Reply With Quote...but your point is?
It almost appears that you pressed 'submit' before completing your post.
Before Swiss mechanical were reïnvented as desirable luxury items, the Swiss watch industry went through a period of great change when the quartz cristal oscilator was replacing the balance spring oscilator.
Many companies sought afiliations with other companies to join efforts or find new marketing possibilities.
The company relations are rather confusing in this period when doing even superficial research to chase origins of products.
I have several times been looking into the reputed brand Jaeger LeCoultre now owned by the investors group Richemont S.A. which ownes also the watch brands:
A. Lange & Söhne — watches; based in Glashütte, Germany
Alfred Dunhill, Ltd. — men's clothing, watches, leather goods; based in London, United Kingdom
Baume et Mercier — watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Cartier — jewellery, watches; based in Paris, France
IWC Schaffhausen — watches; based in Schaffhausen, Switzerland
Manufacture Roger Dubuis S.A. — (60% ownership) watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Montblanc International GmbH — writing instruments, watches; based in Hamburg, Germany
Officine Panerai — watches; based in Florence, Italy
Piaget S.A. — jewellery, watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Shanghai Tang — men's and women's fashions; based in Hong Kong, China
Vacheron Constantin — watches; based in Geneva, Switzerland
Van Cleef & Arpels S.A. — jewellery, watches; based in Paris, France
This list of companies under the same ownership and to varying degrees sharing resources illustrates the same ´issue´ without the necessity for survival from the seventies.
During the seventies Jaeger LeCoultre joined up with GirardPerregaux to develop a quartz controled movement. Favre Leuba later hopped on the wagon too and Breitling became a customer.
That is quite straighforward.
The tricky bit appears in the US where JLC is marketed under the LeCoultre brand and the distributer Longines-Wittnauer also ´produces´ Jaeger LeCoultre branded watches that end up in Europe too.
The Jaeger LeCoultr Master Quartz solid state LED watch with Mexico assembled Hughes module and Longines bracelet is an example of the latter.
Here a foto illustrating the other link:
...but your point is?
It almost appears that you pressed 'submit' before completing your post.
Is there a point in wis-dom?Originally Posted by JC180
Is there a point in sharing pictures of a watch just brought by the postman?
Ah, you didn't say had just arrived with you - that makes it more interesting to us all !
´It´ hasn´t.
One máy; currently just sourcing info.
Doesn´t change the info.
Nothing wrong with an informational educational post IMO.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
very interesting!
This look pretty antique. It is not something you can buy now, is it?
It was not a dig at all.No, that was just a dig at members who like to post photos
But whom the shoe fits...
What ís the point of most entries in watchtalk?
Sharing friendly talk about watches.
I personally find the heritage, origins and wondrous ways of the brands and products fascinating. Not just the marketing hype ´DNA´ thing but even more the driving forces, partner- and ownerships.
Thanks.
And that was the only intend and purpose.
I hope that some more of this will return to watchtalk.
Interesting.
However I am one who believes that the great watchmakers ridiculous foray into the world of batteries and circuit boards is best forgotten
If you mean the LED one, yes that is vintage 1973.
Quite rare and unknown.
You can occasionally find one for sale. Be VERY CAREFULL as the near identical Wittnauer is sometimes passed off as a Jaeger LeCoultre.
The branding is just white print on the cristal and prone to wear off. Sometimes a trace image is left, often nothing. As the JLC is at least doube as desirable, some are tempted to sell their raven as a hawk.
Everything is identical save for a minute difference in the red glass. On the Wittnauer the bottom edge is ever so slightly convex to the outside whereas the JLC is ditto concave to the inside.
If you find a neat JLC example with a dud module, that is no issue. It is easily enough sourced as it was used in several other watches at the time.
The world of watches is larger than the high end niche or mechanical stream in wis-dom.Interesting.
However I am one who believes that the great watchmakers ridiculous foray into the world of batteries and circuit boards is best forgotten
The VAST majority of watches sold worldwide is quartz. Well over half is analogue quartz.
The caliber 35x they developed in a joint effort with GP is the granddaddy of áll those modern analogue quartz engines.
As such it is one of thé most important horological achievements by any watchmaker.
Far from a rediculous foray.
It is making FAR less margin than high end mechanical luxury watches, so they moved away from quartz when B&H invented those, but as a technological feat it is arguably among the biggest contributions to horology.
By all means deleve a bit into the quartz foray as JLC did some véry cool work there. It is a shame that the marketing interest of the current owners plays it down to less than the absolute minimum credit JLC deserve in this area.
´Forgetting´ that is rewriting history as it pleases you most.
Imo that is watch idiot, not watch savant.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 10th September 2012 at 12:04.
I do not agree.Interesting.
However I am one who believes that the great watchmakers ridiculous foray into the world of batteries and circuit boards is best forgotten
Clearly the great watchmakers pursued electronics in pursuit of providing the most accurate timepiece they could. They were both successful and unsuccessful.
Maybe it's a sign that they all read the market wrong, a sign that the market for wristwatches was about to change as a result of the technology that was becoming available.
They got the product right - but the market evaporated.
There was a time mechanical watches were as accurate as any other time source readily accessible or in-situ at the point of need - so they were utility - if someone relied on having an accurate time source, they would buy a watch from the great watchmakers to wear and use.
Electronics made a much more accurate time source readily available, on wrist, so the watchmakers pursued it - this is after all where people relied on having an accurate time source - but these low-maintenance (no winding) electronic jobbies could also now made available, cheaply, where they were needed, and integrated into processes and other industrial output (timestamps etc. instead of a handwritten note of what ones wrist said).
So the market changed - wristwatches became relegated to somewhere between jewellery and informational - they were no longer a de-facto source of time.
Should they be ashamed of it? I do not think so, it would be hard in any industry to see this kind of thing happen. These things are all that is left to tell the tale of one of the most significant arc's in watchmaking history.
It's almost romantic to try and ignore it.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
The mot popular restaurant worldwide is McDonalds.
That is no reason to eat one, or discuss it's gastronomic value.
So, I take it from that comment you are suggesting that quartz, or perhaps all non mechanical watches are the horological equiverlant of fast food burgers?
Maybe, but burgers are available at other restaurants. I do recall eating a $75 burger some years ago and it was lovely, it didn't come in a plastic tray or really bear anything much in common with a McDonalds other than basic construction.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
They got the product ríght and the market is HUGE.
The brilliant H&B reïnvented the almost dead Swiss watch industry that was about to be sold to Seiko. The Swiss bankers owning the lot asked Hayek whether they should sell or if the industry was worth an effort.
Hayek drew much inspiration from Jean-Claude Biver and together they came up with a stroke of genius; the Swiss mechanical watch as a luxury product.
This stroke of genius was exploited by what the Swiss are best at; marketing.
Thus they ceated a market for mechanical watches with an incrédible, some would say ludicrous or exploitive, profit margin.
High end watchmakers were thus presented with the opportunity to leave the high investment high tech market and concentrate on far more lucrative developments with lower initial costs.
Products needing less cutting edge big capital investment sold at 1000 times higher profit margins.
GP and JLC were entirely correct and did have the right product for an immense market; well over half of all the watches sold worldwide operate on the design fundamentals developed by GP and JLC.
It is just more profitable to operate in a different area created to save the Swiss watch industry.
It sells them short to not credit GP and JLC for their contributions to the most important part of the wristwatches of today.
It is only marketing interest by investors in the HUGE profit margin on luxury mechanicals that hypes the mechanical heritage and wants to all but erase the at least as if not more important quartz part of the heritage.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 10th September 2012 at 12:29.
That is pretty much where I stand, couldn't have put it better
Oh dear, my comment was no way meant to be supportive, in fact I find yours ridiculous. To cast off such an important part of horology is somewhat parochial.That is pretty much where I stand, couldn't have put it better
Perhaps you can now find a thumbs down for me instead?
Last edited by keitht; 10th September 2012 at 12:38.
You did leave yourself open to that. However I do know and understand that your comment was not in support of mine. I just couldn't resist making it look that way
I know that there are many people who love Quartz watches . I also understand very well the technological genius, apparent in many of them.
But I am really only interested in mechanical watches. I would rather have no watch at all than one with a battery.
It is moving away from JLC and probably worth a seperate topic but have a look at the Swiss company Ronda.
They developed their own quartz totally independantly of the other maker´s joint ventures. They adopted the GP/JLC design fundamentals and never looked back.
Their ownership history is interesting.
Just as interesting as that listed in the opening post; that by Richemont.
Currently marketed ´heritage´ is not about the contribution to horology, not about telling the history as it happened, but about marketing products with the most profitable margin; rewriting history as it suits the business investors best.
Not quite wis-dom nor in the interest of wis-dom is it?!
So because you are only interested in the mechanical movements, history should be rewritten to exclude the quartz?
As I explained that robs especially GP and JLC from well earned great horological credit because it does not suit the interests of the luxury mechanical lovers...
Do yourself a wis favour and have a look at what JLC did in the quartz area. Something to be quite proud of form a horlogical pov.
I don't agree that it is anything to be proud of (and I have been aware of their work in that direction for many years) I think it is rather, something to be ashamed of. Something done in desperation to survive. A move away from beauty towards an ugliness, which all but destroyed a great and noble company. This ugliness is about the cold hard facts of time display, as opposed to the enormous beauty of time measurement. I am so glad that as a result of the mechanical renaissance we are able to enjoy an ever continuing improvement and development in the art of mechanical time measurement. There will always be those who see horology as a cold and practical method of accurately telling the time, a more futile and useless pursuit I could barely imagine. I do however respect that POV, I just don't subscribe to it. I would not either wish to re-write history. I would rather not dwell on it's ugliest truths.
Thanks for the explanation.
What could be more beautiful and moving than accurately and precisely telling the time? Nothinh cold about that. Surely it's an important part of the point (but not the whole point, I readily agree). An electronic device to do this is vastly more complex and more capable than even the greatest and most intricate mechanical device. :-) An electronic circuit or an integrated circuit is truly a thing of breathtaking beauty to my mind, just as a mechanical device can be beautiful.
There is great sense in what you say. I wish I could feel it. But somehow for me, if it isn't driven by a spring, I can't feel anything for it.
It is a little bit like the difference between a perfectly produced rendition of a piece of music by a computer. Entirely accurate in intonation and rhythm, with a perfectly credible attempt at some kind of dynamic input, but when compared with the less than perfect rendition by a real musician, it seems to lack something essential. Hard as I try, this is how I feel about the Quartz/ mechanical thing .
Last edited by java; 10th September 2012 at 14:37.
Indeed.
Keeping and telling accurate time is an odd critisism as it is the core of the definition of a watch.
The argument that mechanical watches are accurate enough is a bit moot too. The same group that buys luxury watches also buys luxury sports cars vastly more rapid than the maximum speeds allowed to park in a town centre...
The issue at hand illustrates that the priority with luxury watches does not lie with time keeping perfomance but with the lúxury of them; the Veblen bit.
Exáctly what Biver and Hayek envisoned and set out to achieve.
Where Seiko and Citizen are offering high tech cutting edge accuracy with say 2 years of power reserve in very high qualty, luxury watches the Richemont owned brands are restricted to ´haute horlogerie´ because the image selling keeps the investor´s pockets filled by the ginormous profit margins.
To justify the money paid for these Veblen watches, the customers prefer the image, the heritage, the history as it happened to be rewritten and not include ´shamefull´ contributions to horology. Ignoring the key part of a wristwatch; that it is a small clock; a device to keep end tell accurate time.
Useless?
You can say you don't like it, but "useless" won't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Unless you are prepared to state that CD/DVD/Bluray devices, real-time video, GPS, radar, and lasers are all useless. Or that astronomy, particle physics, and radioactive dating have no utility.
Have you never set your mechanical watch to an atomic clock?
That is easily solved whichever spring you mean.
There is the spring drive which is a quartz oscilator controlled automatic or a spring driven autoquartz depending on one´s pov.
Then there is the ETA autoquartz family in which an automatic loads a spring, which uncoils over a ratched, spinning a generator powering a clock displaying time in either anologue or digital format.
There was also a whole family of watches with a balance spring oscilator ánd a battery/e-motor to drive the gear train.
Three electric clocks with driving springs at your service.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 10th September 2012 at 14:53.
IMO the quartz movement was the greatest technological innovation in timekeeping in the last 100 years.
Whether you like them or not they have brought accurate timekeeping to the masses at an acceptable cost.
I still love my mechanical watches but also recognise the importance of the quartz movement for this very reason.
Last edited by JeremyO; 10th September 2012 at 14:59.
Thanks, wasn't a dig at all - I too read it & on first reading it looked informational (nothing wrong with that at all) but as mentioned it did seem to peter out, however, reading it again can see it was complete - good luck with the search either way !
Absolutely not! I always know what the time is.
Last edited by java; 10th September 2012 at 15:15.
Indeed, its 13:21 at some point in August.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
The bottom line is and remains that JLC has achieved great technological feats in modern watch technology.
This is factual history as it happened.
The story of how history is currently presented is about money.
It is a business. No profit, no company. Haute horlogerie or otherwise.
When the main spring and balance spring had reached the limits of time keeping accuracy and progressing humanity needed more accurate time, other technologies were explored, developed and marketed.
This is simply exploiting business opportunities.
Swiss horlogy was at or near the forefront of this.
Today there is an indecently profitable market for luxury mechanicals and the Swiss marketing masters are making the most of it, even if it means rewriting history. In the case of JLC the rewriters are investors owning the brand. They could not care less about history as it happened. Obviously caring only about the profitability of portrayed heritage, not about credits due to JLC´s past masters of módern horology.
Swiss watchmaking is an industry making big money Java.
The by far biggest margins are in luxury mechanicals so they produce thóse.
Selling image; both of heritage and luxury, as values is what makes it so profitable.
The detaching of product and physical object.
For this the core of ´device for accurate time keeping´ hád to be relativated and detached from the technical state of the art of time keeping.
Appearantly with great success.
Back to the topic opener it illustrates that insight into the ownership of a watch company is a usefull piece of information as it is paramount to understand what makes that watchmaker tick.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 10th September 2012 at 15:31.
[QUOTE=Huertecilla;2429061.
Swiss watchmaking is an industry making big money Java.
The by far biggest margins are in luxury mechanicals so they produce thóse.
Selling image; both of heritage and luxury, as values is what makes it so profitable.
The detaching of product and physical object.
For this the core of ´device for accurate time keeping´ hád to be relativated and detached from the technical state of the art of time keeping.
Appearantly with great success.[/QUOTE]
Really glad you informed/patronized me with that information.
Add marketing and optimalisation of profit as the operatives.
Yes it is about supply and demand.
The Swiss watchmakers of reputation are indeed making what gives them the biggest rewards.
Marketing has been the key operative staring with Biver and Hayek reinventing the Swiss mechanical luxury watch as a desireable product: They creáted the demand.
What Java is writing about better forgetting the shamefull contributions to horological advancement however great because it is not mechanical, is an extreme product of this marketing mechanical heritage and luxury.
Reality yes, but is it the idiot or the savant in wis?
Actually, I think it's you who's missing the point, that point being that people are capable of making informed decisions. Yes, the decision making process is impacted by external factors such as markting... so what?
As for Tim's point, I'm afraid that he's not alone in feeling more love for the (purely) mechanical watch movement over the various alternatives, and I for one agree with him. I suggest that you stop seeking to sway the opinion of others, because your efforts are doomed to failure (however often you repeat your own views on the subject).
That is rich coming from the one who told the lot to best hush and forget about ´shamefull´ parts of history.Really glad you informed/patronized me with that information.
As it WAS and IS, JLC produced very well made cutting edge state of the art qco analogue movements fitted into high quality watches a step or two up from Rolex, right from the start of the quartz revolution, continuing development untill more money was to be made in developing the revived mechanical interest.
Afaik they dropped the quartz option only recently.
Not when their information is warped.
There are few product areas where the information easily available to the buyer is so warped as in luxury watches.
Most buyers decide on information provided almost exclusively by marketing. Either directly or through watch magazines and watch fora.
Because the forum sponsor Time Factors is exemplary absent, TZ-UK is relatively objective and only warped by peer pressure from relatively few high end image buyers.
Java has given a text book example of the root of desinformation dísabling the people mentioned by you of making an informed decision.
JLC still have quartz watches on their website, I see.
I think I am involved in a similar conversation on a different thread about chronometers. I think there are two aspect to this discussion.
The first is the accurate display and measurement of time (or rather the convention of measurement that we call time). Without doubt the invention of the quartz watch was a huge step towards the ubiquitous display of accurate time that we have today. Extreme accuracy (compared to 30 years ago) is truly democratic and we have access to it on a plethora of devices. It seems to me that rather like a lot of other ubiquitous things this has become somewhat debased. We've all got access to accurate time, so it's no big deal anymore. That's human nature.
The second part of that discussion is about how the convention of time is displayed. Since the advent of multipurpose electronic devices, time can now be displayed on your phone, via a computer screen, in the corner of your TV. The display of time is now no longer focussed on a single device, it's almost omnipresent. So now display and accuracy are no longer special in any way.
Now where does this leave people like us? We profess to have a liking for watches, which to all intents and purposes are getting quite close to becoming an anachronism. We see reports indicating that more and more people are making do without them. We ourselves admit that the watch is now more like a piece of personal adornment, and for a lot of us that own vintage watches (especially those that don't hack) the accurate display of the time is more or less beside the point.
So we can have our debates about which movement is best - quartz or mechanical - but in truth the world has probably moved on and left us behind. I know that my partner who's got far more important things on her mind just thinks we're all a bit weird. She may be right.
So why do I find myself collecting the damned things, and arguing the toss with fine gentlemen like yourselves. I don't really know except that it has all the trappings of being a bit like being part of a (self) selective club. So I suppose that all choices are equally valid, from the person who has the world's largest Sekonda collection to the collector of Rolex Submariner LVs (I saw the post too). Actually it makes more sense for us to take an interest in the differences in choices that we make instead of arguing vehemently about which model, brand or movement is best, or seeking validation for the choices we make.
For the record I'm still partial to 70s and 80s chronographs using the Lemania 5100. That's just me. When it comes down to it I like them on an aesthetic level and find the ludicrous styling appealing. But I also like browsing other models, and types and movements. That's why its interesting to drop by and a debate like this is still worth having for the craic even though in the vast scale of things it probably doesn't matter that much.
Thanks for sharing the info.
I will have a better look.
^^^^^^^jeepers I didn't realise I talked so much.^^^^^^^^^
Sorry I should go back to being a lurker.
No, it's a good post!
I appreciate your replies - thanks.
Absolutley - is a great post and has helped me consider my view more, as (maybe not as extreme as Java) but quartz also holds little interest for me as an owner, although vintage milestones & other quartz are intersting from both an historical perspective as well as if just an interesting watch in itself.
I think the "self-selction" is correct and what interests us is a personal choice that is of little importance to much of the general public.
Posting Permissions
