Avoiding movements without date quickset

[Zman4eva]

As I'm diving deeper into the Constellation rabbit hole, I find myself actively avoiding movements that don't have a date quickset function. I rotate watches in my collection and sometimes don't get to wear a watch until a week later. This leads to watches with the incorrect date quite frequently. I find that adjusting to the correct date has become a time consuming endeavor so I just pick another watch to wear. This leads to watches that just sits in my watch box/roll unworn for weeks until the date gets closer.

Knowing all this, I've come to the conclusion that movement without a quickset function might be a deal-breaker for me (ie - cal 561). I much rather have a 564 movement so that it's actually wearable.

What's everyone's thoughts?

I'm not a big fan of watchwinders. They're expensive and take up too much space. Maybe I should just stick with no-date Constellations and keep it simple.

Picture to keep things interesting. I haven't worn the 14902 on the right since January.

Edited: Mar 16, 2024

 

[X350 XJR]

Zman4eva

Maybe I should just stick with no-date Constellations and keep it simple.

This for me.

I just like they way they look too.

 

[GuiltyGear]

I just learnt to ignore the date and never bother with it. It's too much trouble for something I rarely need to see. No date watches are a preference; too bad they're a rarity on most cases.

 

[wagudc]

No date for me please.

 

[noelekal]

Me too ... me too ... on preferring no-date watches.

 

[gbesq]

First world problems, my friend.

 

[MtV]

Try one of the early bumper date movements and you'll soon find a cal. 561 very comfortable in comparison.

But yeah, I'm in the no-date camp, too. For reasons of symmetry.

 

[Dan S]

I also have a strong preference for no-date watches, but sometimes I just can't resist. I don't have @seekingseaquest's discipline.

 

[Peemacgee]

The 561 is semi quickset.
Wind through 12, back through 9, then through 12 again - hardly a real chore to set.

Otherwise, get yourself a cal 564 168.010 and find out what a pain using a hidden crown is -quickset or no.

 

[Dan S]

I haven't had the quickset date on a cal 564 fail, but I have to admit it makes me a little nervous to pull it out again and again.

 

[rendo]

When I pick what watch to wear each day, I try to find one that has the closest day from the last time I wore it. It limits what you can wear, but it's not that bad.

 

[Dsloan]

rendo

When I pick what watch to wear each day, I try to find one that has the closest day from the last time I wore it. It limits what you can wear, but it's not that bad.

Lol, I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

[Zman4eva]

I guess I'm in the minority. I like having the date on my watch.

 

[Dsloan]

Zman4eva

I guess I'm in the minority. I like having the date on my watch.

I'm agnostic. I like watches with and without them. And, I'm also not super bothered if the date isn't correct.

 

[steversaurus]

Cries in 4 digit rolex....

 

[seekingseaquest]

Peemacgee

The 561 is semi quickset.
Wind through 12, back through 9, then through 12 again - hardly a real chore to set.

This. It’s really not that much work, especially after you get an early Datejust.

 

[Poppyboy]

I like having the date, but rarely set it.

 

[Wooden_spoon]

I love having a date and use it frequently. 4 digit datejust is a huge pain!

Would love a semi-quickset in fact probably would prefer it over the 564/565 given strain on mechanism.

 

[bardamu]

I prefer no date too, and I can understand the point of the op, but after many years of vintage watches collecting I just don't care about the date. I simply don't set it.

 

[kaplan]

I'd prefer a handwind Constellation - now that would be a unicorn

I liked 561's for a different reason originally, their base balance jewel has a different mechanism, but ultimately 564 is just easier/better after a while

Within 564's there are different inner parts as well, I'd rather have the old/risky parts that are MUCH stronger, the newer parts are icky, comparatively the 561 is MUCH sturdier, if the thin plate on the newer 564 date advancer moves back it jams the movement - at any time it could decide to free completely and jam the movement

So I guess if I had a preference, I'd pick 564 but without the improved date advancer and quickset advancer