The mechanical watch

[Goodwatch]

In one of Peter’s (Padi) replies he mentioned the Grand Seiko mega quartz caliber, capable of maintaining accuracy of about +/- 5 seconds a year. This is an incredible performance and I believe the deviation is only caused by the unavoidable and uncontrollable friction of the mechanical parts in these watches. So what if we dispense with mechanical parts all together and make it ALL electronic? With an LCD display? Or even better still, make the watch a DCF receiver like there are so many. They receive a time pulse signal from a DCF transmitter that is controlled by a Cesium atomic clock with a deviation of 1 second in a 100,000 years. This ends all discussion about accuracy. Pop this ‘movement’ in a sturdy case and there you have it, the ultimate watch. These watches are made by a number of companies now, including Casio.

My alarm clock is like this, it even switches from summer to winter time, has two separate alarms and never looses a beat. I don’t need the alarm because I’m one of those people with a biological alarm. I always wake up just before the alarm will sound. The clock is there just in case.

But to make a long story short: I don’t give a hoot about these soulless wonders. There maybe 100,000 arguments for these electronic marvels and a 100,000 arguments against those archaic mechanical dinosaurs but this doesn’t matter. There’s just something about these contraptions made out of cogs, wheels, springs, jewels and plates that I find very fascinating. What is your opinion on this?

[Prince]

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

...I don’t give a hoot about these soulless wonders. There maybe 100,000 arguments for these electronic marvels and a 100,000 arguments against those archaic mechanical dinosaurs but this doesn’t matter. There’s just something about these contraptions made out of cogs, wheels, springs, jewels and plates that I find very fascinating...

Agreed 100%!!! I have had many of the most accurate timepieces available over the years (still do), and they all sit unused in favor of my mechanical movement beauties. I use my Macintosh computer's clock (provided with time over the Internet) to SET my Rolexes once in awhile. But that is the extent of it!

A lot of people think I am crazy for not wearing what they call an "accurate" watch (and you paid so damn MUCH for it!!!), but I just smile and look admiringly at my beautiful part of Horological history, and feel very content.

[mailman]

You guys hit the nail on the head. The mechanical watches we love based on the brand, are basically the same design for the past 100-250 years.

[padi56]

Yes you cannot get involved with a quartz watch, no heart and soul When you think that the "first introduced
commercially marine quartz Chronometer by Omega's in 1974,the 2.4 MHz Marine wood cased Chronometer achieved an error rate of + - 12 seconds - an unprecedented resolution then for a production watch. And coincidentally it is the exact same performance first attained by John Harrison's breakthrough regulator mechanical marine clocks of the 1720s".And Frans the Grand Seiko
Astron with the 9F movement,can easily attain + - 2
seconds per year,and run for 50 years without a service

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

In one of Peter’s (Padi) replies he mentioned the Grand Seiko mega quartz caliber, capable of maintaining accuracy of about +/- 5 seconds a year. This is an incredible performance and I believe the deviation is only caused by the unavoidable and uncontrollable friction of the mechanical parts in these watches.

But to make a long story short: I don’t give a hoot about these soulless wonders. There maybe 100,000 arguments for these electronic marvels and a 100,000 arguments against those archaic mechanical dinosaurs but this doesn’t matter. There’s just something about these contraptions made out of cogs, wheels, springs, jewels and plates that I find very fascinating. What is your opinion on this?

Hey Frans,

I agree that the mechanical watch has a "soul" to it that a quartz doesn't - I think most here would agree with the view.

Regarding your comment on quartz accuracy, in my opinion the reasons for the limitations you speak of would have little to do with the inherent friction in the gear train. It is possible that it would have some effect, but in my view there are several other issues that affect the accuracy if a quartz crystal watch, such as:

1/ Quality of the actual crystal.

2/ Shape of the crystal (more specifically volume to surface area ratio).

3/ Compensation for temperature.

4/ Voltage variations.

There are electronic designs that can be implemented to correct for 3 and 4, but less so for 1 and 2 above. In the end, I think the return on effort invested is what really limits this, as for all practical purposes any watch that is within a few minutes a year is more than adequate for most people.

Originally Posted by padi56

And Grand Seiko
Astron with the 9F movement,can easily attain + - 2
seconds per year,and run for 50 years without a service

Interesting you talk about the GS here.......I can only speculate that when you say "can easily attain +/- 2 seconds/year" you don't mean that it is guaranteed as such, correct? I was under the impression that the 9F movement was specified to +/- 5 secs/year. To my knowledge, the most acurate quartz watch ever mass produced had a guaranteed accuracy of +/- 3 secs/year, and was the Citizen Mega Quartz.....

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Avalon

Hey Frans,

I agree that the mechanical watch has a "soul" to it that a quartz doesn't - I think most here would agree with the view.

Regarding your comment on quartz accuracy, in my opinion the reasons for the limitations you speak of would have little to do with the inherent friction in the gear train. It is possible that it would have some effect, but in my view there are several other issues that affect the accuracy if a quartz crystal watch, such as:

1/ Quality of the actual crystal.

2/ Shape of the crystal (more specifically volume to surface area ratio).

3/ Compensation for temperature.

4/ Voltage variations.

There are electronic designs that can be implemented to correct for 3 and 4, but less so for 1 and 2 above. In the end, I think the return on effort invested is what really limits this, as for all practical purposes any watch that is within a few minutes a year is more than adequate for most people.



Interesting you talk about the GS here.......I can only speculate that when you say "can easily attain +/- 2 seconds/year" you don't mean that it is guaranteed as such, correct? I was under the impression that the 9F movement was specified to +/- 5 secs/year. To my knowledge, the most acurate quartz watch ever mass produced had a guaranteed accuracy of +/- 3 secs/year, and was the Citizen Mega Quartz.....

Correct the Citizen most probably could do better but service centre only for the adjustment.The Seiko can be adjusted by any competent watchmaker who has the necessary timing machine,and has attained the + - 2 secs a year,but its guaranteed spec is +- 5 secs per year.

[dman]

Good post Fransie! I don't wear these watches because they are perfet, I wear them because I marvel at what is inside making them go, and they look cool too.

[Rockrolex]

Originally Posted by dman

Good post Fransie! I don't wear these watches because they are perfet, I wear them because I marvel at what is inside making them go, and they look cool too.

I couldn't agree more, Daren. I've got a whole slew of quartz watches, include a couple of "atomic" watches. They do nothing for me, even though some of them have many more functions than my mechanical watches, the best being the memory function to store names and numbers. But I haven't worn a single one of them since I got my first Rolex 4 years ago. The only thing I do is change the batteries when they die (something I don't have to worry about with my automatics ).

[Launch Mini]

I agree 100%.
There is something special about all those tiny parts working together in harmony.
I too have a few quartz watches. About the only time they get worn is when I don't want to subject my "good" watches to harsh treatment ( quadding etc) Maybe I'm to cautious with them, but 5-10 hours of beating on my wrist is also not that comfortable with a heavier watch.
Display backs or skeleton watches are also very cool. Like seeing " what makes it tick"
Don't forget the lume. no batteries to worry about or buttons to push light them up
Plus if you save $5 a year in batteries, these automatic watches will pay for themselves in..... That's is irrelevant anyway

[JJ Irani]

Compare a good automatic with that of a heaving bosom, guys!! And a quartz with that of a flat-chested, static one!!

Get the picture?

[mailman]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Compare a good automatic with that of a heaving bosom, guys!! And a quartz with that of a flat-chested, static one!!

Get the picture?

No. Do you have one?

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by mailman

No. Do you have one?

Wiseass!!

[mailman]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Wiseass!!