Read this:

https://omegaforums.net/threads/quartz-watches-some-information-some-may-find-interesting.5475/

The overly simplistic minded rants here aside, horology is about timekeeping in all forms.

Cheers, Al

 

I will read it today sir. Thank you.

 

Love you too Al. ♥️

 

It is a great article and I promise to stop thinking of all quartz watches as cheap garbage.

But, I’ve never owned one and don’t plan to. It’s all in my head, but electronic does not possess the the beauty, the intricacies or the art of mechanical. I have a tech background, so I know objectively how silly I’m being. They’re all just regulated counting machines. Quartz is a much more elegant solution, if you’re just looking for a technological answer.

(Also consider the terrible, mind numbing impact that affordable, reliable, portable timepieces had on the 19th century social order. While the advantages were apparent to all, none of them would have seen much art in a device that soullessly divided up the day into counted hours, minutes and seconds.)

Nevertheless, I’m also someone who only uses old, old fountain pens for my daily writing instrument. Like electronic steering, technological advances remove us further and further from the gritty texture of actual reality.



(One of my everyday pens, a mottled hard rubber Waterman size 16 from around 1910. It’s an eye dropper; you literally pour ink into the barrel after unscrewing the section.)

So, what about the new Zenith movement (ZO 342], in their Defy Lab, that uses the mechanical vibration of a sprung disc? It’s impressive, but the movement is ugly and cheap looking (!)

 

That's fine - not trying to convince anyone to buy quartz, only trying to dispel the notion that they are nothing more than a battery and dividing circuit, which is of course pure nonsense.

I understand where this sort of thinking comes from. However the idea that mechanical watches are anything other than technology is the result of the Swiss marketing efforts. Watch and clock manufacturing was for hundreds of years on the forefront of technology and manufacturing. For a very long time, clocks and watches were the most complex and accurately made things the human race had brought into existence.

To say that the advances made with quartz are some sort of departure from that history, is to completely misunderstand that history.

When quartz came along and it became much more cost efficient to provide accuracy (up until then you typically paid more for better accuracy), the traditional watch manufacturers had to come up with a different way to market their wares. This where the overly emotional rhetoric came from, and many people have bought into it hook, line, and sinker.

At the level of Rolex or Omega, there isn't a lot of "art" involved in the production of the watches. Much of it is automated, and if you watch the videos showing the production of silicon balance springs...well they are produced in a similar manner to the very electronics that some here can't stomach. Even at the higher end, in watch factories for brands like Patek, VC, JLC, etc. there is a lot of automation going on.

Cheers, Al

 

I think my point, at least, is that’s my/our irrational preference isn’t merely a reflection of Swiss marketing efforts after quartz’s arrival. I’m in my mid sixties and already had a watch fetish long before the early electronic watches. I didn’t need anybody to teach me to sneer at these new arrivals, from their red diode digital faces onward. (Yes, yes, I remember the Accutrons and Hamiltons before that, but they seemed like a novelty and not a threat.) They reminded me of HAL, from 2001: A Space Odyssey. No heart there. (And nobody from the 19th century would say any mechanical watch had ‘heart’. Like I said, I get that this is all arbitrary and based partially on when you grew up.)

Of course you’re right about the technological continuum and the critical role that the production and distribution of mechanical watches played in overall technological advancement. And I admitted my preference was not ‘rational’.

I think we all get to make a home somewhere along the automation/advancement continuum, based on personal preference. Look at the handwringing over on BMW forums about the imminent demise of manual transmissions on new cars, or the Porsche purists who advocate for particular models.

The Swiss marketing fell on fertile soil. There’s a deeper issue that people are responding to here.

“Quartz cheapened the value of accuracy” is my translation of your point.

(You could also say that quartz democratized accurate time by making it so widely available. But so did McDonalds for hamburgers. I may eat McDonald’s hamburgers, but I’ll never collect them.)

 

I believe in general you would be the exception then. My comments are more based on those who have "discovered" the mechanical watch, and then suddenly became snobs about them. To me that kind of thinking is puzzling in a lot of ways. Quartz timekeeping technology has powered so much of daily life that people don't realize - it's about much more than watches.

I agree completely, and I personally drive a 6 speed manual in my M2. But what I don't do is go on forums and tell those who have a different opinion that their choice is rubbish. Note that I'm replying to you, but not referring to you.

I'm sure it did fall on fertile soil, and in many ways places like this feed that soil with nutrients and water, to keep that marketing growing along. And quartz did more than cheapen accuracy - it helped provide us with the modern world we enjoy today.

I'm all for people's personal preferences - I have my own as everyone does. That's not why I jump into these threads and why I wrote that thread I linked to - it's to counter a particular narrative that keeps cropping up.

Cheers, Al

 

My M240i has the first automatic I’ve owned since my ‘63 Buick Special from college days. The 95 M3 I used to own did have a six speed, as did two Miatas, among others.

Guess I’ve gotten tired of shifting for myself. Not tired yet of hand winding or wiping off the threads of my eye dropper pens. But yeah, handwringing has gotten old.

I think you’re trying to fight ‘romance’ with logic. Good luck with that.

 

Oh yeah, and I almost forgot:

“An M2 instead of an M240i! Didn’t you check out the you tube reviews! What a rubbish choice!”

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

I find romance somewhere other than on watch forums, but YMMV.

 

Without romance, how much collecting would there be? “Falling in love” is what ultimately fuels many, if not all, such acquisitions.

 

I'm not asking for people to fall in love with quartz, which seems to be what you believe I'm trying to do. Just trying to lift the fog of hormones that sometimes lead people to irrational conclusions and decisions.

Preferences, love, soul, and all such marketing are not equal to facts.

Cheers, Al

 

You should check out the Bulova Precisionist watches - they glide smoothly like a tuning fork watch does.

Cheers, Al

 

You’re a cruel, cruel man. Either that, or I detect the pained voice of experience. (They were done last year....)

 

You know it, don't you?

 

I have one Timex that I wear daily in the gym and for chores. But it’s really well made and looks good.


Then the Seiko limited editions (SBGT241 and SBGV238) ... stunning. Not to mention the spring drives. Not so crazy to contemplate owning one of these.

 

When they build a mechanical watch that displays tides and barometric pressure, I’ll buy it, but until then the G-Shock has a place in the watch box. And aside from its great design and history — it was the first mass produced analogue quartz watch — the Seiko RAF Gen 1 is a reminder that “mechanical tool watch” became an oxymoron in about 1970, at least for any activity that required precision tools.

 

Not withstanding the "flogging a dead horse" comment above, I'd like to chime in on a practical issue. I've had a Breitling B-1 SuperQuartz in my collection for many years, and wore it happily for work as it was very accurate and felt more durable than some of my other watches. However, it has developed a fault, and the only solution (or so it appears to me) is to give it back to Breitling, along with their requirement for a full and very expensive service, and a long list of offered extras, including new crystals, polishing, etc. Most watch collectors pretty quickly find an independent watchmaker to do their servicing and repairs, and while parts supply restrictions are biting deeper even for mechanical watches, because of the complexity and technological "magic" in quartz movements, it seems to me that the manufacturer repair route is the only option when it comes to dealing with the electronic components of a quartz watch. My experience with Breitling Australia has been less than satisfactory in this regard, and this, not the romance or other esoteric aspects, is the reason I will probably never buy another high-end quartz watch.

 

The quartz AT dials look very cheap..