Japan vrs. SwitzerlandOriginally Posted by MR T
That´s what happened. The Swiss had the upper hand because of their established quality/brand image. The Japs decided to wage war on an arena in which the Swiss sucked. If it were not for a certain Mr. Hayek we would probably have a whole different situation what comes to the players in the watch business. A fast take on this can be read here.
Yes. And It already is moving upwards. Mind you : the watch game can to a big part be equated with nostalgia. Once the majority of young WIS grow older they will resort to those models which were new once they were young. When that happens a portion of these players have grown not just bigger bellies but thicker wallets as well. The demand will rise, finding good pieces will become harder and inevitably the prices will rise. The return to the roots that previously took place with the mechanical tickers will happen again with Q.
Thank you JCJM, a very succinct and interesting reply! When you think how much these watches were new the market for vintage HEQ has a long way to go just to match inflation!
I think that purely from an aesthetic point of view, the unique nature of the Omega designs from this period must secure their place as investments for the future. I expect that this post has got a lot of people itching for a stardust or a MC in their collection!
The japanese exploitation of the quartz brought the traditional swiss watch making indutry to the brink of extinction.
Mrss. Biber and Hayek realised that the traditional mechanical watch could only survive when seen as a luxury product.
They started up a cheap plastic quartz watch (with greatly reduced number of parts) concept to raise finances for their campaign.
On the 1st of March 1983 the first Swatch watches were lanched. This is probably the most significant single event in Swiss watchmaking history.
With the huge funding generated a marking campaign to promote the mechanical as luxury watch was started.
This was só succesfull in equalizing luxury with mechanical, that it annihilated all sizeable market segments for truely high end quartz watches.
Rolex let the Oysterquartz die and Omega using stopped using tc quartz recently too.
At present Breitling is the stronghold for Swiss tc quartz, with Longines and Certina deep in the shade.
Citizen and Seiko have kept the japanese flag flying.
Seiko is now a bit in the situation in which Rolex was with the Oysterquartz. They did not add a mechnical to their luxury Grand Seiko untill 1993 and untill late in the 20th century the 9F was the main stay of GS.
Now this is totally different and it will no doubt get more extreme still with their going worldwide.
They have relegated the 9F to 3 relatively simple models at the bottom of an extensive range of mechanicals and sds.
The reason is very easy to see. The mechanicals and sds sell for 5 to 8 times the amount. Even if the uplift would be the same % (which it isn´t) then they would still make 5 to 8 times more money on a watch sold.
What is goíng to happen is anybodies guess.
There is however an increased awareness that tc quartz has a performance level that is literally from a different age. That for a wristwatch as independant time keeping instrument it is way, wáy ahead and available at surprisingly competetive prices.
Wether that will keep tc quartzes available at a near death level or wil fuel new models is
As was observed, the vintage models are experiencing increased interest. Not spectacularly but the Rolex Oysterquartz p.e. hás risen noticeably in price over the past year.
For those who wish to have a look at a new tc quartz, the Certina DS Master is a véry sharply priced model.
http://files.me.com/tim.farler/t7po5n
Thank you for the interesting points Heurtecilla. If I am right in my understanding, ( a big if! ) it seems that the market for new watches is driven by the manufacturer, and the vintage market is driven by the collector. It is astonishing to think that a lot of the accepted beliefs held by watch enthusiasts ( can I make a distinction between 'enthusiast and WIS ? ) are merely products of the skilful marketing efforts of TSG and others. Would we view high end mechanical watches in the same way without this marketing effort? It is interesting that whilst the manufacturers push the punters towards mechanical as the high end watch of choice, this thread would indicate that we are being drawn to the HEQ acheivements of the past and present!
All and everything is organising in an interacting chaos and most times result are inpredictable.
Look at the Swatches taking off in a big way a low end quartz to create a huge market for luxury mechnicals.
The one is reacting to a market gap, the other is ´creating´ one.
What collectors want is ... what collectors want. Probably more inpredictable still. Look at mislubs and double red fetching serious money yet PP chronometers strugling and universal geneve micro rotors are worse off still.
The japanese exploitation of the quartz brought the traditional swiss watch making indutry to the brink of extinction.I'm not sure I agree with either Huertacilla and JCJM (assuming, as I did, that JCJM's quote meant the Japanese took on The Swiss over quartz and this was the cause of the Swiss downfall.That´s what happened. The Swiss had the upper hand because of their established quality/brand image. The Japs decided to wage war on an arena in which the Swiss sucked.
Fortunately I recently wrote something which pretty well explains why I don't agree. I have swiftly rewritten bits of it for this discussion, and will be happy to justify any holes that are the product of an argument that has been bodged up to do a different job to the one it was written for.
Everyone likes to blame the almost demise of the Swiss watch industry on quartz, but I think that this is largely wrong and extremely forgetful. The fact is that the period of massive contraction precisely correlated with the massive Western recession of the seventies followed by the rise of the Japanese as a great watch (and certainly not just quartz) manufacturing power who could match the Swiss industry toe to toe at literally every level (apart, until fairly recently, from the very highest end) Assertions like this:
Are again, rather misleading. Seiko certainly did have GS and KS models from the late sixties onwards. They stopped making them for a short while, but carried on making mid range stuff that, while not so decorated, still held a candle to the best of the competition. Look at the late sixties King,They did not add a mechnical to their luxury Grand Seiko untill 1993 and untill late in the 20th century the 9F was the main stay of GS.
Grand and Lord branded Seiko movements and they are manufactured and finished to a standard that few could meet. Before you even get to quartz there are a profusion of mechanical movement, from the lowest which competed directly with pinwheel, to the highest which competed directly with Certina, Eterna, Omega and Rolex to name a few. Don't forget that, in a few short years the Japanese killed the chronometer competitions, first dominating them with almost stock mechanical movements, then being banned and finally making them irrelevant enough that they stopped. Beyond the watches Seiko, especially, barely put a foot wrong in their business strategies and products while the Swiss just lost their way, responding to the Occidental recession in a catastrophic manner.
It is easy to look at the seventies, even after the first 'Oil shock' of '73 as an extension of the Golden Age for the Swiss: Taking SSIH (Omega) as an example examples, In the late sixties and early seventies there was a flowering of models and styles and even greater experimentation with different movements. The 12xx f720, 15xx Marine Chronometer, 10xx series, 13xx series 14xx series to name the larger groups. Most of these flowered feverishly during this period. The huddle of manufactures that is Swatch group is not a new phenomenon, and indeed many of the Swatch stable including Omega, Tissot and Lemania were already (and had been since forced together by the great depression in the thirties) part of SSIH. While not quite as massive as Swatch today, they were not far off. In short, a massive company that had sunk a vast amount of money into R&D and new movements and technologies with the intention of putting pressure on rivals like Certina, Rolex and the other giant, ASUAG. This was simply an insane strategy of diversification and they paid heavily for it.
Having mentioned Rolex, it is worth noting that the real difference between Rolex and Omega, at least historically, is that Rolex were evolutionary, while Omega were revolutionary. In the seventies, the development of Rolex's handwind movement was glacial. The eventual pinnacle, the 1225, is recognisably a development of the 'hunter' movements of the thirties, and even in the '1200' form managed little more than a change in beat rate in the time that Omega finished the development of the 30T2, renamed it the the 2xx, developed it some more, invented, developed and dropped the 6xx series, knocked up that other series I refuse to remember, and, exhausted, damn nearly started using ETA ebauches.
In the same way, while the 15xx series slowly improved into what was arguable one of the nicest simple auto movements I can think of, it did it rather slowly. As for quartz... In short, with no shareholders, no debts and minimal R&D costs, Rolex were well placed for the storm. SSIH were in pretty well the opposite situation. As a result of this, when the economy started to recover under Thatcher and Reagan, almost by accident (or rather, entirely not by accident) Rolex had cemented their place as purveyor of affordable veblen luxury to the world. There is nothing more damaging for a Veblen good than desperation and the faint sense that the maker is insolvent! I'm not sure that it is coincidence that Rolex have followed Seiko's model of total vertical integration, a route that Swatch group seem to be following now.
Meanwhile Omega, and SSIH, having backed the wrong horse with both HEQ ( little demand) and tuning forks (left behind by quartz), they were left with huge debts, a massive amount of R&D which had gone nowhere and several (I think) rather ugly calibres with an (generally undeserved) reputation for unreliability. The ten series had a few teething issues, as you would expect of an entirely new movement family that were moving into mass produced high beat territory. These were put right swiftly, but left the 10xx series with a reputation for unreliability that still clings to them today. Like many other overstretched seventies companies, Omega and SSIH stumbled on before noisily beginning to expire.
Hayek can be thought of as a visionary as, with Swatch, he picked up the bottom end of the market, originally held by nasty pinwheel escapements, then equally nasty quartz. He reinvented it as the cheap, cheerful, fun and ultimately disposable Swatch. With this, he caught the mood of a world tired of recession but not yet rich enough to really celebrate. The new group, SMH were renamed Swatch in recognition of the role the humble Swatch played in their survival. People can attack Hayek for this pandering to the bottom end or for pulling in ETA calibres, but he really had no choice and his actions have proven what his vision really was, even if it was almost certainly not as clear in 1983 as it appears to have been in 2010
Again, I'm not sure that this is the case; certainly Hayek tried to revitalise some of the ex SSIH companies using this strategy, but I'm pretty sure that this wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for quartz's achillies heel: even the nastiest quartz can manage about +/- 15 seconds a month and last a decade without care. As a result there was simply no motivation to buy 'high end' quartz as there was no real differentiation possible. The 1538, as used in Omega's SeMP is about as accurate as a no jewel quartz. On the other hand, the 1120 movement used in the chronometer version of the SeMP, is at about the same level of quality and only about fifty quid more to buy in basic trim from ETA. However this looks better on paper as the cheap competition, can't match if for stability and accuracy. As a result the quartz version is seen as the poor relation. Giving it T/C makes no difference as Omega learned by selling bucket loads of the 1438 powered 'Pre Bond' SMP200 and hardly any of the T/C 1441 version. In short, quartz is accurate enough to satisfy and so T/C is not a USP that sells while chronometer status is. The market segments for Quartz were not annihilated as they really didn't exist in the west to start with. GP have developed the 352, Rolex developed another modern quartz after the, attractive, yet expensive to run kludge that was the Oysterquartz but have not launched it as yet. Swatch group supply the T/C movements to Brietling, Omega (The Double Eagle for a start) Krieger and the few other quartz chronometer makers. In short, I suspect that the high end quartz market (after an excited blip in the late seventies) has remained pretty constant.With the huge funding generated a marking campaign to promote the mechanical as luxury watch was started.
This was só succesfull in equalizing luxury with mechanical, that it annihilated all sizeable market segments for truely high end quartz watches. Rolex let the Oysterquartz die and Omega using stopped using tc quartz recently too.
So, why another history lesson? Well, here's the problem. Watches are Veblen goods and, as such, watch sales tend to be rather vulnerable to recessions. Now, many might think that the bitter pill has been taken, but frankly, this recession is more like the thirties than the seventies and we have a decade or more of 'worse to come' to come (probably followed by a huge war on past form). Hayek committed Omega and other companies in the group to major R&D again while recession looked unthinkable. In short, it is all very well to congratulate Hayak on his acumen in revitalising the Swiss industry, but it is quite possible that his policies have committed Swatch group to the same errors as before.
Meanwhile, Omega have been raising their prices, improving their movements, finishing and marketing. More to the point, they have been deliberately moving back towards manufacture status. Meanwhile Swatch, qua ETA, have made a dreadful error in refusing, or even merely threatening to refuse, to sell the ETA movements that have flooded the market for two decades. Into the (perceived) gap have jumped companies like Selita, Seiko (again), Tianjin and so on. This sudden mass (higher end) market gives all of them an opportunity to develop and move into previously unavailable markets and sectors. Just like Seiko and Citizen did last time, the secret will to be to produce something almost as good for a fraction of the price. Don't underestimate the Chinese: they almost made Communism viable, just imagine what they are going to do with capitalism!
As the consequences of the recession bite in 'The West' I worry that Omega and Swatch will again find themselves overcommitted and debt ridden, while producing a range of products that are again out of tune with the times and unable to compete with fresh challenges from unexpected quarters. Rolex, having spent the boom years absent mindedly polishing the 3xxx, while rationalising and moving house can just hunker down again with a smirk. This time, the Chinese are the Japanese and it is far harder to blame quartz.
The above quote is not mine. If you equate what I said with it you are taking a pretty liberal way of interpretation IMHO.
Sorry, no insult intended and a correction added.The above quote is not mine. If you equate what I said with it you are taking a pretty liberal way of interpretation IMHO.
I took
combined with the 'fast take' being that Hayak was:Japan vrs. Switzerland
That´s what happened. The Swiss had the upper hand because of their established quality/brand image. The Japs decided to wage war on an arena in which the Swiss sucked. If it were not for a certain Mr. Hayek we would probably have a whole different situation what comes to the players in the watch business. A fast take on this can be read here.
As being pretty close to equivalent to the quote:the man credited with saving the Swiss watch industry from the mire of the quartz crisis,
Which I thought covered both points of view.The japanese exploitation of the quartz brought the traditional swiss watch making indutry to the brink of extinction.
If this isn't the case then I am sorry. I have edited my post to make this clear, but I am unclear as to which 'arena in which the Swiss sucked'. you were referring to and why you used the Times quote which seemed to me to be stating that Hayak saved the Swiss from the Quartz crisis. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't see how else to read it.
I do agree with you about Japan V Switzerland, but I think that the Swiss were already in deep trouble due to recession and bad choices and the Swiss just gave them a push (on pretty well every front including quartz.
Well mate,
on the world we live in everything affects everything. The 70´s economical crisis affected everybody including the Japs as well. They were better equipped for the shift in customers wants and reacted more efficiently to cater it - something that the Swiss did not manage that well, IMHO. But lets not get distracted. Business is, has been and will always continue to be seen metaphorically as "war". If you do not like that it is OK and we can disagree, no biggie. What we seem not to disagree is that to say the Swiss were next to complete annihilation is a bit far fetched though I guess I see things more towards that end than you(?). Anyway there is no true history regarding anything. There is just the past and different interpretations on things were in that past. Lets continue the main course please.
There's nothing much here I disagree with. My only quibble in the first place was about quartz being the main cause of the Swiss downfall, which I think is simply wrong. As this discussion is about quartz, it seems an appropriate quibble. As you quite correctly pointed out earlier it was the other chap I was really disagreeing with.on the world we live in everything affects everything. The 70´s economical crisis affected everybody including the Japs as well. They were better equipped for the shift in customers wants and reacted more efficiently to cater it - something that the Swiss did not manage that well, IMHO. But lets not get distracted. Business is, has been and will always continue to be seen metaphorically as "war". If you do not like that it is OK and we can disagree, no biggie. What we seem not to disagree is that to say the Swiss were next to complete annihilation is a bit far fetched though I guess I see things more towards that end than you(?). Anyway there is no true history regarding anything. There is just the past and different interpretations on things were in that past. Lets continue the main course please.
Unfortunately I'm not going to make much of a contribution to what has been one of those all too rare threads, but I would like to add that my Chrono-quartz has been running on the same batteries for over 2 years.
I know I've probably just guaranteed that it will now stop, but I think that is pretty remarkable :)
Did they really give it a chance? The 1441 version was killed after just one year of the "Pre Bond" coming out, at the end of 1988 by "forum estimates". They also replaced the 1445 (day/date dials) with the 1444 around that time.
Something happened in 1988 for that change to happen that I haven't seen documented anywhere.
Maybe they thought the 1441 (or 1445) was too expensive and figured they would take a chance on the 1438/1444 to see if it hurt sales. I've never seen any ads vaunting the merits of the 1441/1445's accuracy (unlike what Longines did with the VHP) so that possible plan had a good chance of success.
Blimey that's impressive, my last lot of batteries lasted 9 months!Unfortunately I'm not going to make much of a contribution to what has been one of those all too rare threads, but I would like to add that my Chrono-quartz has been running on the same batteries for over 2 years.
I know I've probably just guaranteed that it will now stop, but I think that is pretty remarkable :)
Cheers,
Gary
Of course they didn't, but remember, at that point SMH (and Omega)were still very much in trouble and couldn't afford a misstep.Did they really give it a chance? The 1441 version was killed after just one year of the "Pre Bond" coming out, at the end of 1988 by "forum estimates". They also replaced the 1445 (day/date dials) with the 1444 around that time.
Maybe they thought the 1441 (or 1445) was too expensive and figured they would take a chance on the 1438/1444 to see if it hurt sales.
The 1441 is really just an ETA 255.561 which uses (if I remember correctly) a dual oscillator T/C setup which can be swapped directly with the single oscillator setup in the 1438 (or rather ETA 255.461. The same manoeuvre can and has (by a chap over on WUS HEQ a year or two back) been done with a modern 1538 and a thermistor T/C ETA movement which I forget at present. As only the electronics and the twin oscillator are different I cannot believe that the cost difference is much at all.
However, if there was even a small saving to make they would have made it. I agree that they probably went for the minuscule saving of non TC, noticed it didn't hurt sales and just carried on.
Possibly, but it could have been nothing more exciting than Hayek (or the banks) asking where even tiny savings could be made...Something happened in 1988 for that change to happen that I haven't seen documented anywhere.
I'm not sure of that.I've never seen any ads vaunting the merits of the 1441/1445's accuracy (unlike what Longines did with the VHP) so that possible plan had a good chance of success.
First, Omega simply couldn't afford to spend on the sort of advertising campaign that would have explained TC and got the point across. Remember that at that point every single quartz hit the quartz chronometer rating. It wasn't until much later that the bar was raised so that only TC could reach it - starting a quartz chronometer war wasn't in anyone's interest at that time. Even now Omega don't bother with quartz chronometer ratings in the Double Eagle.
Second, the Seamaster 200M was just the wrong watch. In a Constellation maybe, but in a dive watch? I'm not sure how attractive it would be. Omega were trying to build up the Seamaster and I just don't think T/C fit the image. This is just a feeling and I'd be interested to know how others feel about this.
Sorry for the huge ´cut´.
The picture is simple.
Currently the luxury watch = mechanical movement.
1. No way a quartz engined watch can be sold at nearly the same price.
This means that mechanicals can be sold at a higher price with higher margins, this making several times the profit as on a luxury quartz engined watch.
2. Having a 300 times more accurate watch in the program makes claims about accuracy of the co-axial rather silly.
Normal quartz is bad enough but a qúality quartz being 10-15 more accurate than thát!? Better not in your program.
Ditto Rolex who keep the realy well made no worries time keeping quartzes in the Cellini line very, véry low profile. So low that even hardly any Rolex wis is aware of their existance yet it would be a gréat addition to the sports line. Imagine a Rolex sub. with a bomb resistant, low maintenance, 10 secs/month Rolex in house movement at 30-50% off.
Certina offers a tc quartz.
Bury it on the north slope of the Mont Blanc and after three years it will be running within 30 seconds :shock:
A nice tc quartz chromograph watch at a stunningly sharp price yet.... IGNORED!
Look at this Certina. The engine is made by ETA so Omega could easily offer a Speedmaster with 10 secs/year acuracy at 1000 Euros :shock:
I would buy one inmediately, wouldn´t you?
Mr. H is making sense here IMHO.
It is almost diy to drop an ETA 251.233 in a Speedmaster case.
The speedmaster design is not protected anymore, so a TimeFactors ´Speedbird´ logo on a homage with tc engine would be :bigsmurf:
Why would that be any less diserable than a Seagull or whatever mechanical engined one? Or even the Omega one?
´Same´ thing only 300 timer more accurate, less maintenance, TimeFactors quality/warranty etc. for.... say 800 Pounds?
You said the reason yourself – the mechanical is the luxury. The quartz is not, and the watch market is above all perceived image, aspiration and all that.
I don't thing anyone disagrees that this is the perception.Currently the luxury watch = mechanical movement.
I see your point, but I think you are underestimating the capability of the coaxial when merely regulated, let alone carefully poised and balanced. The fact is that Omega don't bother to regulate the coaxial beyond the pathetic criteria of COSC. With regulation they can be, and I quote, 'as stable as a marine chronometer in gimbals' With poising and regulation, the coaxial is capable of 'seconds a month' performance. In short, if Omega bothered, the coaxial is a marine chronometer capable watch.Having a 300 times more accurate watch in the program makes claims about accuracy of the co-axial rather silly. Normal quartz is bad enough but a qúality quartz being 10-15 more accurate than thát!? Better not in your program.
While I agree that this is forty years too late, and that quartz does render this remarkable performance largely irrelevant, but it is worth noting that Omega are not interested in accuracy in either mechanism. If they were, then the coaxial could be more like a quarter as stable as a perpetual. However, given that many of the Thermoline movements can be regulated to far higher accuracy than spec, Omega could really be dropping below the five second a year barrier. They choose not to. In other words Omega could do better on both fronts, but with no public desire for it they haven't.
I assume you mean 'Seamaster' in which case I'd say it is literally DIY - it is even easier to just change the electronics module. However, and here is the kicker, when Vizi did it over on WUS HEQ I picked up the electronics module for a SeMP. I still have it but have never bothered fitting it as I was so fond of the SeMP exactly as it was and didn't really need the accuracy. I'm definitely (among other things) a HEQ WIS and even I didn't really see the need.It is almost diy to drop an ETA 251.233 in a Speedmaster case.
As for Certina, yes, I'm sure you are right, however, I'd much rather have an old DS2 with the marvelous 288 movement because they tried to uprate the lever escapement, rather than just slapping in an ETA movement.
This I guess is the heart of my point: interesting quartz is interesting. Interesting mechanical is interesting. A 251.xxx is dull whether T/C or not, just as a 2892 is dull whether chronometer rated or not. What is interesting is when manufactures try to push the envelope rather than make do with old tech in a new case.
So I value the Citizen E510 more highly than the 1441, the 9F over the 8J and the coaxial more highly than the 2892. I like it when boundaries are pushed and people try to achieve more rather than resting on laurels that wilted in 1977.
My argument before was that quartz is given a low value because any old crap quartz can achieve good results while you have to make a bit of effort to get tolerable results out of a mechanical. Frankly, I am not surprised that no one sees the excitement in a six or seven jewel movement with a T/C module cobbled on - it's the 2824 chronometer of the watch world. There are exciting quartz movements out there, and some cost peanuts: the autoquartz, the 7Ax8, the E510 are all dirt cheap for what you get. The problem is that few companies beyond Seiko and Citizen (Bulova are Citizen) are doing anything new, interesting or of high quality.
In short, quartz is hamstrung by cheap boring movements and companies with no motivation to improve or even get excited about technology.
Perhaps they are just waiting for CSAC or piezoelectric carbon nanotube technology to kill quartz stone dead. No one wants to be the company who produced the last gasp of the departing paradigm.
I got a Certina DS Winner from SC earlier this year. Within days it behaved erratically but rather than have a 'discussion' with the seller I sent it off to Steve Burrage who found the module needed to be replaced. He sent me the old one when the watch was returned. I was really disappointed to find the movement was a (albeit Swiss) stamped out quartz that looked as if it cost all of 10p to make. A no-jewel disposable in a chronograph. Shame. Compared to the module in Eddie's PRS 17C or my TAG SEL... well it doesn't compare.As for Certina, yes, I'm sure you are right, however, I'd much rather have an old DS2 with the marvelous 288 movement because they tried to uprate the lever escapement, rather than just slapping in an ETA movement.
As I don;t want to get drawn into a discussion based on economic /business based failings, as that has been covered comprehensively already.
I just want to state my own theory, which is that simple perception of brands and technology would have had much to do with it.
As it does now with many ( lets call them non-WISes for ease) who's watches tell the time.
In most cases as well as, if not more accurately than the ££££s ones that are (in many cases ) nothing more than luxury statements, as in look at my Clothes/Car/Watch/Cock size...delete as appropriate, and chosen by the same people, only those who have more money.
So was there was any difference with the electronic marvels of the late 60's & 70's in terms of general public perception..not really, they too were flipping expensive.
Why did they die, because after a few short years you could buy the same advances in a cheap package...and therefore ones Cock got decidedly smaller.
So you see, despite all the informative discussion, it was all down to Mans danglies....
I only buy/collect them now in an effort to increase my own girth.
K
On a side note...I have a few new packaged Renata Mercury cells for those Chronoquartzs if anybody wants some.
Keith, only you could tell us all that we are talking bollocks so politely. :DSo you see, despite all the informative discussion, it was all down to Mans danglies....
I'll be honest and say if all watches were quartz I would have next to no interest in them.
It's the mechanical marvels and the chance to bang on about column wheels etc etc that still pique my interest after all these years.
Printed circuits don't have the same allure. :wink:
There is no human interaction with a quartz. No hand winding or wearing to keep it going, no leaving it in different positions to counteract gains or losses.
It does what it does with or without you.
Takes all the fun out of it IMO.
Cheers,
Neil.
I disagree, I am forever bloody tinkering with mine, the early HEQ's are very much of that ilk IMHO, the Omega Megaquartz's particularly are very sensitive.
I think that (in all the cases I have listed with the exception of the Time Computers) the movements are every bit as impressive as automatics or manuals, just look at the OQ movement, the EQ movement infact all of the ones I have shown. Yes they are ultiamtely controlled by a printed circuit, but they are equal mecahnical marvels at the same time IMHO!
Just my thoughts
Leave it alone then :lol: it can't be that inaccurate that you have to keep mucking about with it can it?I disagree, I am forever bloody tinkering with mine, the early HEQ's are very much of that ilk IMHO, the Omega Megaquartz's particularly are very sensitive.
And you are entitled to them............I just don't agree.
Just not into electrically powered stuff in my case even though I own a few quartz.
Cheers,
Neil.
I really do have some sympathy with this view and I certainly don't look at a quartz in the same way as I look at vintage stuff. Quartz satisfies my 'build and overclock my PC' needs while vintage satisfies my 'keep a BSA Bantam on the road' needs.There is no human interaction with a quartz. No hand winding or wearing to keep it going, no leaving it in different positions to counteract gains or losses.
It does what it does with or without you.
Takes all the fun out of it IMO.
However, I do have the perfect quartz for you Neil:
:love2:
A very apposite analogy Matt. :)
Cheers,
Neil.
Love my day date oysterquartz, still fancy a GMT though.
No, you cant because you have no idea how you would had perceived quartz in the total absence of mechanical watches.
You can say that this is how you think you would had appreciated Q but you cannot say this as given fact. Lets be honest.
I´m not saying that I know better what you appreciate Neil. I don't. What I´m saying is we should be careful when theorizing.
I am pretty much on the same line with Keith´s balls herein although there are other variables too, not just just ego and price.
Bottom-line is we can discuss this all day long and we all can argument our views to be right. This does not make them right :lol:
IMHO.
:blackeye:
Didn't realise you were so short Jussi.
:lol:
It´s not that I am short mate, it´s that your balls are... Never mind... That´s what you get when you try to write over your skill level :blackeye: :lol:Didn't realise you were so short Jussi.
:lol:
No, you cant because you have no idea how you would had perceived quartz in the total absence of mechanical watches.
You can say that this is how you think you would had appreciated Q but you cannot say this as given fact. Lets be honest.
I´m not saying that I know better what you appreciate Neil. I don't. What I´m saying is we should be careful when theorizing.
I am pretty much on the same line with Keith´s balls herein although there are other variables too, not just just ego and price.
Bottom-line is we can discuss this all day long and we all can argument our views to be right. This does not make them right :lol:
IMHO.
:blackeye:
You got me completely wrong or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
What I meant was if quartz had completely destroyed the mechanical watch in the '70's as was the oriental idea I would have little to no interest in what came after.
Possibly unlike you I am old enough to remember the world before quartz watches and how we all thought when they emerged that mechanical seemed so old hat and who would possibly want one compared to the accuracy of the new marvel in watchmaking.
I bought an LED when they came out then a Seiko LCD chronograph which at around £85 (two weeks wages) was a similar price to a mechanical Omega.
The batteries in the LED seemed to last about a month :lol: and the LCD packed up after a year and was consigned to the bin (If only I'd added a bit of money and bought a Sub :roll: )
Around that time I was trawling a lot of boot sales and couldn't resist all these old mechanical Omegas, Longines etc for just a few pounds each and built up a pretty large collection for next to nothing.
After taking the backs off of these mini engineering marvels at home and noting down the movements etc in my book (all before the internet) all my interest in the crappy quartz watches just evaporated away and of course the mechs have turned out a far better investment. :wink:
Cheers,
Neil.
But you've said it yourself. Buyers at this price point aren't buying accuracy. They're buying luxury. Something Hayek always understood.
Euhnm, actually something that Hayek creáted :idea:But you've said it yourself. Buyers at this price point aren't buying accuracy. They're buying luxury. Something Hayek always understood.
Nówadays it is simply as that. It was not so in the late seventies when he and Biber thought of this strategy to save the traditional swiss industry.
At that time the mechanicals were just about doomed and seen as the dinosaur of horology. Everybody in the industry thought horology would be quartz territory exclusively. Why do you think Rolex invested A LOT in the Oysterquartz? That was before the marketing of mechanicals as a luxury thing turned the tide.
Even Neil C. bought into quartz at the time :albino:
It may be not in the present day awareness and the past does get to be comprised in our perception but it actually took a lóng time for mechanicals to gain the top dog position in luxury watches. It has not ´always´ been such and is not a law of physics or anything else look again at Rolex who still offer a quality quartz in Cellinis). It is only a perception which Hayek máde happen.
One simple question: why did Hayek make mechanical and quartz Swatch watches?Nówadays it is simply as that. It was not so in the late seventies when he and Biber thought of this strategy to save the traditional swiss industry.
At that time the mechanicals were just about doomed and seen as the dinosaur of horology. Everybody in the industry thought horology would be quartz territory exclusively. Why do you think Rolex invested A LOT in the Oysterquartz? That was before the marketing of mechanicals as a luxury thing turned the tide.
Cheap quartz killed pinwheel and very cheap mechanical, but the competition between the Swiss and the Japanese was defined not by quartz but by the 1970's recession and oil crisis. Just as China and The West today, Japan was far less affected by the recession and used it to cement a position producing watches that undercut the Swiss at every price point.
The Seiko Five and Citizen Seven did more harm to the Swiss than quartz ever did. This is what Swatch competed directly with and that is why Swatch made a wide range of options including autoquartz, quartz and mechanical.
I really don't think Rolex invested that much (relatively) in the Oysterquartz. (do you have any evidence beyond blind conviction) and, more to the point, the investment clearly happened very shortly after (or even at the same time as) the Beta 21 because the Oysterquartz uses an escapement rather than a stepper motor and that would have been a perverse choice by about 1972 if they hadn't already been committed to it. If Rolex thought it was the future what mechanical lines did it drop in favour? or did they simply hedge their bets?
Really interesting, am I right (not knowing a huge amount about movements) that the OQ movement is very similar to that of Rolex's mechanical movements (with the obvious exception of the electronic components)??
Cheers Tom
Just so; the 3035 was the base calibre for the development and it shows. Much of the train is identical and much of the rest of the movement is clearly derived from the 3035, massively reducing development costs. While both movements were launched in 1977, by then, the stepper motor approach was ubiquitous and the escapement approach was a hangover from a previous generation. I think that this shows how long both movements were in development: Rolex must have committed to an escapement very early in the design process. That they didn't change the design to incorporate a stepper motor shows what a low priority it was for them and is a classic example of Rolex's conservatism. While it was probably a mistake for Rolex not to do so (as the OQ has always been astonishingly expensive to service and less reliable than equivalent stepper movements) The OQ's loud slow tick is widely adored by those who have heard it. If Rolex had got the movement out five years earlier it would have been a far bigger hit and quartz might well be better regarded today. I think even Neil must like the OQ as it is a most mechanical quartz watch. (but I'll take the GP352 every day!)
The same approach of using a mechanical ebauche as the basis for a quartz movement can be seen with the ETA Autoquartz and the ETA 2824.
There's a brilliant website about it here:
http://www.oysterquartz.net/
Enjoy!
Thanks for that, very interesting indeed.
IMO they missed a trick there: the powerful brand of Rolex integrated with the ease-of-use of quartz, quite a combination for the non-WIS. :wink:There is clear and convincing evidence that by the time production of the 5035 and 5055 movements ceased in 2001 Rolex had two completely new quartz movements ready for use in a new generation of Oysterquartz Datejust and Day-Date watches. These movements (the 5335 and 5355) had 23 jewels and featured a perpetual calendar. For reasons known only to Rolex the decision was made not to put these new movements into production and the Oysterquartz line was finally dropped when the last watches had been shipped from Rolex in Geneva.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
[quote=Neil.C]You got me completely wrong or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.[/quote:9cmxt4qd]
No, you cant because you have no idea how you would had perceived quartz in the total absence of mechanical watches.
Sorry. Misread what you meant. My bad :blackeye:
Absolutely, I posted a photo of the one ebauche of the new type that escaped from [s:37ficpxd]Colditz[/s:37ficpxd] Reberg. it's a real looker. I wouldn't be surprised if Rolex are just waiting for the right moment. That would change the nature of the debate!IMO they missed a trick there: the powerful brand of Rolex integrated with the ease-of-use of quartz, quite a combination for the non-WIS. :wink:
It´ll come and I guess it is coming sooner than we think.
The SD technology iscreating a new awareness in quartz related stuff. Both Seiko and G-P came up with 40th Anniversary models to celebrate the emergence of quartz. - Seiko with a tweaked 9F marvel, G-P with a completely new in-house quartz movement. You think they are not going to use it for something else in perhaps a bit downgraded form than the 40 numbered pieces they made for the Anniversary model? 8)
Nah... Q is making a re-emergence as a viable option for B€M (read big cash mechanicals) and it is coming sooner than we might think?
[quote=JCJM]Sorry. Misread what you meant. My bad :blackeye:[/quote:2sf0tuhj]You got me completely wrong or perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
No, you cant because you have no idea how you would had perceived quartz in the total absence of mechanical watches.
No problem Jussi, I probably wasn't very clear in the first place.
Cheers,
Neil.
The centre of gravity would undoubtedly shift yes.
But then Rolex is not goung to launch anything untill the swell has already changed.
They are currently riding the top of the wave.
They will undoubtedly have alternative developments ready but would be silly to ride a different wave untill needed.
The nature of this debate will already have changed before Rolex enters this market again.
It would seem to me that it was the ( costly ) development of the Beta 20 by CEH and its members that was ultimately responsible for the split between the Swiss makers..even though this would come later on
Yes, Omega persevered with the Beta 21/22, ( cal 1300, 1301, 1302) they seemed to have a more vested interest being that they were also invloved in the manufacture. Many of the others just marketed rebadged clones of each other.
IWC produced quite a few Beta 21/22 ( Cal 2001,2002 ) models as well , albeit in low numbers, alongside the tuningfork models, which incedently most of the other participents of CEH also produced.
Rolex swiftly withdrew, as did Longines..each off to develop their own quartz...one short lived, the other a clever modular addition to a mechanical movement.
All this money, merging, co-operation to try and beat 100 laboratory peices hurriedly issued into circulation by Seiko, and by all acounts returned as swiftly, took its toll on many of them, and I suspect is what influenced the decision that effected them so greatly in the years to come.
And although I have more respect for the likes of Longines with the Ultraquartz, and Omega for the multitude of electronic in-house movements they produced, I think with hindsight they would have followed the Rolex path, or even dumped quartz altogether like IWC did later on.
Alternatively we could summise that it had nothing to do with economics, and that the early Japanese quartz didn't almost kill off the Swiss watch industry...it was actually their own 80's quartz models that did that...
K
It´ll come and I guess it is coming sooner than we think.
The price premium on mechanical ís getting rather big in the light of performanace but it is not about that.
It needs a change in fashion(able) to effect a change in desirability.
Even if the trend would change, the mass of the market is só huge that it will be years before it will have a serious effect.
I couldn't agree more - Rolex may be conservative, but they are intelligently conservative. They wouldn't dream of jumping on a bandwagon until it is quite clear where it is going.The centre of gravity would undoubtedly shift yes.
But then Rolex is not goung to launch anything untill the swell has already changed.
They are currently riding the top of the wave.
They will undoubtedly have alternative developments ready but would be silly to ride a different wave untill needed.
The nature of this debate will already have changed before Rolex enters this market again.
All this money, merging, co-operation to try and beat 100 laboratory peices hurriedly issued into circulation by Seiko, and by all acounts returned as swiftly, took its toll on many of them, and I suspect is what influenced the decision that effected them so greatly in the years to come.
I'm not certain that they were trying to beat the Seiko stuff - don't forget that the beta series had been around for a very long time but just wasn't very good and so they kept trying to improve it. The Bulova and GP offerings were the best at the time. All of the first round of quartz were shown at Basel in '70 or '71 which suggests that the technology had been in development pretty well in parallel, Seiko just pulled a fast one, ASUAG could have launched an equally immature product two years earlier. The Swiss were ahead of the Japanese with quartz until at least the mid seventies.
I agree that the profusion of new designs helped kill the Swiss, but I'd argue that it was overheated developments like the Omega 10xx, Certina 288 and so on that did far more harm than quartz ever did, just as the 7x was the weapon of Japanese dominance.
I still think that the recession was the real assassin though
Are you writing that the plastic Swatches launched March ´83 nearly killed the traditional Swiss industry?
No..it was a tongue in cheek reference to some of the ghastly models that were available ftom the likes of Omega, IWC in that period.Are you writing that the plastic Swatches launched March ´83 nearly killed the traditional Swiss industry?
Agreed..I somewhat simplified it, and reading back have implied that the Beta project was a kneejerk reaction to the impending threat..as opposed to an already long estaablished one. What I meant to get across was, that due to the fact Seikos model arrival into the market was imminent, it would have probably caused excess costs and pressure on CEH and its partners to counter launch.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
