A tourbillion movement is neat to look at but in practical use, is it more accurate than a conventional movement. My Rolex Datejust is adjusted to +- 2 sec per day. Can a tourbillion do better? Pat Freel
Well, in order to understand a tourbillon, we must first ask the following question: Is your Rolex Datejust any better than a $25 Casio quartz? An average-quality quartz watch can be expected to perform to +/- 15 sec per month. Ah, but isn't a Rolex a lot more fun, and a lot more meaningful than a cheap quartz watch? Yes - and this is the appeal of the tourbillon; it's essentially art in mechanical form. This article was the first Google search result for "advantages of a tourbillon" BTW: http://www.ablogtowatch.com/tourbil...-expensive-fun-to-watch-serve-little-purpose/
The tourbillon was developed to reverse the adverse affects of gravity, mainly that the rate wont be affected no matter what position the timepiece is in and your rolex does not do that so essentially yes it is better than your 3-hand date rolex. Tourbillon is a complication btw.
I would say when the tourbillion was invented it solved a problem. Now traditional movements are at parity. That and there are a lot of cheap tourbillions out there.
Just to add, the tourbillion was invented to prevent the gravity effect on pocket watches, since they are usually mostly on one position. A tourbillion for a wristwatch is highly questionable, usually does not improve accuracy, BUT it is fun to look at, for a while at least.
I totally agree re Rolex vs quartz watch. I own a Bulova Accutron II that is, at least, good to +-15 per year and it costs a lots less than my Rolex. I guess tourbillion vs conventional is basically an academic discussion. Is it better..... probably not but as stated in an earlier post, it is fun to look at! Thanks for all the great comments. Pat
I doubt a tourbillon has better accuracy than your Rolex (it's a chronometer, right?) even though the design is supposed to reduce the effects of positional variances. Perhaps, @Archer can chime in. That said, a nice multi-axis tourbillon is something to behold! Helical and spherical hairsprings! Damn!
Designers and marketers of many things are always seeking ways to cause the public to become dissatisfied with the stuff they have. Anything to induce the curious public to visit the showroom to see the "latest and greatest", and to perhaps buy something while they are there. Be assured that this tourbillon by JLC will hardly make a dent in the watch market, but it may help sell other JLC products. It will not succeed like the Omega co-axial has succeeded. Either in performance, or in being a huge sales success. And I am unable to understand how it might improve on the accuracy performance of other fine chronometers which will be far more competitive, price wise. And far easier to service. I look at it as JLC's challenge to other watch firms to go one better!
The Wikipedia article is quite explicit, indicating that in modern watches (of high quality), a tourbillon is not necessary in achieving great accuracy.
It is more of a cool factor. I've also read that in the days of modern watch making, tourbillions do not necessarily improve accuracy as the effects of gravity are negligible.
As already noted, the tourbillon was intended to counter the effects of gravity in pocket watches, so in a wrist watch it's a bit redundant since your wrist already moves the axis of the balance around to cancel out errors. Regarding the Gyrotourbillon, it has been quite as successful product for JLC. It is of course not making a huge impact on the overall watch market, because not many people could afford one. It's quite a complex thing, and speaking to the 2 watchmakers who do the assembly of all of these watches at the factory (this is done in a separate area in the small farmhouse) the accuracy is quite good - I can't recall specific numbers though. Here's a video I shot through a microscope there: However when you look at the accuracy that can be achieved using other technologies, like silicon balance springs that Omega is using, the tourbillon becomes even less "worthy" from a pure timekeeping standpoint. But of course that's not the point of a tourbillon in a modern wrist watch. At one time you could not purchase a tourbillon wrist watch for less than six figures, and there was some "uproar" in the industry when JLC dared to release the Master Tourbillon that was "only" $40k. I can tell you other companies were not pleased that someone had proven that these could be made in such an inexpensive manner that you could charge so little - it endangered their cash cows. Of course if you really want one, you can get a Chinese made version for about $1000 - at least you could the last time I looked at these. I recently had a service request for an Android watch that was a tourbillon, and although I've worked on one of these Chinese tourbillon movements previously, for me to perform a service would be more than the watch is worth. Really the only practical option (since parts can't be had) is to replace the whole movement. But as some have pointed out, mechanical watches are an anachronism...from a purely technical standpoint the world moved on decades ago. Making performance improvements on a mechanical watch is a bit like perfecting the buggy whip...sure there is a market, but it isn't what it used to be. If you look at this whole industry (one I realize I make my living through) it's all a bit strange to be honest... Cheers, Al
The OP's question asks if the tourbillon has better accuracy than a standard movement. After a brief search on the Web, I haven't seen numbers that show this (or disproves it).
Dear OP your question is a hard one to answer as a tourbillon is a complication, if you were referring to a specific tourbillon made by a specific watchmaker that would make everything gravy, but you are attempting to compare a broadly made complication to a 3 hand no date rolex. So you're question is essentially impossible to answer with one legitimate non opinionated answer.
Just FYI - A complication is technically something that adds an additional function to a watch. Since the tourbillon doesn't do that (it's focus is on improving timekeeping), it's not really a complication. Pedantic yes, but in most watchmaking circles it's not considered a complication any more than a free spring balance is considered a complication.
I have a casio that is radio time adjusted every day its always accurate without me touching it, I use it as a regulator for my mechanical watches. I have a Quartz SMP that I adjust every time there is only 30 days in a month I have to say whilst I'm doing that I regulate it but never by more than a second or two. I have a mechanical speedy that is accurate to -1 +5 per 24 hours. In theory I am wasting my time with both omegas as the casio does the job more accurately then either and I never ever need to touch it. But that's not the point is it. I enjoy the two Omegas that I have. Point in question I have never been asked about the casio by anyone, ever. where as the blue SMP I get asked about at least once a month so people do notice it. the speedy, well when I take it off to wind it its a conversation starter. Older folk remember when they had to do that then show me their various quartz watches and laugh. Younger folk tend to think the whole idea of a wrist watch in the first place is weird, use your iPhone ! But then when you talk about how its made and works, the 100s of minute parts in the watch then how you need to wind it to store power in a spring and then it works without batteries for 2 days, Even younger people start to see the appeal. In point of fact I was told by a couple of my students that they could not see the point of an automatic watch as a quartz will do that job, but they could see the point of a mechanical watch you have to hand wind IF you were nerdy enough to want to go retro and wear a wristwatch in the first place. They also started to get why a wrist watch on some occasions may be useful over a phone. Its a brave new world
I think a Tourbillon is a beautiful sight...but I expect the ‘utility’ of this complication is a thing of the past. Still drawn to them though
Excuse my ignorance but on the subject of Tourbillon is there a center seconds Troubillon? What I mean is a watch showing the Tourbillon, but you still have the minute, hour, and seconds hands all in the center.