatever I want
for amplification. My next audio amplifier now lives 'breadboarded' as a rat's
nest of parts on my electronics bench. It uses a WW II transmitting tube, has
a 900VDC power supply, puts out 3 Watts and sounds absolutely glorious. I
arrived at this design through study, research and experimentation. And I set
specific goals in the sound that I want.
It's very expensive, dangerous, inefficient, will be very difficult to
complete, is useless to anyone else and is perfect for me. I think there are
parallels to our watch hobby here: you set your own goals and learn to work
toward them. Who cares if nobody else shares your goals? Really! Quartz or
mechanical, tube or transistor, find what makes you happy and do it.
Cheers
Ross Hershberger
Alex W.
"RHersh" <rhe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021011012015...@mb-cd.aol.com...
> >
> >If the transistor had been invented first, would anyone
have thought
> >of inventing the valve (or tube)?
> >--
>
> Way off topic here, and right up my alley. They're
diffferent devices and have
> different strengths. I'm an audio buff and can have just
about whatever I want
> for amplification. My next audio amplifier now lives
'breadboarded' as a rat's
> nest of parts on my electronics bench. It uses a WW II
transmitting tube, has
> a 900VDC power supply, puts out 3 Watts and sounds
absolutely glorious. I
> arrived at this design through study, research and
experimentation. And I set
> specific goals in the sound that I want.
Do you build your own speakers as well?
> It's very expensive, dangerous, inefficient, will be
very difficult to
> complete, is useless to anyone else and is perfect for me.
I think there are
> parallels to our watch hobby here: you set your own goals
and learn to work
> toward them. Who cares if nobody else shares your goals?
Really! Quartz or
> mechanical, tube or transistor, find what makes you happy
and do it.
Moreover, it's perfectly possible to live with both
varieties side by side. Well, in the case of amps that may
require a well-padded bank balance -- I love the sound of
valves but without investing in a complete second system
it's pretty pointless.
Russell W. Barnes
news:ao4foj$291$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> "Russell W. Barnes" <rwba...@DOGglobalnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> >the moment, though :o)
>
> >Trouble is, I work on a broadcast station where some clocks are
controlled
> >from a rubidium standard, and some from the Rugby MSF atomic standard. I
> >have a habit of checking my auto several times daily.....
>
> only needed checking several times a year...
>
If I didn't have the opportunity to keep checking my auto (which, after
adjustment, only gains 5 sec / day - not bad for a cheapo thing), I would
probably revert to wearing my quartz watch. I also cast the odd glance at
my Junghans MSF clock, whilst at home!
It's just an annoying habit, really.....
Russell W. Barnes
> > Just think how much time you'd save if you got a better
> > watch which only needed checking several times a year...
>
> Or a radio-controlled watch, which wouldn't need checking at all!
>
> --
Oh, I'd still check it (out of habit).... We get problems on the odd
occasion at work when Rugby goes off for maintenance and the MSF RX
gradually drifts off. I'd probably be paranoid at straying out of range, or
something.
On several occasions I've been sitting in my office at home and caught the
Junghans MSF clock whizzing around of it's own accord.
John Rowland
news:6uWcnXtf5ML...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>
> We get problems on the odd
> occasion at work when Rugby
> goes off for maintenance and the MSF RX
> gradually drifts off.
No watches (as opposed to clocks) for the Rugby signal are currently made.
The Frankfurt DCF signal has a trio of adjacent transmitters so has no
outages (allegedly), and covers most or all of England.
Russell W. Barnes
> "Russell W. Barnes" <rwba...@DOGglobalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:6uWcnXtf5ML...@News.GigaNews.Com...
> >
>
> No watches (as opposed to clocks) for the Rugby signal are currently made.
> The Frankfurt DCF signal has a trio of adjacent transmitters so has no
> outages (allegedly), and covers most or all of England.
>
> --
Do they receive synchronising time-signals once daily, or every two minutes
or so (like my clock) or what? How accurate is the fallback quartz movement
in them?
Freddie Freeloader
> "John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>No watches (as opposed to clocks) for the Rugby signal are currently made.
>>The Frankfurt DCF signal has a trio of adjacent transmitters so has no
>>outages (allegedly), and covers most or all of England.
>
> And Scotland?
Junghans MEGA models can certainly receive a signal in Scotland. I'm
not sure about others although I've heard that Lacher radio-controlled
watches have reception problems in the north of England & Scotland.
--
Top-posting makes the baby Jesus cry
John Rowland
> "John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aobvoc$ec1$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > are currently made. The Frankfurt DCF signal has a trio
> > of adjacent transmitters so has no
> > outages (allegedly), and covers most or all of England.
>
> or every two minutes or so (like my clock) or what?
A few times every night, or whenever you press the button. No watch battery
would cope with receiving the signal every few minutes.
> How accurate is the fallback quartz movement
> in them?
Some Casios use the time signal to work out how well they are doing, and
speed up or slow down accordingly. These are rumoured to be always accurate
to within 100th of a second... Most Casios don't do this and have normal
quartz accuracy (0.5 second a day). I don't know about other brands. Someone
should be along any minute to say that Junghans suck.
Jim Wayda
5 seconds per day. The accuracy of the internal oscillator is absolutely
terrible!!! I have tried 4 of these Junghans Junk Watches. The watch relies
on receiving the signal on a daily basis to maintain accuracy. I would not
recommend this watch to anyone.
-jim
"Freddie Freeloader" <freddie.f...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:m3y98zf...@ntlworld.com...
Jim Wayda
and relies on receiving the radio signal on a daily basis. If the signal is
not received, the watch will drift up to five seconds per day. I owned four
of these watches and came to this conclusion.
-jim
"John Rowland" <jo...@turquoisedays.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aoil30$sjq$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...