Reply With QuoteIt's apparently because PP believe that hacking the movement introduces a rate variation in the movement. I think there's only one that hacks (a regulateur annual calendar).
Having recently purchased a new 5167 with the new updated version of the 324 SC movement (to address issues with dates being cut off at the top) I was quite surprised to note it doesn't hack (you can kind of stop the second hand by rotating the crown backwards but it's really awkward to set the time to the second this way as the second hand tends to 'jump' a few seconds once the crown is pushed in).
This is the second Aquanaut I have owned and I never really noticed it before.
Do all Patek watches lack a hacking function?
Ah okay that makes sense - I kind of figured Patek would know how to make a watch that hacks if they wanted to :)Originally Posted by learningtofly
Well that has just saved me a little over 12 grand! Thank you for the thread :-)
You're new to this, aren't you? What you actually meant to say is that you'll now need to save up the £36k+ needed to buy a PP Regulateur Annual Calendar.
That's what Seiko believed when developing the 7S36......................
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
LOL - well the 36k watch is NEVER going to happen, I know that no matter how hard I dream.
Well, 36K, 7S36 is quite close no?!
I fail to see how incorporating a hacking facility can have any effect on the rate; this doesn`t sound feasible to me. Hacking devices involve a small lever making contact with the train wheels or (in some cases) the balance itself. When not engaged, there's no physical contact......so how can the running of the watch be affected?
Sounds like bullshit to me!
Paul
But fine swiss bullshit.
Oh well I'll just stick to my good ol Seiko's then.
Perhaps you should contact Patek Phillipe themselves Paul, give them your credentials and tell them they're idiots and liars?
He's busy until June 2016They don't like the balance being stopped, apparently. Give them a ring, though, Paul, and put them right
Still sounds bullshit.....can someone explain why stopping and restarting the balance is bad news? Sounds like elitist blurb to me.They don't like the balance being stopped, apparently. Give them a ring, though, Paul, and put them right
If I someone can find a rational explanation, other than 'it must be right because the great ones say so', I`ll gladly eat my words. I`m always keen to learn....even at my age.
It could be argued that subjecting the balance to rapid stops and starts could potentially disturb the balance spring....yes, I have thought about this before condemning it as bullshit, but no other manufacturer seems to have a problem. Anyhow, balance springs are pretty robust until their elastic limits are reached, so I think this is unlikely.
Maybe I should just accept it......who am I to question?
Paul
- - - Updated - - -
Correct....there's more to life than bloody watches.He's busy until June 2016
Paul
Link:
This has been discussed before, and is the subject of some debate among watchmakers.
I once was talking to Philippe Stern, head of Patek (now is son is CEO), and asked why all Pateks do not hack. He said that his watchmakers told him that suddenly stopping the balance is not good for a watch.
But most brands do hack, and they have survived as accurate timekeepers for years. So my best view is that it can't be great, but it won't cause much damage either.
Regards, Michael
mfriedberg@iwcforum.com
Which for some will read like you are not sound of mind and impotent too; that you are a sad git missing the crux.
THEY know that the wiggly spring is essential for male prowess and that this is a delicate balance wheel of fortune.
Ok, back on topic:
Could it be that the more delicate the balance mechanism is made the more negative the effect of crash stops is?
Imo the delicacy for delicacy's sake has no effect on isochrony but the crash stopping has in that case.
That's why I never use the brakes on my car. I would hate to ruin anything delicate.
Guillermo
doesn't make a lot of sense to me, surely the finer and more delicate the movement/balance wheel the less momentum/force so the less damage if hacking really did do damage. It would then follow PP would be more likely to be able to do it reliably then anybody else
mind you it does stop people easily checking how accurate they are
i'll never own one, i find them too small and fussy, that and i don't have any children and i'm not about to inherit one, my father must have spent the money on gin ( i love that sketch)
What's worse ?
A proper hacking mechanism or stopping the second hand by gently winding back (I always wince when I do this as it just doesn't feel it's doing the movement any good)
Well of course that's literally true while the hacking lever has stopped the watch - it loses a second every second; awful! But then that's the point...
Depending on exactly where in the balance's movement it comes to a halt, it might take a few 'cycles' to get back up to full amplitude, but that's a pretty small source of error, by comparison with not being able to set the second had at all.
Relying on just the right amount of friction in the cannon pinion to be able to stop the watch is a bit half-arsed, frankly.
As has already been said, once the hacking lever has dropped out of contact with the balance, it can have no influence at all.
Sounds more like making the best of the situation - the movement simply wasn't designed to hack (perhaps at a time in the past when that ability was less values?) and altering it isn't practical. So the next best thing is to knowingly tap the side of your nose and spout something about rate variations. Sorted. Who's going to argue?
John
I'm with you on that, it always bothers me, especially if they start to run backwards....
I'm so happy that Dirk put a hacking mechanism in my 99.2!
PP are mostly living/stuck in the 1950's(with a brief foray into the 1970's) and that's much of their selling point and more power to them(their various calatrava designs are truly beautiful pieces), but the reasons given for the non hacking are pretty spurious IMHO. Various methods for hacking watches have been around for a very long time and I've never heard of any undue wear and tear because of them. Maybe if they hacked their accuracy would be more under scrutiny?
I didn't know that PP's didn't hack. Regardless of whether the watches are better for it or not, to anyone with even mild OCD non-hacking watches are really bloody annoying.
Not sure that they are suck in the 50s considering the patents issued since then and some interesting articles on their web site under communications:
Accuracy for their movements is a closer tolerance than COSC
- ref http://www.patek.com/en/communicatio...al-ron-decorte
Anyway - as an owner of a 5146 - I do admit it's a pain to not have a a hacking movement but work around it as described above - with no issues.
Martyn
Oh sure M, but my point was take a more "high street" everyday brand like Longines and they'd blow PP clean out of the water as far as historical innovation and numbers of patents filed goes. Omega, Rolex the same. And their claim for the "first self winding wristwatch" in 1953 is more than bogus and a couple of decades out. Their claim of the "first solid state quartz watch with no moving parts" in 1959? Someone's been at the ganja there. I'd love to hear their explanations for those howlers.
As they say themselves. Hardly independent. I'd believe them more if they sent examples to an independent body like the Neuchatel Observatory for chronometer testing(which is closer tolerance again and tested over weeks and for magnetism etc).Accuracy for their movements is a closer tolerance than COSC
- ref http://www.patek.com/en/communicatio...al-ron-decorte
Don't get me wrong M, PP's are beautifully designed and made watches with staggering levels of fit, finish and sheer luxury and that's their selling point(along with numbers of complications/rarity at the very top end), leading edge innovation and/or accuracy far less so.
PS your 5146 is a stunning timepiece, a near dictionary definition of elegance. Nice.
Last edited by Wibbs; 21st February 2015 at 12:31.
Not realt uncommon.
My Zenith El Primero doesn't hack, by Breguet didn't hack.. and as stated my PP 5712 doesn't hack, none hacking are cool :)
A pathetic excuse yes but how many sales has it lost them exactly... (clue, number is very close to zero)!
Neither does my 4030 Daytona, due to its El Primero heritage.
Sorry for my poor spelling... :(
Must have been tired.
Ha! Swiss junk! Frauds and charlatans all!
Hardly any of my watches hack but then they are mostly vintage.
Cheers,
Neil.
A common sense answer
Great explanation/assessment. I agree.
I wonder if not adding hacking is deliberate, to avoid damaging the price of vintage, non-hacking pieces and hence lower the demand for current pieces. PP marketing does make a big deal about their timelessness (no pun intended) which also rather implies that the technology isn't going to advance much, if at all, in a typical human lifetime. Contrast that with technology that does advance continually, like computers and smartphones, which are essentially disposable items because of the speed at which they become obsolete.
Of course. A good way to tell cheap Chinese movements placed in "Swiss Made" watches is when they don't hack. Gives the game away every time...
Nah, I think they're just happy taking big money for movements that have long since had their development costs amortised away. Let's face it, hacking, or lack thereof, is not in reality a differentiating factor for most wouldbe and actual PP buyers.
I'm going to go patent a vertical clutch hacking mechanism! Should solve the rate problem...
I seldom wear a hacking watch, and haven't really seen the advantage to them.
About accuracy and the like. Hacking in watches almost always involves an impact. Slight, to be sure, but impacts are to be avoided unless necessary. The more agricultural the watch, the less controlled the impact, probably. (One has to look at the tolerances and wear of the hacking mechanism). Look at a watchmaking manual or instruction book. I seem to remember all the ones I've read saying that one should stop the balance with a fine brush, camel hair is usually recommended. The idea, clearly, is to bleed off energy, rather than to stop the balance with an impact.
Folks say that their watches run fine with hacking. The question really is whether they would run better without it.
Patek may live in the past, but not always for bad reason.
--- They take a centre seconds to be a complication. Check. It makes things much more difficult. Direct or indirect? Extra power drain. More clearance.
--- They run many of their movements at 21600 bph. Check. More inclined to rotational disturbances than faster beating watches. In general, the higher the beat, the easier and cheaper it is to improve accuracy. Why not really zoom? Greater power requirements. This affects the spring needed, and the pressure on the power train. More accurate and specialized lubricants needed. Also stuff to keep the lubricant in place. Despite this, there will be more wear. Also, loss of lubrication (either through error or use) will much more quickly lead to damage. 21600 is about as fast as you can go and still be in the "low force/friction" neighbourhood (at least from what I read). This does mean that the accuracy of their watches is a result of adjustment rather than having a high rate, however.
--- Their movements generally don't hack. Inconvenient for some. Reduces number of impacts on the balance.
On the whole, I'm inclined towards their view.
Best wishes,
Bob
Last edited by rfrazier; 23rd February 2015 at 11:39.
Isn't the quality (in particular, durability) of lubricants one of the things that has changed significantly in the last 50-ish years, which would negate this premise? Ditto for mainspring materials on the power requirements, now that we have all sorts of smart alloys that didn't exist 50 years ago.
I've been really impressed with the work Tag Heuer (of all people) have been doing in these areas with their really insane concept chronographs. It'd be nice if some of that materials science would trickle down into mainstream horology instead of everyone accepting that the apogee of mechanical watchmaking already happened somewhere in the late 1950s (although this may be true).
The mainsprings may be better, but the high speed train still requires more force. Better quality mainsprings may make it easier to provide reliably.
Oils have improved, but are more specialized, with lower tolerances for error. In general, material science has advanced, but friction and friction damage still exist. The faster you go, the more relative difficulties with friction.
Best wishes,
Bob
Last edited by rfrazier; 23rd February 2015 at 12:05.
Of course, making a high-end movement isn't supposed to be easy :) The big question is whether a lower margin for error makes maintenance more tricky, or if it actually lowers the overall durability and reliability of the watch while in use.
I also wonder if materials science has given us better solutions to the friction problem in a broader sense. Things like Teflon and similar low-friction compounds, for instance.
What strikes me about this is that beating at a slower rate, not hacking, and having some plausible reasons - as quoted below - why they do that actually differentiates them more than having exactly the same specs as a basic ETA. They could make it hack and run at 28000 bph but would that be a better selling point than being different? I like my GS Quartz because it's modern, insanlely accurate and you don't have to wind it. I like my 50s GP because it's old, thin, and you do have to wind it. If I had a Calatrava I'd probably like that it doesn't hack and runs at 21600 bph. What does this prove? That we're all mad.
Teflon (coating) has already made it into service. The tricky bit, I think, is what happens when a watch that would work astonishing well in ideal conditions, with servicing done at ideal times, is used in non-ideal conditions, and servicing isn't done at ideal times. Should a manufacturer assume that the servicing will be done at ideal times, under ideal conditions, or allow for it being otherwise? Manufacturers are generally moving to control servicing, partly for financial gain, but partly because it is more critical (tighter tolerances) than before. My view is that using a watch somewhat over the specified servicing time can be allowed to make performance deteriorate, but shouldn't be allowed to cause extensive damage to the watch. I can also see why someone might have another view.
Best wishes,
Bob
ETA used the higher beat to gain more accuracy. Patek has watchmakers for that.
Best wishes,
Bob
Indeed - Omega first used the higher beat to get more accuracy more cheaply as they would need less regulation, and the watches initially shook themselves to bits if not serviced correctly. But that was a long time ago! Since then - and not long after then - people do seem to have mastered the art of producing hacking higher beat watches that don't explode.
It's a fair point though that even very good mechanical watches are not accurate enough for the second hand to be very useful unless you adjust them quite often, so maybe it's better to wear your thermocomoensated Quartz if you really care when the news starts.
If it matters, I just check the results of my Trimble GPS timekeeping receiver. Its PPS signal is supposed to be accurate to about 15 nanoseconds, but I can only translate that to about 150 nanoseconds on my computer clock (plus whatever time it takes to update the display). For other purposes, I generally rely on mechanical watches running at either 18000 bps or 21600 bps.
1800bps, the watch I'm wearing now.
Best wishes,
Bob
Last edited by rfrazier; 23rd February 2015 at 13:46.
Gah - I have been coveting a Breguet Marine for a while - and now I find that doesn't hack. I might have to Duncan Bannatyne that one :-(.
All sounds a big fuss about nothing, non-hacking may be inpercepably more accurate but up to 30 seconds out dependednt on where your second hand is at.
A hacking facility does not necessarily require the balance to be impacted at all:
The hacking lever above acts on the 4th wheel, with the balance then coming very gently to a halt. To be honest though, I don't buy this as an issue at all. People who buy a mechanical watch and wear it every day might be inclined to adjust it weekly if its accuracy is around ±10 s per day or considerably less frequently if it is running to closer to a second or two per day. Even on watches whose hacking feature operates directly on the balance, I can't imagine how that would inflict greater wear over time than the fact that the balance staff is working back and forth in its setting 21,600 times each hour.
Martin
That's certainly a better way of doing it, one which I had forgot about. As to wear. Even here there is a strike and, when stopped, a force on brass wheels, all the way down the wheel train. Whether in the end it makes a difference is an empirical question settled by testing. Since true comparative testing is so hard to do, I would be inclined to think about the history of the additions.A hacking facility does not necessarily require the balance to be impacted at all:
The hacking lever above acts on the 4th wheel, with the balance then coming very gently to a halt. To be honest though, I don't buy this as an issue at all. People who buy a mechanical watch and wear it every day might be inclined to adjust it weekly if its accuracy is around ±10 s per day or considerably less frequently if it is running to closer to a second or two per day. Even on watches whose hacking feature operates directly on the balance, I can't imagine how that would inflict greater wear over time than the fact that the balance staff is working back and forth in its setting 21,600 times each hour.
Martin
I take it that the stop is steel, which is applied to a brass wheel. I would want to make sure that it is set up to apply the minimum force, as banging a wheel when moving is something one generally avoids. But, one certainly doesn't want it dragging, which would create dust, and perhaps damage the brass wheel. A tricky balance to minimize its effect. But, no doubt, better than stopping the balance.
Still, why strike a brass wheel with steel, even if gently, unless it is absolutely necessary? Why take the chance of generating dust from the edges of the teeth of the wheel?
My conclusion would be that using steel to stop the brass forth wheel is better than using steel to stop the balance, but that it is something better not done unless it is necessary. Whether one takes it to be necessary depends on how important hacking is.
I find hacking relatively unimportant. I get my minutes hand and seconds hand in good enough alignment (after practice) without stopping the movement.
The argument that the time keeping features of the watch produce more wear is not very convincing. While they do certainly cause wear, they aren't one's I would be inclined to do without. That this causes less wear, even if true, isn't relevant as long as it causes some.
Best wishes,
Bob
Posting Permissions
