Forums Latest Members
  1. LouS Mrs Nataf's Other Son Staff Member Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    6,713
    Likes
    18,259
    billving and Deafboy like this.
  2. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    17,046
    Likes
    25,214
    So as the oscillating part is silicon oxide... it's a quartz watch!!! ::stirthepot::
     
  3. R3D9 Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    1,288
    Likes
    3,306
  4. Kali77 Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    558
    Likes
    2,261
    Yikes, that is a very unattractive watch imo...... Accuracy or not :eek:
     
    jumpingsecond likes this.
  5. Larry S Color Commentator for the Hyperbole. Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    12,471
    Likes
    49,514
    Ugh....I'll take a spring drive any day.
     
  6. CajunTiger Cajuns and Gators can't read newspapers! Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    2,678
    Likes
    9,741
    #fugly
     
    jumpingsecond likes this.
  7. R3D9 Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    1,288
    Likes
    3,306
    In this instance, it really is what's inside that counts...
     
    Tempus, jumpingsecond and Foo2rama like this.
  8. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    I like the fact they dare to be different!
    The oscillator is nevertheless a spring/mass combination, like a conventional watch, but in a different form factor.
    In slo-mo from 1m32s.
     
    Waltesefalcon likes this.
  9. R3D9 Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    1,288
    Likes
    3,306
    I think reasonable to say it's a little more than a simple form factor change.

    Very curious to hear @Archer 's opion.
     
    Waltesefalcon and Deafboy like this.
  10. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Sep 14, 2017

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    Certainly a more contemporary, hi-tech version of it! :D
     
  11. mmdl8 Sep 15, 2017

    Posts
    48
    Likes
    47
    The current watches look unappealing. Hope they make better looking versions going forward. The grey speckled case looks low end.
     
    jfwoodman likes this.
  12. billving Sep 15, 2017

    Posts
    559
    Likes
    324
    Agree, They want to show off the movement / drive system but they need a nicer case to display it in!
     
  13. Eddy C. Sep 21, 2017

    Posts
    64
    Likes
    335
    Is Nataf back on board? :eek:
     
    MMMD likes this.
  14. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Sep 21, 2017

    Posts
    26,344
    Likes
    65,056
    When I first saw the video of this movement, my first thought was "That escape wheel pivot is going to wear out in no time flat!" so that would be an immediate concern for me, but I don't know what the loads on it are like, so maybe it will be fine. :)

    I guess I'm a little torn on this one. They present it as a breakthrough, and in a sense it is, but then again it isn't really. In the end it's a different configuration, but it's still essentially a balance wheel oscillator.

    So what are the supposed technical advantages?

    15 Hz frequency, better accuracy, and longer power reserve. While compared to a conventional Swiss lever mechanical watch, those are certainly advantages, they are 40+ years late. Tuning fork watches and later on quartz watches both exceed what this watch can do...tuning fork watches operate at 360 Hz, and a quartz watch is over 32,000 Hz (most quartz crystals used in watches have a frequency of 32,768 Hz). Both will have better accuracy than this, and longer power reserve using a battery, capacitor, or a quartz watch with a spring like the spring drive.

    So in one way this is like creating a better buggy whip than the original, but still 2 steps back from the best buggy whip available. But this is the current way that many brands in the watch world are going. Omega co-axial is the same sort of thing, along with silicon balance springs in Rolex, AP using a different escapement, etc.

    How excited you are about this I think depends on how you see mechanical watches. Are watches a reflection of a simpler time for you, following traditions of craftsmanship and hand work? Or are you a "latest technology and materials" junky?

    I think we have a mix of types on this forum, some who seem nearly blinded by the new technology and consider it and the watches that use it superior in every way, and then others who see things in a more traditional way and value the craftsmanship that goes into the watches more. Not saying one is right or wrong - they are just different.

    I guess for me the question becomes: How far away from a traditional mechanical watch do you get, before there is so little of the "tradition" left that you might as well just buy a quartz watch?

    I don't have the answers, so just giving you my thoughts on this one...

    Cheers, Al
     
    mmpass, akshayluc420, rcs914 and 8 others like this.
  15. Foo2rama Keeps his worms in a ball instead of a can. Sep 21, 2017

    Posts
    17,046
    Likes
    25,214
    @Archer
    That's a great point.. they answered a question no one asked.

    I will say it has potential to make a really neat looking watch once they make a more traditional case. But other then that you have to admit the spring drive is probably more impressive, esp from a technology standpoint and people are not exactly jumping on that bandwagon.
     
  16. Riviera Paradise Sep 23, 2017

    Posts
    2,152
    Likes
    3,650
    I see the innovation here is using LEMS / compliant mechanisms to have only one component doing the job of several in a traditional mechanical watch, and the performance improvements (as stated above) are all achieved without requiring any electrical current i.e. maintaining a 100% pure mechanical approach.

    The Spring Drive does have electrical current being generated internally via a mechanical energy source, so although I think it is a very interesting piece of technology, it cannot be considered a 100% mechanical approach. To be clear I do think the Spring Drive never got the recognition it deserved in terms of innovation.

    The question you ask is very interesting. Why should companies bother to invest R&D in attempting to improve the calibre performance of mechanical watches, when a HAQ watch already offers a much higher level of performance. Why not just got for the HAQ?

    But there is an underlying question which is why do watch enthusiasts admire mechanical watches?

    Some will admire the craftsmanship, design, overall aesthetics, finishing of traditional watch making. Others will also admire attempts to innovate in terms improving calibre performance be it rate stability, higher service intervals, new materials... etc. FTR I do not see these two lines as being necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, with a Grand Seiko Spring Drive Snowflake you can admire the dial texture, case / hands polishing, as well as the movement innovation itself.


    Why should Rolex strive in their internal processes to guarantee a -2/+2 superlative chronometer standard, when for most daily use cases COSC certification would be sufficient? Why should Omega strive to industrialize the co-axial movement and implement anti-magnetic materials? Did we really gain anything significant in practical terms moving from the 2500 calibre to the 8508/8400/8900? I suppose we did...case thickness:) Does a watch really need to be anti-magnetic resistant to +15000 gauss? No, but some will admire the technical effort in setting that benchmark as a demonstration of our human capacity to innovate and solve problems...perhaps the pleasure we feel in complex problem solving and observing others solve problems is an evolutionary trait we had to develop.

    So I would argue that there is beauty & admiration in observing the STRIVE for technical excellence in any field. We admire technical proficiency in music (clarity and speed of execution of scales/arpeggios), for example, just as much as we admire a soaring, beautiful classical theme...a Rachmaninoff piano concerto will have both.

    I do believe that products that symbolize the human effort for some sort of higher level of technical excellence can generate admiration and pleasure...independently as to how much effective practical gain that effort much achieve. The "quartz option" is just too easy these days...and the quartz movement can never provide the aesthetic beauty you see in the synchronized dance of a mechanical watch calibre.

    I think Guy Semon deserves praise for striving to provide a new integrated mechanical component for Zenith...shame though that the "launch watch" chosen for the new calibre is incredibly ugly. When you are able to unite the strive for technical excellence / innovation with design aesthetics you can create something truly special. The Sony Walkman, the Iphone...
     
    Edited Sep 23, 2017
    Wryfox, Deafboy and Foo2rama like this.
  17. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Sep 24, 2017

    Posts
    26,344
    Likes
    65,056
    You have re-iterated many of my points, but we do differ in our conclusions somewhat...

    A higher level of technical excellence has already been achieved long before this new caliber came along. Performance upgrades in mechanical watches like these are striving to improve an already obsolete technology. It will appeal to a segment of collectors for sure, but to me it's lacking that aspirational glow that you are ascribing to it.

    Being both an engineer and watchmaker I can see both sides of something like this - to me this is more engineering than watchmaking. This is a part, like a silicon balance spring, that is made as a finished part and requires no human adjustment - it comes out the manufacturing process perfect. It's a part that can only be replaced at service, and can't be repaired or adjusted in any way so the performance you get it what you get - the application of skills will not improve it. This trend is a bit worrying because there is a potential downside to this specific sort of innovation.

    Brands are already dumbing down the repair process in significant ways, and something like this or the Si balance spring that can't be adjusted, will eventually mean a loss of traditional skills. You can say who cares about those skills, but watchmakers are already getting scarce, and there are millions of watches out there that will require those skills to not become "bricks". For example I simply cannot purchase a new balance staff from Omega for any watch they have ever produced. For vintage calibers I can get staffs on the open market, but if you snap a pivot off you now have to purchase a balance complete, rather than take the time to re-staff the balance - re-staffing is something that I actually do very little of and was once a staple of the watchmaker's skillset. It gets worse if you work in a service center - there instead of disassembling the mainspring from the barrel, cleaning the barrel, applying braking grease, and installing a new spring, they just install a new "barrel complete" that is already assembled and ready to drop in. There are countless other examples but those two illustrate the way the industry is going, right up to Tudor not servicing their new in-house movements at all at their service centers - they just swap out the entire movement (old one is sent back to the factory to be refurbished).

    Do you remember a time when an auto mechanic would actually fix things on a car, rather than just be a "parts replacer" like they are now? Instead of replacing smaller individual parts on your car, they now replace entire sections of the car. This same thing is happening in watchmaking.

    Back to this new caliber - yes most quartz watches are not pretty even though many higher end movements are well finished. But "aesthetic beauty" is certainly not the first reaction I have to this new movement (not referring to the case it's in, but the movement itself). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but quite frankly the large wheel jiggling back and forth like that looks cool for a few minutes in a video, but having that jiggling at me on my wrist all day would get tiring pretty quick as the novelty wears off.

    Cheers, Al
     
    Waltesefalcon, adi4, Wryfox and 2 others like this.
  18. Deafboy His Holiness Puer Surdus Sep 24, 2017

    Posts
    2,167
    Likes
    6,115
    Al's post is a really interesting discussion on the economics of technology and automated production (of modules and parts) versus the cost of labour for after sales service. It reminds me of "the tv repairman". They used to repair and adjust televisions. By the time transistorized television receivers became the norm the repairman was essentially an "electronic module replacer". Today, who still fixes televisions? I don't see vintage 1950's TVs ever becoming popular again so the tv repairman is pretty much extinct. OTOH, mechanical watches are still very popular. As for parts availability or watch service, if there's a need then somebody will provide for it. Maybe someday, once the vintage staff supplies dries up, there will be somebody will start a business of vintage watch staff production.
     
    Edited Oct 30, 2018
  19. Archer Omega Qualified Watchmaker Sep 24, 2017

    Posts
    26,344
    Likes
    65,056
    The TV repair is a good example of how the economics of the product, plus technical advancements, have made an entire profession die off. I still remember the big Polish guy that ran Mike's TV Repair in the small city that I grew up in. I remember him making house calls to repair our old TV when I was a kid - one of those TV's that was mounted in a fancy wooden cabinet and was a large piece of furniture.

    The last TV I actually had repaired was an rear projection unit - the "jungle card" (as the service tech called it) failed and they were able to fix it at board level - this is probably 10 or 12 years ago. Things change quickly, because I just replaced my Pioneer Kuro Elite Plasma monitor a couple of months ago (8 years old) with a new OLED screen. The new OLED was the first screen I've seen that could rival the picture on the Pioneer, and it's still better than many of the mass produced screens you see at Costco. The plasma was a $5000 monitor when I bought it, and I can't even give it away right now, let alone sell it to anyone, and it's perfect...not one dropped pixel in the whole screen.

    No one is going to pay to repair something that is worth nothing, unless it has sentimental value, which modern TV's typically don't have.

    Note that there are companies that have made and sold replacement staffs and other parts in the past. Bestfit is the most common example in North America, but there are other makers of "parts systems" (Marshall, Swigart, etc.) that served the watchmaking community over the decades. Bestfit is currently still in business, mostly in name only and relying on existing stocks, but I have spoken to the owner who is looking into getting more parts made. I'm sure that will include staffs, but you don't just go to any machine shop to get a balance staff made.

    If you had to pay shop time to get staffs made, even in a larger quantity, the cost would be quite prohibitive. Specialized machinery is used for producing many watch parts, and there has to be a critical mass of demand in order to keep the operations that do this kind of work in business. The demand is already there, but the economics don't necessarily follow that allow someone to make what would be thousands of different staffs in any quantity - the companies who make these want large orders. You might make some money making very popular staffs, but not if watchmakers no longer have the skills to replace them...

    Cheers, Al
     
    adi4, Riviera Paradise and Wryfox like this.
  20. Riviera Paradise Sep 24, 2017

    Posts
    2,152
    Likes
    3,650
    As a pure time instrument, luxury mechanical watches have been indeed obsolescent for some time, and are now two generations behind the smartwatch, nevertheless they are regarded as symbols of precision excellence in engineering and industrial craftsmanship for many - and I believe that is why they still generate a strong pull for many consumers.

    Striving to improve mechanical calibre watch technology or case materials technology is indeed "pointless", but I would argue that it is a valid attempt to show off human capacity to produce high precision mechanical instruments with advanced industrial design and manufacturing. One can argue that high level calibre finishing is also "pointless", which often can only be appreciated fully with a loupe, but there is still evident admiration of the technical proficiency required by craftsman to achieve the end result.

    If we look at BMW. Mercedes and Audi...many admire the technology both in the car and advanced manufacturing processes used to produce these products, and would not trade off the significant gains in safety, comfort and efficiency just to know that high level craftsman were used intensively to build the product. We admire German luxury cars for their attention to detail in product development and manufacturing. Agreed, they generate practical advances relevant for the owner, but still much of appeal and branding for these products is the aspiration to own something which has been engineered in every minute detail. Many of these details are also almost "pointless", but again they reflect the pursuit of excellence. Many admire engineering excellence and not just craftsmanship excellence.

    This brings me to another point, I do think it is pretty much inevitable that even "traditional" hand finishing and many aspects of watch assembly / repair will be probably be robotized in the next 10-20 years. So we may find ourselves in the odd situation of some actually looking for imperfections in finishing if we want to admire the human effort that has gone into a particular piece. I do think that in the future we may have a higher level of finishing at the Omega/Rolex price level or product positioning, with advanced robotic technology, perhaps almost at holy trinity level. The new watchmakers will be robot teachers / programmers.

    In this hypothetical future, if a consumer can have a high precision mechanical watch with high level finishing/decoration, would they still feel the justification to purchase an inferior product in terms of quality/finishing, just because it was handmade? I can see the appeal of still wanting something produced by humans and not robots, but the problem I see is that mechanical watches are in their vast majority a repeatable build of the same design: they are not "art", because there is limited freedom for watchmakers to express themselves in each individual watch.

    So perhaps in the future there will still be boutique / very high level watchmakers at the Dufour level, making consumer specific handmade watches, with some sort of specific design for that watch or a very limited run, closer to true art than craftsmanship.

    I do agree with your point that based on the current industry trend the traditional watchmaker offering local repairs will become an increasing rarity, which is something that I believe will significantly impact the vintage watch market down the road. We will as consumers get locked into increasingly depending on the manufacturer for watch lifecycle maintenance for new products, but that is a trend you can observe in many discreet manufacturing industries...so I think there will be an increasing cultural acceptance of this behaviour from the watch industry.

    One final point. We live in an era where digital products are quickly and easily discarded as they reach obsolescence, so the mechanical watch is still seen as a something representative of an enduring product, something offering serenity and stability in the middle of the constant consume-discard digital product hurricane. I do think though that if mechanical watches become mechanical-digital hybrids in the future, they will lose the supporting pedestal of being one of the last remaining examples of a high quality product with internal dynamics NOT connected to or depending on the digital world. As soon as luxury mechanical brands cross that mechanical/digital dividing line with a hybrid product, I think luxury mechanical watches will indeed lose much of their aura/mystique and come tumbling down, Humpty Dumpty style.

    Cheers,

    RP
     
    Edited Sep 24, 2017