Horology in Comparison to Other Technogical Advances

[BristolCavendish]

There will always be those who appreciate and prefer the mechanical workings and craftsmanship of a finely-made timepiece. That goes without saying.

On the other hand, modern technological advances have often made earlier forms of devices either obsolete or non-preferable to the masses so it would seem that the adherents of various older technologies might be considered either purists or individuals irrevocably and/or stubbornly set in their ways. Convenience, ease of operation and problem-free maintenance are usually the benefits that accompany most technological advances in regards to 'mechanical' oriented things.

We live in a digital world and certain analog applications are now considered dinosaurs. Personally speaking, I still prefer the sound of vinyl LPs played through a McIntosh vacuum tube pre amp/amp, the tonal saturation of film format captured through the exceptional lens resolution and mechanical accuracy of a Leica and course, the fast tick/sweep second hand of a Rolex.

On a whole, these applications have all been somewhat replaced by CDs, MP3's, digital photography and quartz watches. In retrospect, I can recall when the Bulova Accutron was once considered a horological breakthrough followed by the advent of quartz movements. To a majority of Rolex, PP/AP/VC aficionados this is often viewed as 'BFD' as many don't even consider electronic/quartz watches horology but more of a contemporary mundane appliance.

That said, it is somewhat amazing that Rolex SA continues to sell over 900,000+ high-priced units per annum. Whether this is based on upscale status mentalities is for others to decide. As far as OCD timekeeping parameters are concerned, if accuracy was the primary objective then most of us would probably be wearing quartz watches.

When it comes to Rolex OCD, most of the issues seem to be somewhat irrelevant in regards to the real world (i.e. +/- 2 seconds off, DIY polishing techniques, whether (or where to wear), plus a host of other seemingly inane concerns.

Quartz watches and quartz/mechanical hybrids have come a long ways. While I'm not necessarily promoting or advocating their usage, it seems that they are often looked down upon as 'non-horological'.

Is this perspective primarily based on perceived status-symbolism rather than the overall practicalities and incurred expenses.

[Tony64]

Yes.

[hugs]

Even if you wanted the "best" mechanical watch Rolex, Patek etc wouldn't be it. Probably Grand Seiko or some brand we have never heard of. Most people probably do buy Rolex for the reasons you mentioned. Though there are still multiple reasons to buy the brand besides status.

[Wesley Crusher]

Originally Posted by hugs

Even if you wanted the "best" mechanical watch Rolex, Patek etc wouldn't be it. Probably Grand Seiko or some brand we have never heard of. Most people probably do buy Rolex for the reasons you mentioned. Though there are still multiple reasons to buy the brand besides status.

What qualifies GS as the best mechanical watch?

[hugs]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

What qualifies GS as the best mechanical watch?

That wasn't the point of my post. I don't know what the best is.

If GS isn't the best does that make everything else I said irrelevant?

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by Wesley Crusher

What qualifies GS as the best mechanical watch?

If you count spring drive as mechanical, then they produce the most accurate mechanical watch

[Valenciawatchrepair]

Looks at cars. We're still using the internal combustion engine. Yet, we've made many improvements to it. But, tons of other things have been added to the automobile as well. I call them "toys." Seems like if something doesn't have these "toys" no one wants them. That's why cars like Lotus (just an example. Basically any car that isn't build around the entertainment system.) and watches like Rolex have a smaller customer base. Most people don't care for or want to pay for....Craftsmanship. A product of the throw away society.

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by Valenciawatchrepair

Looks at cars. We're still using the internal combustion engine. Yet, we've made many improvements to it. But, tons of other things have been added to the automobile as well. I call them "toys." Seems like if something doesn't have these "toys" no one wants them. That's why cars like Lotus (just an example. Basically any car that isn't build around the entertainment system.) and watches like Rolex have a smaller customer base. Most people don't care for or want to pay for....Craftsmanship. A product of the throw away society.

Speaking as someone who spends a lot of time in his car, those "toys" really do come in handy. I love having satellite radio and the ability to call my sister or my Mom (who both live in Florida) to chat on my drive home without ever touching my cell phone or taking my hands off the wheel or my eyes off the road for more than a glance. I wouldn't buy a car without satellite radio or Bluetooth. Not for daily commuting anyway.

[Valenciawatchrepair]

Originally Posted by SDRider

Speaking as someone who spends a lot of time in his car, those "toys" really do come in handy. I love having satellite radio and the ability to call my sister or my Mom (who both live in Florida) to chat on my drive home without ever touching my cell phone or taking my hands off the wheel or my eyes off the road for more than a glance. I wouldn't buy a car without satellite radio or Bluetooth. Not for daily commuting anyway.

Exactly...But, what does any of that have to do with the advancement of what's under the hood? A futuristic interior still propelled by the explosion of a fossil fuel, not much different than it was being done when it was first invented. Same for watches. Only a few buy or even appreciate what's inside a watch.

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by Valenciawatchrepair

Exactly...But, what does any of that have to do with the advancement of what's under the hood? A futuristic interior still propelled by the explosion of a fossil fuel, not much different than it was being done when it was first invented. Same for watches. Only a few buy or even appreciate what's inside a watch.

Absolutely nothing. However, cars have gotten a lot more efficient while delivering more power and greater comfort all while lowering emissions. So, while it is still powered by the explosion of fossil fuel there has been quite a lot of advancement.

Which also has nothing to do with watches...

[Valenciawatchrepair]

Originally Posted by SDRider

Absolutely nothing. However, cars have gotten a lot more efficient while delivering more power, greater comfort all while lowering emissions. So, while it is still powered by the explosion of fossil fuel there has been quite a lot of advancement.

Which also has nothing to do with watches...

It does a little. Watches operate in the same way that they always have. But, with the advancements they are a little more accurate and fairly robust. "waterproof" watches of the old days aren't even in the same league as a 100M "resistant" watch now. Also the silicon hairspring is pretty neat for avoiding magnetism.

[Rock]

I can see lots of potential for improvement in high-quality mechanical self-winders.
Some are still very thick and do not sit nicely on the wrist.
Some are very heavy and tend to rotate on the wrist.
Some are both.
Few (any?) are totally reliable or totally accurate.
All are too expensive.
Lots of work for watch engineers of the future.

[BristolCavendish]

Originally Posted by Valenciawatchrepair

It does a little. Watches operate in the same way that they always have. But, with the advancements they are a little more accurate and fairly robust. "waterproof" watches of the old days aren't even in the same league as a 100M "resistant" watch now. Also the silicon hairspring is pretty neat for avoiding magnetism.

Originally Posted by Rock

I can see lots of potential for improvement in high-quality mechanical self-winders.
Some are still very thick and do not sit nicely on the wrist.
Some are very heavy and tend to rotate on the wrist.
Some are both.
Few (any?) are totally reliable or totally accurate.
All are too expensive.
Lots of work for watch engineers of the future.

All good points as the crux of this OP was essentially have mechanical watches 'maxed-out' on their design evolution when compared to other engineered technologies? Quartz/hybrids would seem to have been a step in that direction but many die-hard watch aficionados/WIS do not consider them 'desirable' horological advancements.