How important is a great movement in a watch to you?

This is the big issue with quartz - they're just plain ugly movements.

I think a great movement can elevate an already good watch into something great - Lange is like this for me.

That said there a lot of Valjoux 72 chronographs i'd love to own and that movement isn't in the same league as the Lange chrono movement.

gotta be a part of the whole package, right? one recent example where people have gone a little overboard with this recently is the Tudor Heritage Black Bay - the older ETA and the newer in-house....some people like the older ETA because it is thinner and the rose logo with the smiley on the dial; others like the newer because of the in-house movement, and the rivet bracelet, and the shield on the dial...neither is right or wrong, right? to each his or her own. although personally I like the smiley...

for me the finest and most ostentatious movements would be in late 19th century American pocket watch movements. They concentrated more on flourish far more than the Swiss did.

Mostly down to stamping their name on a plate. I have always liked vintage Heuer. As a great designer of mid tier cleverly utilitarian sporty watches, but not as horological innovators or a "great house" like Omega/Longines/JLC/Rolex/Zenith etc. When TAG got added to the name they had more innovations than the original company ever had. Oddly enough, where they did try to push innovation was in the 70's digital age.

+1 It's one reason why I was always drawn to them. They rarely went ostentatious in movements, but equally rarely they didn't go entry level either. And as for actual timekeeping, in the 20th century chronometer trials their movements like the 30z blew the doors off pretty much everybody else. A brand like Rolex and their "superlative chronometers" didn't even get a look in until the 60's. Their in house chronographs were works of engineering "art" and again superior to pretty much everybody else. On the other hand their case and dial styles often didn't wear the years well.

For the vast majority yes I'd agree, though the very early quartz movements can have a charm of their own(and were more "handmade" and complex than many mechanicals). The Rolex oyster quartz beats many a purely mechanical in the finishing department.



The Grand Seiko quartz of today isn't too shabby either.


Though has that beyond daft design flaw and bugbear of mine in the vast majority of quartz, namely the exposed and very delicate coil. Another factor lacking in quartz is no visible movement and signs of "life".

Great to look at or great in terms of accuracy? tbh i dont think either bother me greatly. yes i love the display back of my Speedy but if im honest i prob only look at it when i change the strap. and as for accruacy, i change my watch daily sometimes and have never compared any of my watches to the atomic clock or other device for testing accuracy.

For my money, he worked in the style and ethos of Breguet.



And one could hardly call the Swiss lad below par. I like flourishes as much as the next man, but simple complexity equally appeals(if not more).

Just had to get one more gander of the Elgin B.W.R. 494 and 571 prior to taps...I really groove on watching these railroad machines run...

OK...just one more gander prior to taps...