Tourbillons: I Don't Get It

[autohorology]

Let me first state that I owned an IWC Tourbillon F.A. Jones and sold it after about 3 months of ownership. Other than looking cool, I cannot understand why this complication carries the pricetag that it does.

When I look at the balance wheel on the back of my watches I get just as much enjoyment, or when I look at an openworked AP I'm in absolute awe.

But a rotating cage just doesn't get me going. And when it has no actual purpose whatsoever, why do they carry such horological prestige?

In my opinion, the watchmakers just take advantage of the public image over how grand a Tourbillon truly is, but for me it's just not as cool as a perpetual calendar or even a moonphase. In my mind a perpetual calendar sounds a lot more complex than a rotating cage that serves no actual purpose other than looking kind of neat.

What am I missing?

[GB-man]

They served a purpose in the past, when they made it easier to regulate pocket watches. Currently, more for the aesthetic value they provide as well as knowing they require some level of skill on the watchmakers behalf to execute. I'll have a minute repeater instead of course

[adamlea]

I thought that a tourbillon also reduced the effect of gravity, making the movement more accurate.

As for perpetual calendars, repeaters, and, especially, moonphases, I'd have to agree that their coolness factor outweighs that of a tourbillon. Even so, the sheer engineering and ingenuity of tourbillons make them pretty impressive in my book.

[benlee]

Only large size flying Tourbillons are worth the money for the aesthetic and visual effect. Most of the time, I think one just pay for the prestige of owning such a complication. With modern movements being so accurate, they serve no practical purposes.

[el1125]

Which is the purpose do to gravity pulls on your wrist, it is also beautiful to look at and in most cases the only techincal moving part you can SEE on the watch face/dial.

[Presa canary]

Is looking cool ever enough?...

[joli160]

A Tourbillon is a marvel of engineering and fantastic to look at.
Reason enough to fit it into watches for us to be entertained

Love this JLC Presa

[autohorology]

Greubel Forsey is definitely an exception. His Tourbillons are absolutely spectacular curiosities. The price of them scares the heck out of me but they're more of a billionaire's toy so I don't think they mind.

Originally Posted by Presa canary

Is looking cool ever enough?...

[Israguard]

Give it some time.. The Chinese already have one being mass produced though nowhere nearly as nice as the models from Europe. But they will get it right sooner than later and then prices will drop. Prices just don't justify the cool factor imho

[autohorology]

Exactly. This is where I'm at. Just seems to be the complication that has the most to lose.

Originally Posted by Israguard

Give it some time.. The Chinese already have one being mass produced though nowhere nearly as nice as the models from Europe. But they will get it right sooner than later and then prices will drop. Prices just don't justify the cool factor imho

[locutus49]

I prefer minute repeaters.

[subtona]

They are pricey and may or may not be something i want on the front of my watch, but i do think they are a marvel to look at (not necessarily on the dial)

I find it interesting that Patek just puts the word Tourbillon on the dial without a window to see it.

But then there is something i find appealing about the 2 hand tourbillon offered by AP, kind of like a Lamborghini countache :)

[raclaims]

I find them mesmerizing...but not enough for the price tag.

[lig]

Am I the only one finding this thread to be a tad ironic?

[vman]

Originally Posted by lig

am i the only one finding this thread to be a tad ironic?

+1

[HL65]

Tourbillons absolutely amazing looking pieces of art IMHO. As for getting them...Most outside of forum members and collectors don't get why anyone would spend $5-10k on a Rolex let alone $50k plus on a Patek. I had a JLC RG Master tourbillon and it was incredible to look at. Whether the tourbillon added to the accuracy of the watch didn't really matter to me. I just enjoyed watching it in action and staring at it as it was quite beautiful.

[autohorology]

I agree with that sentiment for non watch people. I guess therein lies the debate. What constitutes how complicated a tourbillon is and how much is that complication worth to the individual?

I bought my F.A. Jones Tourbillon because the guy HAD to sell it. I paid 39k for it when it retails for 62. Seemed like I couldn't make too big of a mistake, and I resold it for 43. So I didn't buy it because I was in love with it, I bought it because the price just made sense.

Originally Posted by HL65

Tourbillons absolutely amazing looking pieces of art IMHO. As for getting them...Most outside of forum members and collectors don't get why anyone would spend $5-10k on a Rolex let alone $50k plus on a Patek. I had a JLC RG Master tourbillon and it was incredible to look at. Whether the tourbillon added to the accuracy of the watch didn't really matter to me. I just enjoyed watching it in action and staring at it as it was quite beautiful.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by HL65

Tourbillons absolutely amazing looking pieces of art IMHO. As for getting them...Most outside of forum members and collectors don't get why anyone would spend $5-10k on a Rolex let alone $50k plus on a Patek. I had a JLC RG Master tourbillon and it was incredible to look at. Whether the tourbillon added to the accuracy of the watch didn't really matter to me. I just enjoyed watching it in action and staring at it as it was quite beautiful.

Mesmeric.

[jhcam8]

Originally Posted by HL65

Tourbillons absolutely amazing looking pieces of art IMHO. As for getting them...Most outside of forum members and collectors don't get why anyone would spend $5-10k on a Rolex let alone $50k plus on a Patek. I had a JLC RG Master tourbillon and it was incredible to look at. Whether the tourbillon added to the accuracy of the watch didn't really matter to me. I just enjoyed watching it in action and staring at it as it was quite beautiful.

I think this is the crux of the matter. I've seen some incredible looking tourbillon watches and they can be things of beauty.

[Israguard]

What I don't understand is.. Some tourbillion cages seem to spin/turn all around which I thought was what they were designed to do. Others however look like they are just "laying" horizontally.. I don't get how they spin all around and "fight" gravity effects.

[autohorology]

I mean I guess the "first" Tourbillon made from a new design is the most expensive to produce. It's all research & development. But thereafter, once the blueprint is made, isn't it just a guy assembling the various parts? If he's done it a few times I have to imagine the level of difficulty isn't as proclaimed. The level of difficulty comes in developing the movement in the first place, am I right?

[paverman]

Once you get past the miniature mechanics and the masterful finishing of most of the high end watches we're talking about, aren't most of the complications somewhat unnecessary?
How often do we really gain any useful information from a Moonphase or a leap year indicator? Heck, my hearing is so bad I can't even hear a minute repeater ., BUT that doesn't stop me from pursuing them .

I love the function and art that goes into a highly finished Tourbillion and that's all that matters to me.

[autohorology]

Fair points. All other complications, however, actually have a function. The Tourbillon, having no function or effect on the watch, is really just a novelty. I guess that's the difference for me. Novelty or function...

As useless as pretty much all complications may be in an era of iphones and computers, what I'm trying to discern is the pricetag associated with a complication that actually has NO function.

It's art, I get that, I just don't get why it's on average multiples more than a perpetual calendar.

I think the real answer is exclusivity. It remains an exclusive product and will continue to be priced as such. Kind of like the argument as to why solid gold Rolexes are so much more than stainless models.

Originally Posted by paverman

Once you get past the miniature mechanics and the masterful finishing of most of the high end watches we're talking about, aren't most of the complications somewhat unnecessary?
How often do we really gain any useful information from a Moonphase or a leap year indicator? Heck, my hearing is so bad I can't even hear a minute repeater ., BUT that doesn't stop me from pursuing them .

I love the function and art that goes into a highly finished Tourbillion and that's all that matters to me.

[MrJ320]

Originally Posted by autohorology

Fair points. All other complications, however, actually have a function. The Tourbillon, having no function or effect on the watch, is really just a novelty. I guess that's the difference for me. Novelty or function...

As useless as pretty much all complications may be in an era of iphones and computers, what I'm trying to discern is the pricetag associated with a complication that actually has NO function.

It's art, I get that, I just don't get why it's on average multiples more than a perpetual calendar.

I think the real answer is exclusivity. It remains an exclusive product and will continue to be priced as such. Kind of like the argument as to why solid gold Rolexes are so much more than stainless models.

The tourbillon complication technically has a functionality, as its original intent was to improve accuracy of the watch by countering the effects of gravity by mounting the escapement and balance wheel in a rotating cage. Whether the tourbillon complication actually improves accuracy is another matter, but it was designed to serve a purpose, and not just pure novelty.

Personally I would also much rather spend the money on other complications that I enjoy more, but I do respect the skills required to construct a tourbillon in a watch.

[autohorology]

I agree it is a novelty created from necessity, but it no longer serves that purpose. And I completely agree with regard to the skills necessary to produce them. I just don't see how it's significantly more complicated to produce than a perpetual calendar, as the pricetag might suggest.

Originally Posted by MrJ320

The tourbillon complication technically has a functionality, as its original intent was to improve accuracy of the watch by countering the effects of gravity by mounting the escapement and balance wheel in a rotating cage. Whether the tourbillon complication actually improves accuracy is another matter, but it was designed to serve a purpose, and not just pure novelty.

Personally I would also much rather spend the money on other complications that I enjoy more, but I do respect the skills required to construct a tourbillon in a watch.

[SMD]

Originally Posted by MrJ320

The tourbillon complication technically has a functionality, as its original intent was to improve accuracy of the watch by countering the effects of gravity by mounting the escapement and balance wheel in a rotating cage. Whether the tourbillon complication actually improves accuracy is another matter, but it was designed to serve a purpose, and not just pure novelty.

But wasn't this only really relevant in the context of a pocket watch? My understanding was that for a wrist watch a tourbillon does not really improve accuracy.

[DCheeta]

Distilled down to its most simple, any watch above the level of a $10 digital can be considered a novelty. But we buy beautiful mechanical watches because we appreciate the craftsmanship, the quality and the beauty of them. Buying a tourbillon is just another level of appreciation of that craftsmanship. For some it's worth the expense, for others it's not.

But I see what your point is, and it's an interesting topic of discussion.

I am most impressed by perpetual calendars. I admit that it's definitely not a necessary complication, yet that won't stop me from buying one when my budget permits.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by DCheeta

Distilled down to its most simple, any watch above the level of a $10 digital can be considered a novelty. But we buy beautiful mechanical watches because we appreciate the craftsmanship, the quality and the beauty of them. Buying a tourbillon is just another level of appreciation of that craftsmanship. For some it's worth the expense, for others it's not.

All watches could be considered novelties. My phone is much more accurate than any mechanical watch, and considering it can correct its time via the Internet, any non-mechanical watch too.

Personally, I love tourbillons if done in an aesthetically pleasing way:

[Travelair007]

Why the hate bud...? It's just another beautiful thing with timepieces that addicts like us spend money on... This whole hobby and price tags are insane by any logical and mathematical standards...but it doesn't stop the love affair, does it...

[autohorology]

Don't get me wrong, no hate at all. I even owned one. I was just wanting to hear everyone's answers on what they think of the complication. I learn a lot this way and I thoroughly enjoy seeing differing perspectives. It helps me to see what I might not be seeing.

Originally Posted by flagada2009

Why the hate bud...? It's just another beautiful thing with timepieces that addicts like us spend money on... This whole hobby and price tags are insane by any logical and mathematical standards...but it doesn't stop the love affair, does it...