Has anyone tried these yet? I was unconvinced by the designs for a long time but the newest models have finally come up with one I like. I've had it for a few weeks now and it's barely been off my wrist. So wearable, can smarten up enough for me (I rarely wear suits etc.) and has a 90 hour power reserve (or so I was told in the shop. I've not had it off my wrist long enough to find out).
It's had countless compliments, keeps good time and I absolutely love it! Who needs to spend thousands? All this for £108!
Anyone else got any thoughts?
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1439249125.712408.jpg
Toby
I can see why it's popular with the public but it has one of the worst mechanical movements ever to grace any watch ever and for me that kills it stone dead: http://watchguy.co.uk/review-a-trip-...51-eta-c10111/
Sorry to put a downer on your watch, but I think there is so much more out there for even less money :(
It is different and price is low.
Not for me but If you like it, go for it.
It certainly is not a replacement for ones that cost more.
Thanks for that link, a great read. Fashion is the whole point of Swatch, so if you like the look then go for it. The insides however are what you might expect.Originally Posted by Lampoc
Toby, I think it looks great!
Toby, I too was unconvinced by the designs until I saw yours. Now I'm tempted.
The 90-hour power reserve is a bonus. I'd like decent water resistance, but maybe Swatch will bring out a Sistem 51 diver in due course. Obviously the time keeping isn't going to be fantastic at this price, but I'd buy a Quartz if I wanted impeccable accuracy. So I'm not worried by Watchguy's review; it's also the only negative review I've seen about Sistem 51.
I think you better look for something else. This watch isn't made to last for more than a few years, repairs/servicing are impossible and resealing won't be possible as well.
If you like the look of it and wear it a lot.... And it wears out after a couple of years... Well it cost £108...
I have the one that's is de-constructed in the review. Enjoyed reading it, all the more as I was sort of expecting this. It may be the world's worst movement, but somehow it runs very well. It's off by +2 seconds a day. I find myself wearing it quite often, as it wears well. Do I regret buying it? Nope, not at all.
I believe the combination of errors in the movement evens out to a 2 sec/day deviation ;-)
In other words, it's made for WIS who like to flip every few years
Fair points. Mind you, I've just had to bin my last Swatch. It only lasted twenty years before it broke, so those cheapskates at Swatch must have sold me one made from substandard parts!
Of course, you're quite right about the servicing etc. A Sistem 51 watch probably won't last for twenty years, but it would be a fun beater for a few years.
Last edited by Dougal; 11th August 2015 at 17:18.
I've once seen the same phenomena in a Patek, so it's in good company.
I think it's a fun watch, and I much prefer the design now they've revamped the line. I might pick one up.
In my opinion, if this watch raises awareness to the general public about the difference between quartz and mechanical movements then that's a good thing. A number of times I've complimented someone on a nice automatic watch and it turns out they thought it was battery powered.
I've seen things said about that and I can't pretend it doesn't look bad but for me that's not what the watch is about. Yes I like that it's an auto and probably wouldn't have bought it without the sweeping seconds hand but I see it as an intro to the wider world to the auto movement. I've had so many compliments on it that have led to discussions about what an auto movement is and does. Lots say they like the sweep. One has genuinely started lookig for a watch with a mechanical movement inside because he was so fascinated. Swatch has literally got another person into the world of mechanical watches. Isn't that a good thing?
Completely agree. The PR is incredible and far beyond any of my "posh" watches. Water resistance put me off a little but I'm not planning on swimming in it. I've got divers for that sort of thing.
It's £108! And it has a two year warranty. Girl in the shop said if it goes wrong in that time bring it in and they will look at it and in all likelihood give me a new one. Can't say fairer than that...though of course the flip side is that if you buy a watch and it goes wrong within two years you've right to be angry...
It IS fun - do it!
And I'm the same as you - it's definitely raising awareness just by ME owning one! That's a start. Fingers crossed it keeps going.
Thanks for all the comments guys - good AND bad!
Toby
Just go onto Creation Watches site and see what you can buy for £108.
A great many watches that knock spots off these things.
Seiko automatics, of course, Orients (including an auto multi year calendar), a Sicura 300m WR diver which is also automatic. Most of the Seiko 5s are £44. With folded link bracelets, push-button clasp, display back. Is £108 sounding cheap now? Not really
The Sistem 51 concept is so behind the curve it is pointless already.
They are bigging up the "cheap" automatic watch when the Japanese have already made better and cheaper ones for years. The fact that it is Swiss is no longer relevant at this end of the market, and adds no value here, despite their optimistic pricing.
D
Have to agree with Dave above, Seiko have so much more to offer.
I bought the Swatch whilst in America as i was buying a couple of gifts at the time and thought i would give one a go. They feel incredibly cheap.
who cares? At £108, its no different to a blazer I might wear for a couple of years and toss - none of the things you mention are relevant in the slightest if you are buying a watch because you like the look of it.
If this was Pistonheads or some other non-watch related forum and I wasn't a watch snob I'd probably agree with you. However, as this is a watch forum and we're all supposed to be enthusiasts, I think it's only fair that a lot of folk look down their nose at a watch whose only redeeming feature is that it looks "fun". I would honestly rather buy a piece of quartz junk from Emporio Armani or Michael Kors than this. At least they're not designed to be throw-away and can be repaired if needed.
Glad I didn't buy one at initial release because this new design is significantly more appealing.
I had intended to buy it as something cheap I wouldn't worry about in work, then realised I could get something like a Seiko 5 for a fraction of the price, throw it on a NATO and enjoy it more.
I I just don't get why anyone would spend money repairing a cheap watch unless your dad gave it to you while he breathed his last or why they would even think "man how will I get this cheap watch repaired in five years?" during the purchase process.
I see your point but there are plenty of minor repairs that an amateur watchmaker can carry out fairly easily. You can't even regulate the Swatch. I like to think that in 5 years time any watch I buy is still worth something - even if it's only fit for spares. Personally, I just can't understand why any watch geek would want one of these, which I guess is what separates us sad-acts on here from the general watch buying public.
Last edited by Lampoc; 11th August 2015 at 22:55.
Great little watch. Feels like you're barely wearing anything, and it's super-comfortable on the rubber strap. I have one as a holiday watch.
Who cares?
Here? Probably most people care.
This is a watch forum, so people do care about what is inside the watch, as well as outside. This is not the place to make the argument that it looks good, so who cares about the movement.
If Swatch really cared about people buying a mechanical watch, instead of a quartz one, they would do what Seiko has done and produce something that has massivley better components and longevity for the same money.
But they don't. They want to produce the cheapest mechanical watch they possibly can and ask the ridiculous sum of £108 for it, when it is worth about £20.
Anyone who reads TZ-UK (and therefore knows a bit about watches) wearing one is making a statement of style versus substance, exactly like driving a Toyota MR2 Ferrari Lookalike kit car. It may look cool. But it is technically rubbish, not the real thing at all and completely pointless.
I care because I have never liked anything designed to be throwaway, it is a philosophy I detest. When it takes so little extra to make something that lasts up to 10-20 times longer, making anything throwaway is a total waste.
D
Hear! Hear!
My thoughts exactly. Also: consider the environment. This plastic waste, soldered materials...
A watch forum isn't the place to argue about watches? Is there an approved list of arguments you could send me?
You know exactly what I mean, and it isn't what you insinuate.
A place that cares about watches, including the movements, is not the place to make the argument that "it looks good and the movement is unimportant, simply because the watch is cheap".
Of course you can make this point here, you did and no-one stopped you, but you will be in the minority.
If you made this point to the population as a whole, you will be in the majority (perhaps), but not here.
That is what I mean, by this not being the place.
Watch forum + watch with useless movement = unpopular
You're just being argumentative.
Why? At least three people on this thread have said they are going to be buying one so the idea that there is a hive-mind here and group view on this topic is clearly wrong.
I care about watches, I just don't care about all watches.
I've seen watches worth thousands on this forum that people lampoon for the way it looks, no matter what movement has been inside it. So, why not the other way round? Why can't I be a watch enthusiast, understand and appreciate the quality of better movements, but still like a cheap watch for how it looks, in spite of an uninteresting movement?
Sweets made a point I agree with. You can buy "technically" better watches for the same/less money. But my agreement stops there. To ME, the aesthetic of this watch, even knowing what's inside, is ALSO WORTH £108. Your argument gives no room for giving a value to something's look over its technicalities, which is far more subjective. If the look of something didn't have value we'd all wear exactly the same clothes in exactly the same colour and with exactly the same cut - and pay exactly the same price for them.
"us"? There is no enforced common logic, so probably "me" would be better!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I'm under no illusion that my hobby is "cool". Face up to the facts, andrew: you're probably as tragic as me ;)
The "look" would be a reason for most women to buy a certain watch.
The guys down here usually take into account the intrinsic quality of the watch - i.e.: case, dial, movement should be made up to a certain spec.
The Sistem has been weighed, it has been measured and has - certainly considering the relatively high price compared to several other brands like Seiko - found wanting.
A watch that cannot be adjusted, serviced, repaired whatsoever isn't worth a nickel to me.
Of course you are fully entitled to your own opinion, just don't expect too many watch enhusiasts to agree upon that opinion.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen written on TZ. If that's the case why do "the guys" not just buy anything that has a movement inside that they admire? Whatever it looks like? You have to like what you're looking at, that's why!
The guys here tend to be interested about the inner workings as well.
Same as with cars.
According to my wife I drive that silver car.
Guy usually ask what kind of engine it has.
(Ok, it isn't a standard Vauxhall or Volkswagen...)
Last edited by Bernard; 13th August 2015 at 06:54.
Wow, what a POS movement....Nice enough looking watch though, and no offence at all to the OP's watch. After reading that blog about the inner workings of the swatch, makes me shudder....rather buy a Seiko 5 or something.
This movement aside, what's the cheapest watch with a near four day power reserve? It isn't my thing at all and the moment construction and timekeeping may offend some, but I think an auto with that kind of power reserve is pretty impressive for the money. Or am I missing something?
Last edited by benny.c; 13th August 2015 at 09:35.
Does anyone remember the Tissot / Smiths Astrolon movement? It too had a plastic fork / pallet and escape wheel...
Yes, but with a totally different background:
http://people.timezone.com/library/w.../workbench0001
http://people.timezone.com/library/a...s/archives0085
It's obviously the physical predecessor of the Sistem51 movement: it was the "success" of the Agon Astrolon / Autolub / Cal 2250 movement that proved that these things were possible. Interestingly, the Astrolon had a very similar number of parts to the new Swatch movement (52 - the date complication added a further five parts), even if it did have "proper" plates (the other key difference being the automatic rotor). It has been said that the reason the Astrolon failed was a lack of appropriate marketing...
I find the cal 2250, Swatch mechanical and new Sistem51 *all* equally interesting. That the Sistem51 has its roots in a part-British movement is surely an interesting fact in / of itself?
But where the Astrolon/Astrolub focussed on longevity, self-lubrication and a good value for money, the Sistem51 is a piece of garbage that cannot be serviced / repaired etc.
Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with the use of plastics in movements if the material is helpful, however, I get the very unpleasant feeling that Swatch is just perceiving it as cheap.
I'm not entirely sure that's correct:
Most companies swap movements and have the old ones serviced later.I'm not entirely sure that's correct:
Omega did so with the reduced speedmasters (modules) and I heard of the practice before.
The customer is satisfied with the fast service, repairs can be carried out later.
Hey, don't drag the lovely Seiko 5 movement into the same space as this (the gutter). Compared to this the Seiko 5 movement is a fine piece of 'engineering over marketing', whereas the System 51 is just the opposite.
I'm sure you're correct.
Fascinating that Smiths used the "...we won't repair it" line in their marketing tho.
Could be marketing, could be cheaper not to.
The fact is, these movements can be repaired and there even was a manual to do so :-)
its the entire point - from Swatch's point of view, this is a really a testbed to see how cheap you can make watches when you entirely entirely automate the process and human hands aren't involved in production. As the technology advances, this will spread further up the food-chain and the 'quality' (whatever that means) will increase.
Last edited by Alansmithee; 14th August 2015 at 08:36.
Shame about the movement. I do like it nonetheless, but given the critique of the internals I've just read, I'd want it to be a fair bit less expensive. If it was I wouldn't have a problem with the quality of the movement because I probably wouldn't wear it long or often enough for accuracy or durability (respectively) to matter.
I don't understand the venom being aimed at this movement. It is a cheap watch with an interesting take on an automatic movement, in itself a little more interesting than another quartz 'meh' watch. I have to chuckle at some of the comments, especially since if the more sexist ones. Or is this 1975? - I don't give a monkeys about the engine in my car as long as it goes along and doesn't cost too much to fuel, whereas my wife is a bit of a petrolhead (and a better driver than me). She also tried to convince me not to sell my Submariner last year 'because it has a better movement than the Sinn you want to bash about instead' - personally I don't like the design of modern Swatch watches but they were an 80's icon and a plastic auto movement in a plastic watch is sort of nifty. As to 'you can't service them and they break after a year or two' - is that a fact or conjecture? And if you chuck one in the bin when it dies, is that less or more eco-friendly than throwing a quartz watch with a dead or leaking battery in the bin??!!
Ah, you have a very rare kind of lady (a hard driving, tech savvy one). Keep her!
When it comes to the parts used in the Swatch: the plastic parts are probably rather prone to wear and tear, so yes: they very probably wear out in a few years.
When timekeeping starts drifting, there is no way to correct is, so it's off to the bin.
Further, I have several quartzes from the 70's, fully jeweled movements that are still running strong. They weren't tossed in the bin as you put it.
Their batteries have been collected (at least: the ones I changed) and have been given up for recycling.
But how many people do that with a cheap quartz and how many just toss in a bin?
I bought a Sistem 51 from another forum member right here on SC. I bought it as a novelty really, and I have worn it (well, once actually). I don't suppose I will keep it.
Still: not good for the environment and most people around here don't seem to be the kind of people who like throwaway stuff...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
