# Why do people like automatic watches?



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

I've never understood why people continually pay big premiums for automatic watches. Even a COSC certified chronometer doesn't keep time as well as a cheaper quartz watch (COSC certification allows for a watch to be off by 3 minutes a month, a typical quartz is off by 5-15 seconds a month from what I've read.) 

I can understand paying for something "classic" when classic means superior quality, like paying more for a pair of handmade shoes from Italy instead of cheaper factory made shoes from India. But in the case of automatic watches, from an objective point of view people are paying more for a technically inferior product. As well there is the added hassle of the watching stopping every 24-36 hours if its not in motion (through wear or a winder.) Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like marketing smoke and mirrors to romanticize an old product and the "craftsmanship" that goes into it.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

omairp said:


> I've never understood why people continually pay big premiums for automatic watches. Even a COSC certified chronometer doesn't keep time as well as a cheaper quartz watch (COSC certification allows for a watch to be off by 3 minutes a month, a typical quartz is off by 5-15 seconds a month from what I've read.)
> 
> I can understand paying for something "classic" when classic means superior quality, like paying more for a pair of handmade shoes from Italy instead of cheaper factory made shoes from India. But in the case of automatic watches, from an objective point of view people are paying more for a technically inferior product. As well there is the added hassle of the watching stopping every 24-36 hours if its not in motion (through wear or a winder.) Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like marketing smoke and mirrors to romanticize an old product and the "craftsmanship" that goes into it.


You are missing something. It has to do with appreciating craftsmanship. It is at once anti-techology and appreciation for a leap in technology that revolutionized mankind and permitted global travel in ways that had not been possible before.

A quartz watch that keeps immaculate time can be cranked out by machine at a rate of hundreds per day. Even a cheap mechanical can be crafted by machine. But a fine mechanical watch is largely hand made to high tolerances.

Quartz watches are precise but soulless. COSC mechanical watches are 99.9999% accurate despite relying on mechanical, rather than electronic components to do their work. It is a step up the ladder of soul.

But if you don't get it, I'm the last one to try to convince you otherwise since I believe that you either appreciate it once you've owned your first one, or you never will. You can hear all about Opera and why other people love it, but if it doesn't move you you just won't get it.

So don't lose sleep over it. If you caught the bug it would just cost you money. Understand that there may be things in life that you appreciate (such as a hand made shoe) that others will think are just you being overcome by marketing hype. I mean, after all, it covers your foot and doesn't rub blisters, why in the world would I ever pay $900 for something that doesn't do any more than one I can get for $50?


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

https://imageshack.us


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Bob Loblaw said:


> https://imageshack.us


Maybe I should be selling these thoughts to him for his segments instead of giving it away to you guys for free. Tick-tick-tick-tick-tick :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Jim In Sunny So Calif (May 13, 2006)

The ability to get a signal from the U.S. Navel Observatory (or whichever agency provides the service) to set the time is getting pretty cheap so some watches should not even be off 5 seconds a month.

I was thinking of asking the same question that you did but I can't find enough material to fireproof my monitor.

Cheers, Jim.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I owned a pre war, 5 screw Smith and Wesson model 10 with 6" barrel, a case of old Peters 200 grain superpolice and it's big brother, a Model 1917 .45 ACP. The pieces came with FAST AND FANCY REVOLVER SHOOTING by Ed McGivern. I became intimite with all three mechanical works of art. Years later I'm at a modern shooting range. This obviously new policeman ( buzz haircut, academy t shirt) was painfully, slowly prepping himself for practise; PABST recoil glove, yellow shooting glasses, laid out spare magazines and a then popular 'wunder 9' High capacity double action pistol with tritium night sights, two fist hold trigger guard, Pachmayer grips. He made a crack about my 'old horse pistols' and started to frame his body for shooting, looking like a cross between a Yogi master and Chiropractor on LSD. I lifted my revolver Camp Perry stance and rapid fired 6 shots into the bullseye, switched to the big .45 and dumped 6 high and to the left, it's uncorrected POA.Rngemaster is screaming at me, new cop is standing there slackjawed. Mechanical watches enabled us for worldwide navigation and exploration. Quartz watches merely let us know how long we've been standing in line at LAX so somebody can order us to remove our shoes.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Kav said:


> I owned a pre war, 5 screw Smith and Wesson model 10 with 6" barrel, a case of old Peters 200 grain superpolice and it's big brother, a Model 1917 .45 ACP. The pieces came with FAST AND FANCY REVOLVER SHOOTING by Ed McGivern. I became intimite with all three mechanical works of art. Years later I'm at a modern shooting range. This obviously new policeman ( buzz haircut, academy t shirt) was painfully, slowly prepping himself for practise; PABST recoil glove, yellow shooting glasses, laid out spare magazines and a then popular 'wunder 9' High capacity double action pistol with tritium night sights, two fist hold trigger guard, Pachmayer grips. He made a crack about my 'old horse pistols' and started to frame his body for shooting, looking like a cross between a Yogi master and Chiropractor on LSD. I lifted my revolver Camp Perry stance and rapid fired 6 shots into the bullseye, switched to the big .45 and dumped 6 high and to the left, it's uncorrected POA.Rngemaster is screaming at me, new cop is standing there slackjawed. Mechanical watches enabled us for worldwide navigation and exploration. Quartz watches merely let us know how long we've been standing in line at LAX so somebody can order us to remove our shoes.


Kav's posts are the highlight of my day.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> You are missing something. It has to do with appreciating craftsmanship. It is at once anti-techology and appreciation for a leap in technology that revolutionized mankind and permitted global travel in ways that had not been possible before.
> 
> A quartz watch that keeps immaculate time can be cranked out by machine at a rate of hundreds per day. Even a cheap mechanical can be crafted by machine. But a fine mechanical watch is largely hand made to high tolerances.
> 
> ...


Is this a consistent sentiment on your part? Do you prefer the historical, soul-imbued slide-rule over a hand-held calculator or computer? Snail-mail over e-mail? Cross-continent rail travel, with all its romance and charm, over fast air travel? Old time-honored, big gas-guzzling V-8s over modern efficient, economical 3-L. sixes? Old film cameras over modern digital ones that make dissemination of images instant and almost effortless?

I'm with omairp here. The fact that a high-priced mechanical watch must be made by hand to close tolerances (and thus cost a lot to produce) to keep the best time possible with such technology can hardly be seen as a reason to place it above a quartz watch that--despite the far easier production processes--keeps dramatically better time. Far from being off by 5-15 sec. per month, my newest Omega quartz DeVille gains about 2 seconds per month. When I look at it, I know the time. I don't have to try to remember whether I reset it recently in case what I think is the time is out by 3 minutes. A good mechanical watch will be off by 5-10 sec. _per day, _which translates into something on the order of 4 minutes per month. Despite what some guys seem to think, this _is_ significant--at least for me where getting to class on time is considered a big deal by some.

Why do electronic drives have less soul than mechanical ones? In fact, neither does--they're both inert, lifeless mechanisms. And why, when quartz watches are criticized, do people mention how little it costs to make the movement? This is bad? And why, when quartz watches are criticized, do people assume that the whole entity is just cheap crap, when the case, dial, bezel, hands, crown, etc., may be beautifully made and finished, and the whole piece may well embody beautiful and tasteful design and execution. A top-quality quartz watch can look every bit as good as a mechanical--in fact can look identical, or even better, being a little thinner because of the size of the movement. All the elements except for the movement can be of the same design and materials as those in a mechanical. My recent Omega certainly wasn't cheap, but it is beautifully designed, crafted, and finished, looks fabulous on my wrist, and when I check it, I get the right time. This is what I want in a watch, not something that gives me bad data, but with which I can reflect fondly about the hunched-over watchmaking wretch who did his best with the watch, but was limited by an outmoded technology. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Roger said:


> Is this a consistent sentiment on your part? Do you prefer the historical, soul-imbued slide-rule over a hand-held calculator or computer? Snail-mail over e-mail? Cross-continent rail travel, with all its romance and charm, over fast air travel? Old time-honored, big gas-guzzling V-8s over modern efficient, economical 3-L. sixes? Old film cameras over modern digital ones that make dissemination of images instant and almost effortless?
> 
> I'm with omairp here. The fact that a high-priced mechanical watch must be made by hand to close tolerances (and thus cost a lot to produce) to keep the best time possible with such technology can hardly be seen as a reason to place it above a quartz watch that--despite the far easier production processes--keeps dramatically better time. Far from being off by 5-15 sec. per month, my newest Omega quartz DeVille gains about 2 seconds per month. When I look at it, I know the time. I don't have to try to remember whether I reset it recently in case what I think is the time is out by 3 minutes. A good mechanical watch will be off by 5-10 sec. _per day, _which translates into something on the order of 4 minutes per month. Despite what some guys seem to think, this _is_ significant--at least for me where getting to class on time is considered a big deal by some.
> 
> Why do electronic drives have less soul than mechanical ones? In fact, neither does--they're both inert, lifeless mechanisms. And why, when quartz watches are criticized, do people mention how little it costs to make the movement? This is bad? And why, when quartz watches are criticized, do people assume that the whole entity is just cheap crap, when the case, dial, bezel, hands, crown, etc., may be beautifully made and finished, and the whole piece may well embody beautiful and tasteful design and execution. A top-quality quartz watch can look every bit as good as a mechanical--in fact can look identical, or even better, being a little thinner because of the size of the movement. All the elements except for the movement can be of the same design and materials as those in a mechanical. My recent Omega certainly wasn't cheap, but it is beautifully designed, crafted, and finished, looks fabulous on my wrist, and when I check it, I get the right time. This is what I want in a watch, not something that gives me bad data, but with which I can reflect fondly about the hunched-over watchmaking wretch who did his best with the watch, but was limited by an outmoded technology. :icon_smile_wink:


Who are you trying to convince? I already told you I'm not trying to convince anyone. Wear your godless quartz POS in good health. I'll take my sweet, anachronistic Omega Connie Pie Pan and do the same. Peace be with you.

And as for consistency, it is the epitome of soullessness. So the answer is "no". I do not require consistency to make my life tidy for others.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> Who are you trying to convince? I already told you I'm not trying to convince anyone. Wear your godless quartz POS in good health. I'll take my sweet, anachronistic Omega Connie Pie Pan and do the same. Peace be with you.
> 
> And as for consistency, it is the epitome of soullessness. So the answer is "no". I do not require consistency to make my life tidy for others.


So for a person to "have soul" he should be inconsistent. Brilliant. Keep in mind that it's a _foolish_ consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds. And actually, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything--simply noting the flaws in a specious argument. Others may benefit. Oh, BTW, referring to something another person values as a POS indicates not only boorishness, but also rather illiterate tendencies. Sure hope you can afford to be late for things with your imprecise timepiece. Peace be with you too, brother! Over and out--my last word on this subject.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Roger said:


> So for a person to "have soul" he should be inconsistent. Brilliant. Keep in mind that it's a _foolish_ consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds. And actually, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything--simply noting the flaws in a specious argument. Others may benefit. Oh, BTW, referring to something another person values as a POS indicates not only boorishness, but also rather illiterate tendencies. Sure hope you can afford to be late for things with your imprecise timepiece. Peace be with you too, brother! Over and out--my last word on this subject.


Look, we were having a nice conversation. He asked a legitimate question a couple of us gave our explanations which we (or at least I) acknowleged aren't going to be meaningful to everyone. It didn't become an argument until you speciously decided to jump in and make it one. So take a pill. Go to bed. Sleep it off or whatever is necessary and back off! My reaction may have been a bit more direct than I would have liked but you were being an A$$.

P.S. Quoting Emerson every time "consistency" is used in a sentence doesn't make you literate.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Roger said:


> Is this a consistent sentiment on your part? Do you prefer the historical, soul-imbued slide-rule over a hand-held calculator or computer? Snail-mail over e-mail? Cross-continent rail travel, with all its romance and charm, over fast air travel? Old time-honored, big gas-guzzling V-8s over modern efficient, economical 3-L. sixes? Old film cameras over modern digital ones that make dissemination of images instant and almost effortless?


I think you'll find that writers prefer snail mail, car guys prefer V-8s, and photographers prefer film (at least when they can get away with it, i.e. for their own use). I just found those examples funny because you state them as things that obviously go one way, but in my experience people in the circles most relevant to those, the people don't think that way.


----------



## cbird (Oct 27, 2006)

People don't always pay big premiums for automatic watches - many automatics can be found for much less than many quartz watches. What people are paying premiums for are finely made watches that will last a long time. Cheap automatics generally won't last long - cheap quartz watches also won't last long, from my experience. The cost of servicing any automatic generally runs from one to several hundred dollars, so unless an automatic watch is perceived as being worth the cost of servicing every five years, it's essentially a disposable watch. Therefore, informed consumers who desire an automatic generally will be very willing to pay the premium to obtain one that they will not regard as disposable. Many informed consumers who prefer quartz will also pay the premium to have one that they can expect to enjoy for a long time - and many great Swiss companies such as Omega, Rolex, Longines, and Patek Philippe do offer such watches. 
Quartz watches are able to be more precise than automatics, but good automatics are still so precise that this advantage is not really that significant in day to day life - finely tuned automatics often are precise to one or two seconds a day. Quartz watches have, I think, a bigger advantage in terms of their ability to offer a great number of complicated functions at a low cost (my Tissot T-touch watch offers a barometer, compass, chronograph function, date, thermometer, and alarm, for example - and no mechanical watch does all of that, let alone for $500).
Mechanicals are, on the other hand, generally more rugged and work better in temperature extremes (especially extreme cold).
I can appreciate both, and have both types, but prefer the mechanical and am not sure why - I'm just fascinated that something so small and complicated can work so well and reliably. Maybe it's because a finely made mechanical watch is an adult's equivalent to the secret decoder ring he had as a child. This aspect clearly comes up with the current popularity of the tourbillon - a super expensive mechanical complication that does nothing whatsoever except impress with its intricacy, but otherwise makes the servicing much more expensive and causes the movement to be less rugged and reliable. Why people pay 10 to 50 times more than it costs for a finely made "manufacture" watch to obtain one with a tourbillon is what amazes me.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets put things in perspective here. We are on a slightly oblong planet rotating on a canted axis around a star on the outer arm of a galaxy among countless other galaxies hurtling through space God alone knows where or why. And we conceptualise time in our limited grasp of it's fullness and wistfully harnessed to a calender found less accurate than a bunch of mexican indian's work some 200 years previous. And I'm supposed to sweat 4 minutes like some white rabbit and run as fast as I can under direction of a chess queen. All I wanted was to meet this french canadien girl who mailed a letter scented with Chanel # 5 and will be late anyway as all french are at least 30 minutes. So I'll just stand here and adjust my anachronistic old mechanical russian commie chronograph and quote the last lines of THE DYING PATRIOT by James Elroy Flecker. " West of these out to seas colder than the hebrides I must go--- Where the fleet of stars is anchored, and the young star captains glow." And I'm usually setting it to an atomic clock in San Diego by NAVY men and I hate my family naval tradition and so set it to the big neon sign of the Oakland Tribune out of spite. but it's O.K. I always get back to base with minutes to spare and if Suzanne is asleep on my arm the gate guards won't notice me smuggling her into my room anyway, being to dutifull punching their datex clocks with the keys spaced on their rounds to look up and see stars or french girls.


----------



## macht80 (Jul 10, 2007)

The is a beauty to a fine 25 jewel mechanical watch, the sweeping second hand of a rolex, that has not been surpassed by a quartz. I like mechanical watches because they are the Apex of a kind of human engineering, that takes time and gobs of skill. It is no coincidence that people who like full canvased suits which are made by skilled Italian or English tailor would also like mechanical watches. It is in part a reflection on the buyer who wants to have something of value and in this day and age, value isnt gold it is the time and labor of an expert (just ask a high priced consultant or lawyer). In this case it is of a expertly trained watchmaker who took time to create the master piece. I also like watches because they are little pieces of art that you can wear with you and even pass on.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I find myself reminded of an old "biker saw" that was frequently uttered within the Harley Davidson crowd some years ago..."If you have to ask, you wouldn"t understand!" Actually, I think it started out as a sales pitch.


----------



## tudor (Jul 13, 2007)

*for those who dislike/don't understand mech. watches*

I don't know why you even bother buying quarz watches....buy a cell phone that does every little thing you want...and also why should you spend a dime on your wedding rings since they don't do anything ......... you should make them from plastic

and for OP:

why you buy hand made shoes when you can have the best and most durable rubber boots around?



eagle2250 said:


> ''If you have to ask, you wouldn"t understand!"


 --------- pretty much sums it up


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

You can get from A to B perfectly well in a Skoda but you drive a Mercedes.
Why? Once you get past the guff of it simply being a 'better' car, youll find
your answer about why people buy mechanical watches.
Just **** heated seats and ABS may give a better ride, a mechanical watch 
gives you a better quality of time.


----------



## Good Old Sledge (Jun 13, 2006)

I think there's something telling in the notion that automatic watches give "bad data."
My watch performs a purpose far more subtle than simply offering up "data." It is, apart from my wedding ring which is a mark of devotion to another, the only piece of jewelry I wear - therefore a very personal expression. It is also, apart from my glasses which are necessary for me to even see my watch, the only item of kit that I wear consistently every day.
So I want it to be an extension of my personality - a useful decoration. A little quirky, a little anachronistic, asthetically interesting and not what everyone else has, wants or could get. 
I write with a fountain pen, play guitar through a tube amp, use laces on my shoes instead of velcro and prefer manual transmissions to automatic.

The danger is not that computers will come to think like men - but that men will come to think like computers.


----------



## alphadelta (Oct 2, 2007)

You are better off not understanding -- trust me!

"A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure."


----------



## Blackie (Jul 21, 2007)

Here's an old automatic watch for you.......


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Using a good quality watch as a starting point, a good and patient watchmaking can make a mechanical watch plenty accurate (I've seen 1 second per week).


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

The sweeping second hand looks rather pretty and is more interesting to gaze at during a boring meeting than a ticking quartz.

That's about as deep as I go when it comes to watches. 

Probably why I was happy to spend money on a relatively cheap Longines, but wouldn't contemplate throwing megabucks at the more expensive mechanical watches.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

It all comes down to style.
Unless your using the watch to time a rocket launch, it's a question of what you like on your wrist.

I like early digital and quartz watches.
Most Forum members would heave at the sight of them.


----------



## spielerman (Jul 21, 2007)

Roger said:


> So for a person to "have soul" he should be inconsistent. Brilliant. Keep in mind that it's a _foolish_ consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds. And actually, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything--simply noting the flaws in a specious argument. Others may benefit. Oh, BTW, referring to something another person values as a POS indicates not only boorishness, but also rather illiterate tendencies. Sure hope you can afford to be late for things with your imprecise timepiece. Peace be with you too, brother! Over and out--my last word on this subject.


Looks like Roger, you forgot to take your new fandangled medicine... o.k. I'll bring the leeches over again for a blood letting-maybe that will get you back on track :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think trying to argue things from any rational/utility based POV is the wrong tact to take here. Quartz watches are obviously the most efficient, both in terms of cost and accuracy. You can go buy a nice Rolex quartz that will only set you back a few grand if you want in on the Rolex cachet, which for the general public is quite high. One of those odd situations where the really big names are less known and carry less cachet with the general public.

However, why buy an automatic? For non-rational reasons, just like most luxury goods. The nostalgia, the romance of a hand crafted good by a master, the thought of handing this work of art on to your son...many reasons that have nothing to do with a straight line price/functionability equation.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Which movie was it,Pink Panther? the Inspector and his assistant are intent on throwing a light switch and trying to calibrate their watches. It sort of sums up the whole thread here. i have 8 minutes to 11 A.M. Pacific time here, no now it's......


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

nicksull said:


> a mechanical watch
> gives you a better quality of time.


This seems kind of a ridiculous claim. Mechanical watches are fascinating, and quite cool (to my mind). But, time is time. You don't have richer, sepia-toned seconds and minutes because of mechanical watches, you have 
seconds and minutes of life.


----------



## KeithR (Sep 5, 2006)

I still wear a quartz watch acquired during my Marine Corps years, when the key factors were water resistance, accuracy, tritium hands for nighttime use, and the ability to stop the second hand for precise synchronization. The primary purpose was calling for synchronized fire support from the turret of a tank. Naturally I bought a quartz watch. Now that I'm retired and in a second career, I'm thinking more about a quality watch that I'll pass on to my heirs. Quartz watches don't make the cut. Among other reasons, there is the practical reason that there is no way of knowing whether the proper battery will be in continuous production when a future grandson inherits the watch. When I purchase a Patek Phillipe, it will be a purchase for the generations.


----------



## nicksull (Sep 1, 2005)

the etruscan said:


> This seems kind of a ridiculous claim. Mechanical watches are fascinating, and quite cool (to my mind). But, time is time. You don't have richer, sepia-toned seconds and minutes because of mechanical watches, you have
> seconds and minutes of life.


Er yes Etruscan.... i was being ironic.


----------



## jar2574 (Aug 30, 2007)

These days you can find good automatics that are affordable. 

Some day, many years from now, I may splurge on a Patek Philippe or an IWC. For now, I am quite happy with my automatic. 

I agree with the poster who mentioned that wearing an automatic is an expression of your personality. Other than my wedding ring, it's the only jewlery that I wear. It's nice to wear something made in small batches rather than in long assembly lines.

Generally, I don't think that people who wear automatics are trying to be flashy. Personally, I wanted something that I enjoyed looking at, that was beautiful but subtle.

I love the way the hands move, and mine is accurate to within 15-20 seconds per week. That's good enough for me. When I need to go to a meeting, my Outlook and blackberry will notify me anyway. No need for a watch to be super-accurate. I just reset my automatic to my quartz watch once a week.


----------



## mclean5 (May 16, 2006)

"Mechanical watches enabled us for worldwide navigation and exploration. Quartz watches merely let us know how long we've been standing in line at LAX so somebody can order us to remove our shoes."

Classic. FWIW, I don't own a camera, but if I did it would be a Leica.


----------



## the etruscan (Mar 9, 2007)

nicksull said:


> Er yes Etruscan.... i was being ironic.


It's not my fault I'm slow . . .


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)




----------



## Omega (Jul 10, 2005)

What I have understood about watches is that you should buy a watch that YOU like and it does not really matter what mechanism or style it has.
From my experience, most people cannot recognise difference between mechanical and quartz movement unless it is written on the watch. 
When I was choosing a watch for myself, I asked owners of relatively expensive automatic watches what was so special about the mechanism of their watches, and they could not tell me much, most bought their watch because of the brand and design.
So, what is real difference? You have to wear automatic watches for self-winding. I used to have a colleague who had at least 5 Rolexes, all Submariners, and sometimes he would come wearing watches on this both hands that they did not stop. Many manufacturers recommend servicing automatic/mechanical watches every 2-3 years, but quartz take about twice longer before servicing. Automatic watches are usually thicker than quartz ones and often heavier. Some people like this, but when you work in hot climates it is very inconvenient, but this is my experience. There is also price difference, of course, and precision – I read somewhere that the error of automatic watches varies depending on time of the day, so error in the morning might higher than in the evening and vice versa, quartz watches are better in this. Expensive quartz watches don’t last as long as expensive automatic/mechanical watches, but I think by replacing mechanism you can breeze live into quartz watches again.
My wife loves automatic watches, but she does not have a clue about mechanisms. I think she is quite an average automatic watches user.
Watch is a piece of jewellery, therefore, I believe, most people care how it looks like, then what is inside of it. Even if someone knows what mechanism is inside if his watch, I believe if I put several watch mechanisms in front of him and ask which mechanism is inside of his watch, he will struggle to recognise it. So, is it really such a big deal?

P.S.: I don’t think there is any quartz Rolex in current production…


----------



## detaildoc (Dec 31, 2005)

Because I think it is safe to assume that those of us on this forum enjoy "the finer things in life." Based on whatever metric you justify spending your money on, watches are just another something to add. You're not really going to convince me people buy bespoke suits because everybody looking at them is going to instantly know what it is. Knowing that you own something that was at one point built by a human being, by a company with a deep tradition of excellence and quality, and knowing that you own something that isn't a mass produced good instills a certain feeling about there being true craftsmen in this world.


----------



## m kielty (Dec 22, 2005)

detaildoc said:


> Because I think it is safe to assume that those of us on this forum enjoy "the finer things in life." Based on whatever metric you justify spending your money on, watches are just another something to add. You're not really going to convince me people buy bespoke suits because everybody looking at them is going to instantly know what it is. Knowing that you own something that was at one point built by a human being, by a company with a deep tradition of excellence and quality, and knowing that you own something that isn't a mass produced good instills a certain feeling about there being true craftsmen in this world.


I certainly would agree with you, at least about the craftsman part.:icon_smile:

Ther is something else imparted by quality that I never see mentioned on the Forum. Quality bestows power.
Several of my clients have mentioned this.
It is important to them to have a presence that is noted.
A high quality suit is the basic of the power outfit. It's not just for the pleasure of the wearer.


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

This has been an interesting discussion for me and I have learned some things on both sides of the argument that could be useful if I buy another watch. Thanks to all of you.


----------



## Mr. Golem (Mar 18, 2006)

I would love to have a mechanical watch just because I think the graceful, uninterrupted sweeping of the second hand is aesthetically pleasing. And if I can know that a craftsman assembled my watch, that would be great. There's just something about the human element for me. At my current state it looks like that I will have a quartz, and I'm fine with owning a quartz until I can afford a mechanical movement watch. 

I think what Louis Armstrong said on style applies:

"If you gotta ask, you'll never know.."


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

I have both mechanical and quartz watches. Unless quartz watchmakers come out with beauties like this, then I'm still inclined to go automatic.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Mechanical watches are jewellery or artistic tems which happen to tell the time, usually fairly inaccurately. Quartz watches are functional items and some may double as jewellery. Mechanical watches are a triumph of workmanship, quartz watches are a triumph of science and technology.

As long as people defend their preference on these grounds, _de gustibus_ applies. But if someone defends a mechanical watch on the grounds of its function as a timepiece, they're FOS.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

StephenRG said:


> As long as people defend their preference on these grounds, _de gustibus_ applies. But *if someone defends a mechanical watch on the grounds of its function as a timepiece, they're FOS*.


Or perhaps they have a very fine timepiece...

As much as mechanical watches represent fine craftsmanship, there is another thing they represent: sufficient resolution. Unless you're bidding on Ebay or performing scientific tests, obsession with accuracy down to a couple of seconds isn't likely to buy you anything in life beyond further stress. Our society generally doesn't function at such resolution, so just possibly, the argument of functionality as a timepiece isn't too far off...


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

acidicboy said:


> I have both mechanical and quartz watches. Unless quartz watchmakers come out with beauties like this, then I'm still inclined to go automatic.


Beautiful example, but my opinion would differ from yours in one respect: even if someone came out with a quartz version of this, it'd still be a quartz version, and I'd still be inclined to pick up the automatic version. :icon_smile_big:

On a similarly humorous note, I was actually offered a quartz version of this watch once, down on Canal street in NYC. It looked identical except for the words (JAPAN QUARTZ MVT) along the lower curve of the face...I didn't bite.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

sia said:


> Or perhaps they have a very fine timepiece...
> 
> As much as mechanical watches represent fine craftsmanship, there is another thing they represent: sufficient resolution. Unless you're bidding on Ebay or performing scientific tests, obsession with accuracy down to a couple of seconds isn't likely to buy you anything in life beyond further stress. Our society generally doesn't function at such resolution, so just possibly, the argument of functionality as a timepiece isn't too far off...


No. The fact is that as a timepiece _alone_ a quartz watch is more accurate (and generally much cheaper) than a mechanical watch. Hence purely from a functional perspective a quartz watch is better. Workmanship is not part of the calculation - that goes to individual taste. That a mechanical watch is mostly as accurate as you need it to be(so why bother with second hands or chrono functions then ?) means that it is not _purely_ jewellery or art. If you say that you prefer a mechanical watch because of the workmanship, that's fine. I have no argument.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Based on winning the next lottery, I am issuing the following challenge. My first major purchase will be a Concordia. I possess a fine sextant and navigation tool set, my Bowditch and Linder sailor's knife with marlinespike. I need to upgrade my Poljot Chronograph to a certified chronometer. My opponents can use any vessel and modern aids they wish. We will recreate Captain Cook's voyage to Tahiti. They may arrive faster. I'll make better time. Raises tumbler with umbrella and pineapple slice in it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

And I suppose all recorded records of athleticism, speed of vehicles on land,sea and air need an * if they weren't recorded with a lazer beam connected to a quartz watch connected via Windows XP to the atomic clock in San Diego. Turns on mexican T.V. station with an old Tarzan Movie dubbed. Johhny just let out his primal scream and dove into the water. Man, he stil looks faster than Mark Spitz.


----------



## Please Hold-My Name Is  (Oct 18, 2007)

omairp said:


> I can understand paying for something "classic" when classic means superior quality, like paying more for a pair of handmade shoes from Italy instead of cheaper factory made shoes from India. .


Well, the "SWISS MADE" stamp means 50% of the parts can come from any place in the world and 50% comes from Switzerland. Courtesy- Watch magazine. The rule is being changed to 20% foreign parts.



omairp said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like marketing smoke and mirrors to romanticize an old product and the "craftsmanship" that goes into it.


Most people here will not agree to your comment. But you are mostly correct. The swiss watch industry was immensely threatened by the advent of the quartz watch. In comes marketing. Mass production was brought in to cut costs. The VALJOUX movement is a perfect example.

There is romanticism and the pure engineering that goes into the product. But most people buy Rolex, NOT because they understand the beauty of engineering. James Bond, Tiger Woods sell Rolex.


----------



## kaiiwa (Oct 15, 2006)

I have both mechanical and quartz watches. I have low end and high end watches. I am a watch nut. :icon_smile:
I like the engineering aspect of automatic watches, the amount of and type of parts in a watch.
Yes, quartz is acturate and efficient but like others have stated there is something missing from quartz. 

Marketing has huge role in selling higher end and mechanical watches. In that, the idea when you purchase a $10,000 mechanical watch with a clear case back to see the moving parts some how justifys the purchase.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Maybe the same reason some people buy art from galleries rather than buying at the local Ramada Inn's super fantastic artist liquidator's sale. If you look at the landscapes at these "artist's" art sales where you can buy oil paintings for $75, they are almost photograph-like in terms of perfection. The equivalent of mass produced. However, people still pay a premium to buy art from galleries at much higher prices.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

Those who own nice mechanical watches don't question why anyone would want a $10 quartz watch, yet people who prefer the quartz watches always seem to have a bone to pick with anyone who wants to own a mechanical one. Why is that?


----------



## FzyLgic (Jun 17, 2004)

For me it's really a simple matter of disposing of dead batteries. With a mechanical watch, be it automatic or not, I never have to dispose of or purchase a battery which contains toxic substances. I endeavor to reduce the number of such devices where ever I can and I use rechargeable batteries to minimize the impact where possible.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

I'm not a mechanical watch nut, but I own a few and can understand why people like them. It is, however, lost on me why people pay big bucks for quartz watches. If you buy the logic that a quartz is a superior timepiece, why not buy an attractive Timex that will deliver the same exacting time as its high-dollar kin?


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

StephenRG said:


> No. The fact is that as a timepiece _alone_ a quartz watch is more accurate (and generally much cheaper) than a mechanical watch. Hence purely from a functional perspective a quartz watch is better. Workmanship is not part of the calculation - that goes to individual taste. That a mechanical watch is mostly as accurate as you need it to be(so why bother with second hands or chrono functions then ?) means that it is not _purely_ jewellery or art. If you say that you prefer a mechanical watch because of the workmanship, that's fine. I have no argument.


Call me old-fashioned, but you're selling me teats on a bull. Accuracy beyond what I need doesn't offer me anything functionally better. It may be "more accurate," it may be technologically "better," more scientifically advanced, etc, however, any function I don't have any use for will not be, for me, "better." I have no need for the accuracy it offers, nor the economy, therefore it's many things quantitatively, but qualitatively not better.


----------



## Omega (Jul 10, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> It is, however, lost on me why people pay big bucks for quartz watches. If you buy the logic that a quartz is a superior timepiece, why not buy an attractive Timex that will deliver the same exacting time as its high-dollar kin?


Because watch is a jewellery and more beautifully made than Timex: marking on the bezel are done by hand, deep engravings also made by hand, detailing is very fine, watch material is more resistant to scratches etc. So you get a very fine piece of jewellery.
High-end watch is jewellery, for many people it is not for telling the time, especially in modern times. If you look at many high-end watches, you can see that one very important functional point is not there - you cannot tell what time it is in the dark because you won't see time hands. I cannot tolerate it, but many people can because they like their watch so much.
Many young people nowadays don't wear watches at all because you have a mobile phone. It is initially inconvenient to use mobile phone, but with time you get used to it, it is a modern pocket watch, but with many useful additions (my favourite function, I guess, is books reader - I can keep about 50 books in my mobile, 1 year supply). And currently mobile phones are getting more fashionable among younger generation than watches - £8000 mobile phone is not the limit.


----------



## angle_slam (Jan 18, 2007)

acidicboy said:


> I have both mechanical and quartz watches. Unless quartz watchmakers come out with beauties like this, then I'm still inclined to go automatic.


There is no technical reason A. Lange & Sohne can't make that exact same watch with a quartz movement. It's only mechanical because people who spend $10k+ on a watch expect a mechanical movement.

So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that all expensive watches are mechanical.


----------



## angle_slam (Jan 18, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> Quartz watches are precise but soulless. COSC mechanical watches are 99.9999% accurate despite relying on mechanical, rather than electronic components to do their work. It is a step up the ladder of soul.


6 seconds per day is only 99.58% accurate. Accurate enough for day to day usage. But 3 minutes over the course of a month can force one to miss trains, planes, TV shows, etc.


----------



## couch (Mar 8, 2005)

When I was given my first good automatic watch (a steel Rolex) in 1977, quartz watches had yet to appear. The electronic Bulova Accutron (electronic tuning fork [oscillator] mechanism) was the hi-tech wonder of the day. And not much cheaper than a good mechanical automatic.

I continue to wear my steel Rolex because I honor my parents who presented it to me on my undergraduate commencement, because it still looks good and keeps excellent time, and because it expresses my distaste for planned obsolescence and waste. When recently I decided to add a dress watch to my wardrobe, I chose a 1934 manual Asprey tank-style with gold case and curved back, recently serviced and purchased at Asprey. It's elegant and beautifully preserved, its understated size is proportionate to my slim wrist, and it allows me to keep a fine piece of jewelry and craftsmanship in active use.

Some people believe only the new is worthy--in art, literature, politics, and life. Others recognize that what is novel today is inevitably passe tomorrrow, and so try to maintain some perspective, valuing what is well said or well made regardless of its era. Applied to objects, that seems to me the best kind of materialism. When such old-fashioned ideas as stewardship turn out to be green and hip again, it's particularly satisfying. After 30 years, I have yet to buy, change, or discard a watch battery.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

I prefer cross country train travel to standing on line all day in an airport. I paint with oils instead of water soluable accrylics. I wear quality made clothing and detachable collars. What type of watch do you think I carry. And it's been with me since 1965.

My life is fineite. I want a certain quality and texture to it.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

From New Grange Ireland to Medicine Wheel in the western USA people have been devising mechanisms to detect moments in time. Did you know one of the building phases of Stonehenge marked the precise dates of lunar phenomenon modern science didn't know about? Granted, in our world such observations have little impact. But aside from interesting trivia what does this teach us? Perhaps the lesson is in a society that took several generations to record and determine phenomenon precisely. Such societies may also take the time to learn and appreciate other things of wonder and beauty. Perhaps a mechanical watch represents not so much technology as philosophy and theology? I like to wake just before sunrise, put the teapot on and watch the magic moment when a rather average star in a obscure segment of an equally average galaxy boils over the horizon like bubbles in the teapot. About that time I check my watch and make adjustments before winding 10 times and back once to help lubricate. You can see the bunnies out chewing the roses. This is after all the Conejo Valley. I haven't seen any white ones in waistcoast yet. But if I do, I have another anacronistic, innacurate and largely handfitted mechanism to deal with him and that chess queen. I don't always know where I am going or even why. But there is no use being late, even 3 minutes. Unless it is for pretty french girls.


----------



## angle_slam (Jan 18, 2007)

The problem with this topic is that every person has different tolerances for what they'll pay for certain items. Even if a person has the money to pay for an object, they may consider a certain amount "excessive" even though they spend lots of money on other things.

For example, I would never spend $5k on a watch. Yet I'm probably going to buy about $5k+ worth of camera equipment over the next year.

I know someone who will spend $5k on a shopping trip for purses, but won't send $10/month to DirecTV to get their HD package (despite owning a HD TV). Someone else who drives a $40k BMW, but buys their clothes at Target. Someone else who makes over $250k/year but owns only a single 13" TV. 

People are different.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

angle_slam said:


> 6 seconds per day is only 99.58% accurate. Accurate enough for day to day usage. But 3 minutes over the course of a month can force one to miss trains, planes, TV shows, etc.


You're assuming that someone who has one of these doesn't bother to reset the time periodically. Bad assumption.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

angle_slam said:


> There is no technical reason A. Lange & Sohne can't make that exact same watch with a quartz movement. It's only mechanical because people who spend $10k+ on a watch expect a mechanical movement.
> 
> So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that all expensive watches are mechanical.


Of course they *could* but they won't because it would miss the point entirely...there's little/no art to building a quartz watch movement. The variations on mechanical movements represent a certain height of the art where craftsmanship, physics, and mechanical engineering meet to produce an endless variety of tiny masterpieces. Open any two mechanical watches from different manufacturers, and you're likely to catch a glimpse into the minds of the creators. Open any two quartz watch movements, and you'll most likely see a collection of generic electronic bits around the words "Made in Japan."


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

angle_slam said:


> The problem with this topic is that every person has different tolerances for what they'll pay for certain items. Even if a person has the money to pay for an object, they may consider a certain amount "excessive" even though they spend lots of money on other things.
> 
> For example, I would never spend $5k on a watch. Yet I'm probably going to buy about $5k+ worth of camera equipment over the next year.
> 
> ...


Exactly. A friend wants a Harley-Davidson, I want a new watch. I don't see a tremendous difference between our situations: both our hobby items we'll use occassionally and each derives our own form of satisfaction from their use.


----------



## Bernard Arnest (Oct 22, 2007)

I intend to get more into the mechanical watch world. 

I only own 2 watches, one windup and the other automatic-- they both have viewing windows; that I may appreciate the mechanisms! 
I agree with whomever had earlier expressed confusion over owning a mechanical watch, when you can't tell the difference; viewing backs, "open hearts," or even designs where the entire face is gone but for a rim marking the hours, revealing all the mechanism from the front.

I would pay for additional ornamentation; engraving, guilloche, enamel, gold inlay, etc. 

Hech, in ten years, I'll be doing it for myself; even before I have the means to pay for it. I intend for my midlife crisis to be to go to Pennsylvania for watchmaking school 


-Bernard


----------



## Bernard Arnest (Oct 22, 2007)

I might note, that in neither quartz NOR automatic, are you paying much for the movement.

With the exception of elaborate complications, particularly the tourbillon, most automatics have the same $20 mechanism in them.

The higher-grade watches have a bit more tweaking, perhaps a bit more polish to the parts even where it doesn't even really affect performance.


...but above all, high-end watches are jewelry, and you're paying for a well-fitted case, sometimes quite stunning dials, a heavy, solid band; perhaps materials like gold.

It really has nothing to do with the mechanism at all, automatic or quartz; it's jewelry. 
I feel that having an automatic mechanism lends just one more thing worthy of ornamentation, which is why I favor them over quartz. Looking forward to getting into pocketwatches; where you have even more surface area.
Just like wearing a french-cuffed shirt lets you buy one more accessory to spruce yourself up with, namely the cufflinks. It's not practical, of course, and do correct anyone who claims it is so; but it's an aesthetic choice.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

maakichoot said:


> James Bond, Tiger Woods sell Rolex.


Actually, Bond pushes Omega and Tiger is with Tag Heuer- and the Golf watch he endorses is quartz.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

acidicboy said:


> Actually, Bond pushes Omega and Tiger is with Tag Heuer- and the Golf watch he endorses is quartz.


Bond has only been with Omega since 1995. Before that, from 1962-74 and from 1987-89 he wore Rolex. He did wear a quartz Omega in GoldenEye. Moore had many digital Seikos and a digital Pulsar in Live and Let Die before M brought him his modified Rolex.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Matt S said:


> Bond has only been with Omega since 1995. Before that, from 1962-74 and from 1987-89 he wore Rolex. He did wear a quartz Omega in GoldenEye. Moore had many digital Seikos and a digital Pulsar in Live and Let Die before M brought him his modified Rolex.


touche. thanks for the expanded information.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

acidicboy said:


> touche. thanks for the expanded information.


Sorry. I can go overboard with Bond info. I must be the forum's resident OO7 freak.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

NTPv4, time_t, DST, UTC, stratum 2 time servers. Then there's asctime, localtime, gmtime and a variety of other time functions available. That's all great stuff and you can set your watch by it. So I do. My watch is a an Omega Seamaster Pro Chronometer. The real beauty of a watch you have to wear or wind is that you can blame it when you are late and fiddle with changing the date at the end of the month.


----------



## Valhson (Mar 26, 2007)

angle_slam said:


> 6 seconds per day is only 99.58% accurate. Accurate enough for day to day usage. But 3 minutes over the course of a month can force one to miss trains, planes, TV shows, etc.


The engineer in me had to check your numbers... then it occurred to me, who is going to miss a train or plain over three minutes with all of the checking and waiting one has to do these days anyhow? And lets say that one doesn't reset the watch over the course of three months (not likely but for he heck of it) That comes to only 9 minutes. Again, I ask who is going to miss a meeting, train, plane or dinner date over 9 minutes? I would worry for such a person and their priorities if that is the case.

I think Frank Lloyd Wright said "To be early is to be on time, to be on time is to be late." 

I try to apply that to most things and make sure I arrive with enough time that I am neither wasting too much of it nor rushing through it.

As for the auto/quartz argument, I am personally partial to the mechanical side. I do have a great quartz Suunto that is also a training aid (hr monitor, altimeter/barometer etc) 

But maybe it is the designer in me. I enjoy the idea that I can take pieces of metal and make them do something so wonderful. I enjoy it so much I did the timezone school thing just to play in my spare time (obviously I am not married and was on contract to a rather uninteresting area...) I know that the quartz watch is based on the same principles as the auto and it is all a count of vibrations per minute. But I enjoy seeing all the parts and understanding why they do what they do. 

I have a few mechanicals, and an auto that was handed down to me. I wouldn't trade them for anything but not because they are mechanical, it is because they were my Great-Grandfather's (Longines pocket watch) Grandfather's (Hamilton Auto) and Father's (various makes including my favorite Timex Marlin mechanical)

I note that the Timex is within 9 seconds a day and I am sure is not near the higher range of accuracy nor quality mentioned in the previous posts.

Time is time and it is theory that it is the forth dimension and thus has the soul that the other three would also include


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

Bernard Arnest said:


> I might note, that in neither quartz NOR automatic, are you paying much for the movement.
> 
> With the exception of elaborate complications, particularly the tourbillon, most automatics have the same $20 mechanism in them.


While it's true that many of the "high-end" Swiss manufacturers have been using standardized parts for some time, there are still a good few left who do not - these are the interesting ones.

Here is an extreme example. My guess is that this doesn't feature a standard $20 ETA movement and certainly is more interesting than any quartz watch I've seen. Sure it probably doesn't tell time quite as accurately as a $25 timex, but who cares?


----------



## Omega (Jul 10, 2005)

Bernard Arnest said:


> With the exception of elaborate complications, particularly the tourbillon, most automatics have the same $20 mechanism in them.


That's an interesting quote. I would like to ask you kindly, where did you find such information? I am genuinely curious.
Thank you,


----------



## Bernard Arnest (Oct 22, 2007)

Heehee; "__%* of statistics online are made up and wholly inaccurate"
*insert number of your whim here

But more seriously; I had heard it on the seiko & citizen watch forum. I am not the direct source; but I know that seiko absolutely has some $65 automatic watches that are quite accurate (I have one; about once a month I have to nudge the minute hand forward 1-2 minutes), and that apparently up through some of their intermediate models they use the precise same mechanism. Their $1000 line, of course, has its own mechanism to be more special.

Some of the cost in swedish watches is the very testing process to officially designate them to be of chronometer-standards; but with the right components it's well-established how to make an accurate mechanical watch. 
It doesn't necessarily even have to be expensive, as demonstrated by my $65 seiko mechanical. 

I have a $200 watch, too, which is no more accurate; but I feel that it has lovely hands, a heavy solid bracelet, and a stark classy face. I paid for it as jewelery; the extra $135 never went to greater accuracy, I should never pretend. 

Btw, quartz watches DO still have gears, you know; which are still best made out of stainless steel or brass on ruby bearings; the only thing that quartz does is to replace the coil spring with a battery for power and the "grasshopper" regulator with a quartz crystal; the rest still can be plastic or metal as quality dictates.
My understanding is that even in multi-thousand-dollar watches, with the very best mechanisms both quartz and mechanical (see above; not all that different), the mechanism still might only be a couple hundred dollars-- not an explanation for the cost of the watch. It's only a marginal factor.

And when you buy custom clothing, neither are you paying for the materials-- well, you are, but it is only marginally better. You're paying for it to be tailored, for the service, for the fit and finish; and likewise with many watches with mass-produced mechanisms, much of what you're paying for is a cleaner, handsome dial; $40 for a sapphire crystals; a solid band; maybe even engraving on the mechanism! 
Hech, even a tourbillon is moot on a wrist watch; it only ever helped for a pocket watch-- but you pay for it because it looks awesome, and the engineering that went into it is inspiring and gives you a certain warm feeling about humanity every time you look down at it. 


All aboslutely worthwhile paying for, in my humble opinion-- if I were wealthy enough to begin a high-end art collection, custom-engraved $200,000 watches would be up there on my list.

But please, we should keep the discussion realistic. It never was about greater accuracy; to argue over whether a more expensive automatic watch is a second more accurate than a lesser-priced watch is to miss much of the point; you mostly paid for higher quality in the fit and finish and in the aesthetic design. 
And they are indeed worthy things to pay for; beauty is not a lesser object than cold accuracy. Indeed, when a $20 quartz is more accurate, beauty is the ONLY thing to pay for in a watch, and finer craftmanship even if it yields no greater accuracy is a part of that beauty. 

When I visited the model ship museum in Annapolis, it was noted in the exhibit that some of the models, 200-300 years old, had details placed on the interior decks where no one could have seen them were it not for the modern technology to thread a camera inside. It is that same sort of extra care that is inspiring in a mechanical mechanism; it doesn't improve "performance" but it brings a certain squishy, emotional awe every time you check your wrist for the time, to know that the ticking is a coiled spring working tirelessly. 

Just be honest with yourself about what it is you bought. You don't really care about seconds/week tolerance if you're looking into mechanical watches, so don't argue over whether your $3000 watch is 10 seconds/week more accurate than your $300 watch


----------



## Please Hold-My Name Is  (Oct 18, 2007)

The $20 auto movement comment is almost true. Most automovements are made by ETA. They are designed to be manufactured in a high volume environment. The auto movement you find in a TAG HEUER for example is an ETA movement ( i cant remember the number) The casing is more expensive than the movement itself. Most manufacturers dictate the changes that need to be made on the stock ETA movement. Hence the term modified ETA movement.



Omega said:


> That's an interesting quote. I would like to ask you kindly, where did you find such information? I am genuinely curious.
> Thank you,


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

For me fine mechanical watches are toys for men. 

The ones I own are appealing to me because there's history behind them and I do appreciate complications and specifics of craftsmanship.

BTW, there are quartz watches from the 1980s (ie Rolex and Omega), period when some makers went with the fashion demand and almost abolished mechanical watches. These fine quartz watches are collectors items and command big bucks.

Will


----------



## Bernard Arnest (Oct 22, 2007)

maakichoot, thanks for the verification.

It seemed like a legitimate possibility, cheap movements (hey, if they do the job!) and I did accept it; but it was only hearsay and I knew it; your message cements it.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

Bernard Arnest said:


> maakichoot, thanks for the verification.
> 
> It seemed like a legitimate possibility, cheap movements (hey, if they do the job!) and I did accept it; but it was only hearsay and I knew it; your message cements it.


I wouldn't quite take that as validation. It's somewhat out of context with your original statement. While there are many such cheap movements, and true, one could even say "most" simply because many more inexpensive watches are sold than expensive ones...the ones that people spend seriously lots of money for (i.e. not mass produced department store fodder like low end Tag Huer watches) do not generally have low-end cheap movements. I suppose it's all relative. On the low-end of luxury watches, one could justify the position that people spend for the name not even the case, after all, most of the mass marketed $3000-$1000 "expensive" watches are mass produced by machine and assembly line and show little or no craftsmanship or individuality.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Ah the Urwerk. How DO you tell the time with that?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Matt S said:


> Sorry. I can go overboard with Bond info. I must be the forum's resident OO7 freak.


Fleming's Bond in the novels wears a Rolex.

M8


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Just for clarity's sake, it should be noted that some of the finest and most storied manufacturers of mechanical watches do -- or have -- made quartz models as well...including Rolex and Patek Philippe.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

acidicboy said:


> Ah the Urwerk. How DO you tell the time with that?


The hour appears on the rotating digit at the forearm of the hand. The hand points to the minute...

Or perhaps the right answer is (at a price tag of $50K and a production limited to 10 in each of 2 colors) very leisurely...fortunately, they've come out with a similar "down-market" version (the U210) which they're producing more of....

One of my hobbies is collecting watches that have non-conventional methods of displaying the time. This one, unfortunately, is just a bit too expensive to add to my collection new, and no second-hand market has developed yet...


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

medwards said:


> Just for clarity's sake, it should be noted that some of the finest and most storied manufacturers of mechanical watches do -- or have -- made quartz models as well...including Rolex and Patek Philippe.


Absolutely, also the Swiss manufacturer ETA, famous for making mass produced automatic and manual movements that show up in many of the well-known brands, makes lots of quartz movements too.


----------



## Omega (Jul 10, 2005)

acidicboy said:


> Ah the Urwerk. How DO you tell the time with that?


I don't think it is the point of an expensive watch... Watch is just an excuse to wear a jewellery


----------



## Journeyman (Mar 28, 2005)

*Personal taste*



Good Old Sledge said:


> The danger is not that computers will come to think like men - but that men will come to think like computers.


Simply put, everyone is different, and everyone has at least slightly different tastes.
And yet, most people are similar in that they they will happily (even insistently) purchase the cheapest item possible in some situations, and yet insist on purchasing something expensive at other times.
Why buy plain, white bread at the supermarket when you also purchase expensive, speciality items at the deli? Why buy a cheap DVD player or toaster, and then purchase an expensive stereo or coffee machine?
I think it's really for one - because those more expensive items satisfy a desire within. The desire may exist for a number of reasons - to show off to others, to feel part of a group, to tell yourself that you own the best you can get of one particular thing, at least, or simply because that particular product really speaks to some part of your soul.

As others have noted, why are some people happy to spend so much money on shoes, or on old cars, when a pair of $50 rubber-soled, correct grain Payless shoes, or a clapped-out Pontiac Sunfire, would do just the same work?
Essentially, it's because those products ignite an inner flame in people that other products don't.

I have a couple of vintage watches. I freely admit that they are a pain to wind every couple of days, and that sometimes I forget and have to re-wind them and set the time. I also have a 1972 Porsche 911 and a 1990 Mazda MX-5 (Miata). They're not practical and the Porsche is downright uncomfortable, particularly compared to modern iterations. Yet, those versions speak to me in a way that the newer versions do not.

You can put a logical veneer on this (particularly with watches) as you can explain that a good mechanical watch will easily outlast a quartz one, and that it will often look better to boot. However, I don't expect that most people that like mech watches are actually thinking of that rationale when they're making a purchase - I know that I'm not! I buy them simply because they speak to something inside me and I enjoy wearing them. I enjoy the intricacy of the machinery, the fine workmanship, and the link to history.


----------



## sia (Apr 27, 2007)

Journeyman said:


> You can put a logical veneer on this (particularly with watches) as you can explain that a good mechanical watch will easily outlast a quartz one, and that it will often look better to boot. However, I don't expect that most people that like mech watches are actually thinking of that rationale when they're making a purchase - I know that I'm not! I buy them simply because they speak to something inside me and I enjoy wearing them. I enjoy the intricacy of the machinery, the fine workmanship, and the link to history.


+1. Very nicely said!


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Omega said:


> I don't think it is the point of an expensive watch... Watch is just an excuse to wear a jewellery


That may be true. But as long as it's a watch....


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

I always prefer Mechanical, auto or otherwise. What really bakes my cake is the people with the quartz analog watches...talk about a throwback, at least the mechanicals are honest about what they are! People talk up the virtues of quartz being accurate, then they go out an buy one gimped by the archaic hand-swinging of the analog watch - you want accuracy, get a digital! Reminds me of the fake wood paneling on car exteriors in the 1970's and the styrofoam architectural details on the local Burger King - DEAR GOD!!! is anyone really fooled!!! I'd hate to see the equivalent in clothing...


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

*Horological Heresy!*

I always prefer Mechanical, auto or otherwise. What really bakes my cake is the people with the quartz analog watches...talk about a throwback, at least the mechanicals are honest about what they are! People talk up the virtues of quartz being accurate, then they go out an buy one gimped by the archaic hand-swinging of the analog watch - you want accuracy, get a digital! Reminds me of the fake wood paneling on car exteriors in the 1970's and the styrofoam architectural details on the local Burger King - DEAR GOD!!! is anyone really fooled!!! I'd hate to see the equivalent in clothing...


----------



## pkincy (Feb 9, 2006)

From a simple question, we succumb to vitriol.

Methinks there are some that are secretly embarrassed about their excesses.

Actually the heart of the argument seems to be "it is jewelry, and I like jewelry." Or "it is craftmanship and I like craftmanship...."

Those are both easy to understand.

Of course the question posed here, is probaby like a question on a Ferrari or Porsche forum asking "why don't you drive a Toyota Prius, they get better gas mileage and have four doors and are ecologically friendly."

I love the passion of the internet. <g>

Perry


----------



## LD111134 (Dec 21, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> I find myself reminded of an old "biker saw" that was frequently uttered within the Harley Davidson crowd some years ago..."If you have to ask, you wouldn"t understand!" Actually, I think it started out as a sales pitch.


I think the origin of this saying comes from the great Louis Armstrong. A reporter asked him to explain what jazz is, Sachmo said "If you have to ask, you'll never know".

I used to be befuddled by some men's obsession with automatic watches, but I gradually grew to appreciate the aesthetics of these mechanical wonders. Now I have a Breitling Colt Automatic, and I'm a convert. If I want super-accurate time, I'll look at my wireless PDA/phone.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

These days, buying a respectable automatic is not even costly. You can get Seikos all over the place, with day/date autowinding movements for $40. Sure, it's a cheap POS, but I'll take a passable looking mechanical POS for $40 over a $40 quartz movement any day.


----------



## vatoemperor (Jun 15, 2008)

It is a lot like comparing paintings and photographs - one is certainly more accurate a representation of reality, cheaper, easier to reproduce and to some may even look better - but it is none of those things that makes a painting worth more than a photograph, it is the craft and creative forces at work to create it. A handmade watch is especially a unique work of art, much more so than a mass produced untoughed-by-human-hands quartz.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I have two automatic watches. One is a late 60's Omega Seamaster day-date I picked up at a flea market about 17 years ago. I cannot recall how much I paid...I seem to recall the seller asking $200 and after thinking about it for what seemed to be a long while (my grandmother was telling me to hurry up and make up my mind) I got him down to either $180 or $160. I wasn't really looking for a watch at the time and I certainly didn't know much either but it was a nice looking watch except for the cheap flexible band and I knew Omega was a quality brand. I wore it for a couple years until it died out on me. Rather then fix it, I decided to purchase a two tone Rolex Oyster Datejust from a shop that sells refurbished Rolex and other high end watches. I wore that one for about 12 years until that too died out. By that time, I had grown tired of it. I really lusted after one of the automatic Ebel chronographs but wanted one in solid 18k gold but couldn't afford one. So I decided to get the old Seamaster fixed up. It only cost a couple hundred for a complete overhaul and cleaning from a local mom-n-pop store. The watchmaker was an old gent who worked for Omega for many years before opening his own business. It took a couple return trips to get the watch to stop running ahead two minutes every week or so. Now the watch keeps great time, and I have gotten many more compliments on it then I did my Rolex and even a couple offers to buy it from me.

So yes I prefer automatic watches but as mentioned already, there are plenty of inexpensive options out there. Even Swatch was making some of their models automatic. I also like writing letters by hand and snail mailing them and yes I also shoot film (Mamiya RZ67 ProII) and do all my black and white developing and printing myself. We live in a disposable culture today which to me is all the reason more to spend a little more and have something that is truly special and unique.


----------



## brioni007 (Dec 3, 2007)

*Automatic watches*

mechanical watches are amazing, The worlds smallest machines. The work and time put into producing them leaves me in awe. I have a great deal of respect for artisans that produce works of art in world that is submersed in mass produced product. Those who enjoy bespoke clothing tend to admire and wear Mechanical time pieces. It has more to do with the appreciation of craftmanship than snobbery.


----------



## Tonyp (May 8, 2007)

brioni007 said:


> mechanical watches are amazing, The worlds smallest machines. The work and time put into producing them leaves me in awe. I have a great deal of respect for artisans that produce works of art in world that is submersed in mass produced product. Those who enjoy bespoke clothing tend to admire and wear Mechanical time pieces. It has more to do with the appreciation of craftmanship than snobbery.


+100 you are correct. nothing more be said.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Why do people like automatic watches ?*



brioni007 said:


> mechanical watches are amazing, The worlds smallest machines. The work and time put into producing them leaves me in awe. I have a great deal of respect for artisans that produce works of art in world that is submersed in mass produced product. Those who enjoy bespoke clothing tend to admire and wear Mechanical time pieces. It has more to do with the appreciation of craftsmanship than snobbery.


I agree , art , antique cars , wines , clocks , clothing even records are a matter of taste. An appreciation of craftsmanship that dates back to the renaissance. LP's excluded.
Mechanical watches may not be as accurate as the latest digital time pieces of today
Who really needs a watch today ? But than who needs a standard transmission ? or even a tie ?

Style , you gotta have style. " Fashion passes style remains " Coca Channel . 
The old MGM movies had style, Cary Grant had style and so did Fred Astaire , so does an expensive mechanical watch.


----------



## N05J3W3 (Feb 2, 2010)

*Most of these posts miss the point.*

Watches come at all levels of craftsmanship, pedigree, quality, and accuracy - both quartz and mechanical. Let's set those factors aside.

The fundamental difference is this: a mechanical wristwatch is animated and lifelike. It has a 'heartbeat', and requires care and attention. That's an observation, not a judgement. It's neither good nor bad.

Quartz watches are often very fine and accurate instruments. They can provide faithful service with little care or intervention. Some will live longer than the owner, possibly without service, and remain accurate.

Both offer advantages and disadvantages. One is an instrument, the other is a companion. That's the real difference, in purpose.

D.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Interesting topic from 2008.

I think wrist watches no longer serve their original purpose of telling accurate time. Cell phones, and digital clocks everywhere will do that for you.

To me a wrist watch is more akin to jewelry than function. While timekeeping does still have a function, I wear a watch as a fashion statement/accessory.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Interesting resurrected topic from 2008. Still kind of old though, and not sure why its been resurrected. But since it is.

I think wrist watches no longer serve their original purpose of telling accurate time. Cell phones, and digital clocks everywhere will do that for you.

To me a wrist watch is more akin to jewelry than function. While timekeeping does still have a function, I wear a watch as a fashion statement/accessory.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I simply prefer the movement of the second hand on an automatic, hard to say why, but it seems to suggest the flow of time, rather than the digitized, discrete addition of the seconds in a quartz. Also, I love the Accutron for that, but I can't keep em running, while my inherited GPG has run for 60 years, and without a battery change.


----------



## Sampdoria (Jan 25, 2010)

Bernard Arnest said:


> But more seriously; I had heard it on the seiko & citizen watch forum. I am not the direct source; but I know that seiko absolutely has some $65 automatic watches that are quite accurate (I have one; about once a month I have to nudge the minute hand forward 1-2 minutes), and that apparently up through some of their intermediate models they use the precise same mechanism. Their $1000 line, of course, has its own mechanism to be more special.


Seiko is a great brand, and well respected in the WIS community. People who love watches will discuss accuracy and a few other things like water resistance and helium pressure valves, but that isn't what draws them in. They just have a thing for mechanical objects that are well crafted and tell time.

Decades back, the Japanese and the Swiss competed to make the thinnest watch, and the Swiss barely won (the Japanese watch was mostly thinner, but had a bulge due to the battery compartment).

If I remember correctly, the watch used plastic parts, and eventually evolved into the Swatch watch, which helped save the Swiss watch industry during a shift to digital watches, lead by companies such as Seiko. The pendulum (pardon the pun, sort of) had swung way over to the new tech side when the digital craze hit, but would eventually swing back thanks in part to those cheap mechanical novelty watches every kid wore back in 1984.

The industry was hit so hard that Swatch's massive success allowed the Swatch Group (itself a company formed by the merger of a watch brand maker and a movement parts maker) to purchase smaller boutique brands and failing houses with quite the pedigree. These days they own Hamilton, Omega, Rado and other brands, as well as movement manufacturers ETA and Valjoux. These two movements brands are found in most Swiss made watches, even those not owned by Swatch, with different models housing slightly different versions of a movement.

An $1800 _TAG Heuer_ is most likey is running on a (modified) Valjoux or ETA movement. Same deal with a $350 _Atlantic_ watch. Much of what you pay for is the name, the styling, and the need for the parent company to have different price points for different brands.

I happen to love watches, and own quite a few, including a bunch of older Omega automatics, a very old Hamilton manual wind, some Gucci quartz pieces, and an insanely thin Swatch my mother bought for me at a charity auction. (Never cared for Swatch, but saw one in a GQ article about sleek watches of various prices and, before I could buy one, the charity purchase was made by sheer coincidence).

I wear one of my Gucci watches alot nowdays, and a Dunhill of very similar styling when I don't. Both would retail for over $1000, have generic quartz movements, and are in no way worth the money...but I got a good deal, and I like them. Sometimes I break out the small, 70 year old Hamilton, wind it up, and admire it for what it is...a well crafted feat of engineering crammed into a one inch by one and a half inch case (guessing). Every now and then I put on the Swatch and marvel at how thin it is. Since I have lost alot of weight (Diabetes last February), I don't get to wear my Raymond Weil quartz anymore (metal bracelet with hidden clasp), but I don't really miss it. My Omegas get almost no wear. No idea why. You'll find alot of watch people go through phases...pieces rotate in and out of the line up for whatever reason.

I have always wanted a Rolex, but whenever I had the cash, I never pulled the trigger. I always figured I would have the time to get one later...now I am broke and have Stage 4 colon cancer, so my time for buying a Rolex is that much more limited. I don't need another watch. I don't even need all the watches I have. I just know I want more.

Most men who buy Rolex purchase a sport model with features they will never use (desk divers), but I happen to like the the original Explorer, the classic Datejust and the dress model Cellini Danaos. This puts me in the minority. I don't like oversized watches (the classic Submariner is the biggest I would go) and I hate the new supersized Datejusts. Ask people why they like them, and you get all kinds of reasons that make varying amounts of sense.

So for the same reasons you ask why some want expensive but less accurate watches, you can ask why others want bulky and pricey models that have features they will never need or ever use. Or why they spend close to $20k buying multiple watches that often look almost the same (Sub, DSSD, GMT) and perform the same basic function when one entry level Air-King does the job...or why they want a watch at all when they have a cell phone or PDA.

Why does Jerry Seinfeld have 40-something Porsches?

It is hard to explain, but those who have the "bug" understand it all too well. It's like asking "Why dress_ Trad_, when you can dress well _and_ normal....?"



> Some of the cost in *swedish* watches is the very testing process to officially designate them to be of chronometer-standards;


I am pretty sure he means *Swiss*. The Swedes don't certify watches as chronometers...and if they did, nobody would pay attention, nevermind pay for them to do it.

Sorry for the long winded post.


----------



## YoungTrad (Jan 29, 2010)

Sorry this is off topic, but can I change the straps on the timex camper? its got a nylon strap so I thought I could but I want to make sure before I order it this evening.


----------



## tasteful one (Oct 6, 2006)

*yes...*



YoungTrad said:


> Sorry this is off topic, but can I change the straps on the timex camper? its got a nylon strap so I thought I could but I want to make sure before I order it this evening.


if you look on the sides of the case, you'll see a very small hole....it's where the pin that holds the strap to the case is. Get yourself a couple of good strap changing tools (this is easy, but it can be tricky and you want 2 tools just in case). Push the straight end in to depress the pin, and pull the strap out towards you. It's a good idea to replace the pins, too. My favorite tool and gadget guy is ofrei.com


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

*Loved, but impractical*

As the present and former owner of too many high-end automatic watches, I recognize the reasonable nature of the original poster's question. Quartz watches keep better time. Foreign travel and activities in remote places call for quartz or inexpensive mechanicals that are essentially disposable. The watch I most often wear these days is a old Rolex Explorer I that is indistinguishable at any distance from a generic quartz. When I wear a better Rolex or IWC to a special event, nobody usually knows but me. Even so, I persist. Perhaps the same gene drives some of us toward sailboats instead of powerboats, 1911 pistols instead of Glocks, bamboo fly rods instead of fiberglass, etc.


----------



## YoungTrad (Jan 29, 2010)

tasteful one said:


> if you look on the sides of the case, you'll see a very small hole....it's where the pin that holds the strap to the case is. Get yourself a couple of good strap changing tools (this is easy, but it can be tricky and you want 2 tools just in case). Push the straight end in to depress the pin, and pull the strap out towards you. It's a good idea to replace the pins, too. My favorite tool and gadget guy is ofrei.com


Thanks for the useful information, TO. Ive asked this to a few members on this forum and have gotten greatly informed how to change bands. Ill be placing my order this evening, Ive only heard good things about these cheap watches.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> I simply prefer the movement of the second hand on an automatic, hard to say why, but it seems to suggest the flow of time, rather than the digitized, discrete addition of the seconds in a quartz. Also, I love the Accutron for that, but I can't keep em running, while my inherited GPG has run for 60 years, and without a battery change.


That's why I also like plug in electric clocks.

The seconds had sweeps instead of ticks!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> "If you have to ask, you wouldn"t understand!"


I'm nicking that,that is good. Because that's the essence of it right there in those 8 words, isn't it?

I can think of so many quesitons where I could answer with that.

"James why do you only wear old manual watches, instead of a new quartz watch?" 
"James, why do you listen to vinyl and cassette more than CD and mp3?"
"James, why do you only drink Irish whiskey?"
"James, why do you smoke the odd pipe and cigar but never cigarettes?"
"James, why do have a library?" (I probably need to qualify that one actually. Sadly, most homes in Sweden don't have a room dedicated to being a library. Most homes don't even have books on display)

Anyway, that phrase will come in very handy. :icon_smile:


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

There's been some good stuff posted here, so I'll try not just to rehash it.

Funtionally, yes, there is really no reason that an automatic watch would be better than a quartz. I can't think of anything an automatic can do that a quartz can't do just as well.

In my own life, I've never seen a need for anything too special of a watch. I would buy the same model watch over and over again, (Citizen Navihawk) metting all my needs as a pilot for 10 years. however, it would break every few years, shattering the quartz, and jamming the bezel ring. Wouldn't look all that great. So eventually I decided it was time to invest in a nice, high quality watch that would last me a long time. Being a pilot, I eventually decided on a Breitling Airwolf. (quartz) Does it do anything that my Citizen Navihawk did, for 1/10th the price? Other than a backlight, NO. But my Breitling is leaps and bounds above any other watch I've owned, in terms of quality materials and construction. It's SOLID, and I have no doubt will last me for years and years and years.

While I was in the store I ordered it from, I fell in LOVE with a Breitling Chronomat. (automatic) Never thought I'd be interested in that kind of watch, much less something so expensive, but I did end up splurging and buying it! All I can say is, I "Got It". There is an elegance and special quality about it that other watches can't match. It "feels" right on the wrist. If I bring the watch straight up to my ear, I can hear the winding wheel give a little whirl, and the "tick tick tick" of the gears.

Why buy an automatic watch? Why buy a really nice standing grandfather clock, ornately carved of wood with beautiful decorative gold accents and complex gearing, when a $2.99 plastic wall clock from Wal-Mart would tell time just as well, hanging in the living room of your $800,000 house?

It's QUALITY. It's STYLE. It's CLASS.

Here's my two Breitlings, Airwolf and Chronomat.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

godan said:


> As the present and former owner of too many high-end automatic watches, I recognize the reasonable nature of the original poster's question. Quartz watches keep better time. Foreign travel and activities in remote places call for quartz or inexpensive mechanicals that are essentially disposable. The watch I most often wear these days is a old Rolex Explorer I that is indistinguishable at any distance from a generic quartz. When I wear a better Rolex or IWC to a special event, nobody usually knows but me. Even so, I persist. Perhaps the same gene drives some of us toward sailboats instead of powerboats, 1911 pistols instead of Glocks, bamboo fly rods instead of fiberglass, etc.


I think it's "instinctive." There's something in our genes that tells us that a Gun is a Gun, or that a Watch is a Watch.

In the case of a 1911 vs a Glock, the 1911 just triggers that gene first, as does an automatic wristwatch.

It's much like our new Kindles (EBooks)... They can hold 10,000 books, at a fraction of the cost of an equivalent amount. Yet, we don't use them over the traditional paper variety... yet. Even though the cost benefit, for a single student over 4 years, would be well worth it, in just the environmental sense.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

:icon_smile_big:

These sorts of arguments make me wheeze with glee! 

Choosing a watch based on how accurately it tells time is like choosing a short-haired wife because her hair won't fall into her soup.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Earl: (not to hijack) as a fellow Irish devotee, I'm interested in your favorites: I drink Paddy when I can get it, but my all-time favorite is one called Redbreast: a gift, never seen again, long gone ....


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Trip English said:


> :icon_smile_big:
> 
> These sorts of arguments make me wheeze with glee!
> 
> Choosing a watch based on how accurately it tells time is like choosing a short-haired wife because her hair won't fall into her soup.


Not exactly.

BTW I presume you regard it as ridiculous to spend money on features like a tourbillon.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

StephenRG said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> BTW I presume you regard it as ridiculous to spend money on features like a tourbillon.


Not at all! You completely misread that. You're talking to a guy with $23,000 speakers. I am absolutely prone to the argument for craftsmanship and complication and seek it out wherever I can.

My quip simply implied that where people have no emotional attachment to an item they assign it very little value and end up making decisions based on "facts" whereas those with passion or enthusiasm use an entirely different and more subjective rubric in assessing a purchase.

So where I might consult Consumer Reports on the purchase of a hedge trimmer, I'd have no interest in their opinions about cars, AV systems, watches, etc. where I have strong passions to satisfy.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Trip English said:


> Not at all! You completely misread that. You're talking to a guy with $23,000 speakers. I am absolutely prone to the argument for craftsmanship and complication and seek it out wherever I can.


$23,000 speakers I can understand - though I wouldn't understand it if you had $100/foot cables to go with them.

Complications such as a tourbillon, etc. are solutions to a problem whose existence seems to you of little importance. So you end up in the peculiar position of admiring the extreme craftsmanship of an unnecessary solution.



> My quip simply implied that where people have no emotional attachment to an item they assign it very little value and end up making decisions based on "facts" whereas those with passion or enthusiasm use an entirely different and more subjective rubric in assessing a purchase.


By "fact" you mean "objective criteria", I presume. I observe, fwiw, that the modern atomic-clock synchronised watch is a far more remarkable piece of engineering (particularly after including the "context" than any complication, but it seems that most watch devotees are insufficiently appreciative of hi-tech craftsmanship.

Still, de gustibus, etc.



> So where I might consult Consumer Reports on the purchase of a hedge trimmer, I'd have no interest in their opinions about cars, AV systems, watches, etc. where I have strong passions to satisfy.


Indeed.


----------



## turban1 (May 29, 2008)

*raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens*

yes, well, i keep trying to explain this to my fine and elderly father who is, as prince metternich said, a sophist of his passions (but nobody else's).

a pair of handmade shoes, a split-cane fly-fishing rod, an example of good fatimid or seljuk calligraphy, a baskerville edition, a savile row suit, a patek or vacheron watch, an 18th C windsor chair, a good 19th C Turkoman nomadic carpet, a fine hickory-shafted golf club. List your own.

These are often artifacts of a largely bygone era when great work was still made by hand. The rarity, the handiwork and the quality of goods are compelling to some of us, and as in my dad's case, not for everything. he adores the finest, hand-carved decoys and i could not give a tinker's damn for any but those which he carved himself before he succumbed to arthritis and old age. those i prize as gold.

my cherished, old, philosophy professor, with whom i dine every time that i return home to london, is an utter neophile. He sees no point in a full tree-calf, gilt-edged edition of Pope or Johnson when a paperback is at hand and for a pittance. We each pity the other, but in private. yet, having made a well-deserved pile, he recently bought himself a posh brietling watch. as the New Yawkers say, go figure.

my position is that (a) if one likes handmade things, indulge one's self but do not forget modern craftsmen who make the heirlooms of tomorrow, and (b) if you do not, fear not, for were everyone to share my somewhat exotic tastes i could afford none of it.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

StephenRG said:


> $23,000 speakers I can understand - though I wouldn't understand it if you had $100/foot cables to go with them.
> 
> Complications such as a tourbillon, etc. are solutions to a problem whose existence seems to you of little importance. So you end up in the peculiar position of admiring the extreme craftsmanship of an unnecessary solution.
> 
> ...


Um.. Why would you skimp on the cable when you invested on the $23K speakers? It's like buying a nice pair of Lobb's and wearing white walmart socks...

Don't get me wrong, some "accessories to accessories?" are overkill, but some are not. It's the finishing touches that truly matter.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

I think people prefer autos in much the same way they prefer anything expensive or exotic. In the Penn & Teller TV show Bullshit, they did an episode in which a water sommilier had people chose water from exotic locations in various bottles. People were aliment that the Swedish was superior to the French or whatever. Before the show, all of the bottles had been filled with water from a hose behind the restaurant
Quartz watches are the result of thousands of years of effort by watchmakers to produce an accurate watch. If they were rare or expensive, then people would lust after them. They are cheap and obtainable, thus tend to be disregarded by many. BTW, it's debatable that people have souls. The notion that a watch or other object could have a soul is ludicrous.
If I had it to do over again, I would have saved money an bought my Omega GMT in quartz rather then auto.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Um.. Why would you skimp on the cable when you invested on the $23K speakers?


Because there is no audible difference between $100/foot cables and significantly cheaper cables. There is a difference between diminishing returns, which is what one gets with speakers, and vanishing to non-existent returns, which is what one gets with stereo and AV cable above a very low cost. Expensive cables are the homeopathy of home theatre.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

StephenRG said:


> Because there is no audible difference between $100/foot cables and significantly cheaper cables. There is a difference between diminishing returns, which is what one gets with speakers, and vanishing to non-existent returns, which is what one gets with stereo and AV cable above a very low cost. Expensive cables are the homeopathy of home theatre.


There is no timekeeping difference between a quartz and an automatic either.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer an automatic on my wrist despite it costing more.

Now don't get me wrong, I have a "nice" surround sound system (not a stellar one, by any means), but I use moderate (aka walmart) cabling for the very reason you mention.

If you can get 85+% of the functionality at 50% (or less) of the cost, your brain instantly says "heck yah, do it" but but that doesn't mean your heart is going to let you make the decision.

The diamond industry has gotten us this way for years... Wouldn't it be better to buy our fiances a car to show her our commitment than a rock? Something that provides some utilitarian function?

But I digress, my comment was in jest regarding forgoing the little things. The details... Which in men's fashion are EVERYTHING, but in several other aspects of our lives, if they can't be seen, we completely ignore them, because they just don't matter. Like walmart socks ruining a good pair of Lobb's  (keeping in mind you likely won't see them 95+% of the time)


----------

