Auto vs. hand wound vs. quartz

[Huertecilla]

Since a watch is a time keeping instrument, the one best at keeping time is the better :idea:

If you extended that argument to cars we'd all be driving a Toyota or Honda. Which are fine cars, but some prefer an Alfa Romeo...
It is so much more than 'a time keeping instrument'. That's why we're all on here... regularly.

z

Sure, but it avoids confusion to separate the functional - from the fashioshionable aspects.

There is no discussing the latter as there is no discussing tatse.
There is no discussing the performance aspect either as that can be simply measured.

Prefer whatever you like, just do not confuse like with beter if you do not want to kid yourself.

[Joyce]

At the risk of causing offence -
This is my understanding : )

Quartz are for those that would like to know the time but don't understand watches.
They may, or may not, be able to wind a watch.

Auto are for those that would like to know the time and understand watches a little.
They may, or may not, be able to wind a watch.

Hand wound are for those that would like to know the time and understand watches.
Additionally, they are very likely to be able to wind a watch.

In respect of Auto vs Manual mechanical watches -

I believe that it is all about whether the potentialy negative logistical dynamics of a winding rotor (esp bearing loads) are worthwhile in the case (excuse pun please) of an instrument that might otherwise be quite easily charged by simply winding the crown to re-tension the main-spring

Naturally, and to prove the worhtless nature of my generalisation - I have loads of all three varieties !

[Huertecilla]

Anyway, what is the raison d'etre of the modern wrist watch?

In mý life for a large part of the day it is the only way I can tell more accurate clock time than by watching at the sun. Any quartz would do as a worry free instrument for that.

It's more than just doing what most people want and telling the time?

Again for mé it is mainly jewelry when worn beyond the above.

The one I will done tonight is meant as a conversation piece too.

What's the cut-off period for 'modern'?

The advent of electronics as a functional part for time keeping.

[hippy]

'Quartz for sports'
i.e. something that is cheap and fairly knockproof, so if it gets a biffying it doesn't matter too much.
Other times I would prefer an automatic

I cycle and have hit the deck with my beater Seiko 5 on and it seems unaffected.
How susceptible to sharp knocks are autos? ie. would dropping my older 6309 require a service?

[Huertecilla]

At the risk of causing offence -
This is my understanding : )

Quartz are for those that would like to know the time but don't understand watches.
They may, or may not, be able to wind a watch.

Auto are for those that would like to know the time and understand watches a little.
They may, or may not, be able to wind a watch.

Hand wound are for those that would like to know the time and understand watches.
Additionally, they are very likely to be able to wind a watch.

In respect of Auto vs Manual mechanical watches -

I believe that it is all about whether the potentialy negative logistical dynamics of a winding rotor (esp bearing loads) are worthwhile in the case (excuse pun please) of an instrument that might otherwise be quite easily charged by simply winding the crown to re-tension the main-spring

Naturally, and to prove the worhtless nature of my generalisation - I have loads of all three varieties !

You are fúnny!

I think I will go hand wind my automatic digital quartz Ventura now :albino:

[zelig]

Sure, but it avoids confusion to separate the functional - from the fashioshionable aspects.

There is no discussing the latter as there is no discussing tatse.
There is no discussing the performance aspect either as that can be simply measured.

Prefer whatever you like, just do not confuse like with beter if you do not want to kid yourself.

As I posted earlier in this thread - I like both for different reasons.
Hence I have a an Atomic G Shock & Sinn UX GSG9 - super accuracy & something mechanicals cannot do (being oild filled).
& numerous automatics - because they perform well enough & I like the (mechanical) engineering aspects of them.

So do not confuse 'better' with 'like' :wink:

z

[pacchi]

If you go for a Panerai Hand-Wind is the only way to go, all others Auto

? Hein
explain!
Are you saying that Panerai is the ultimative handwound watch or...?

Please share your arguments on this VERY bold statement, considering that the vast majority of handwound Panerais are powered by modified Unitas 6497 movements, except for the very very few original Pannies with their Angelus movements and the high end 8 and 10 days in house Panerai movements OP XIV, P2002, P2004, P2005

[studs]

... Anyway, what is the raison d'etre of the modern wrist watch? It's more than just doing what most people want and telling the time? What's the cut-off period for 'modern'?

That's it, the very point I was making... perhaps a little too subtly. There is an ever shrinking raison d'etre for the modern wristwatch beyond a simple, reliable and easily portable implement for telling the time at a moments notice. Since we already have an embarrassment of riches in the choices we can make to fulfil this requirement, why do we need such investment and effort just to reinvent the wheel? Our 'modern' technology driven lifestyles already quell the need for many people to "must" wear a wristwatch and even when compelled to do so, anything beyond a fifty quid Casio is gilding the lily in terms of primary role performance.

[lysanderxiii]

Truth be known it is not the mechanicals that are costing horology dearly, it is the thermo-compensated quartz that is holding up progress... :shock:

And, they cost society dearly as well.

If money and effort wasted on these things, which are barely able to hold 5 second per year (which is far too inaccurate for GPS and frequency hopping radio communication), we would have cheap chip scale atomic clocks....

Example: the GPS requirement for four satellites for a positive location fix is due to poor quartz clock performance in the receiver; this could be reduced to just three if the receiver had an atomic clock. That means 25% fewer satellites to launch and maintain. :wink:

But no, we have to waste effort on crappy thermo-compensated quartz clock that are a million times inferior to atomics... :roll:

[Huertecilla]

There is an ever shrinking raison d'etre for the modern wristwatch beyond a simple, reliable and easily portable implement for telling the time at a moments notice. Since we already have an embarrassment of riches in the choices we can make to fulfil this requirement, why do we need such investment and effort just to reinvent the wheel? Our 'modern' technology driven lifestyles already quell the need for many people to "must" wear a wristwatch and even when compelled to do so, anything beyond a fifty quid Casio is gilding the lily in terms of primary role performance.

I mostly live a low tech life eating home grown food and the F91-W does the job and does not cost 50 quid. For time keeping purposes it is all I need. It is the best personal time keeping instrument for the buck there is.

Even when appreciating the wonderfull mechanics of a wiggly spring oscilator movement I can do perfectly well with an Vostok Amphibian costing less than 50 quid.

The rest is because I wánt to.
Because the technology and feel of the hand wind automatic digital VEM_99 fascinates me.
Because I find 5 or 10 secs/year tc time keeping fascinating.
Because I find rc technology fascinating.
Because I find the ruggedness of solid state mind boggling.
Because I find GS level of finish 8)
Because I find the feeling of wearing an incognito 18k 9F61 a decadent personal pleasure.
Because some watches are guaranteed conversation subjects and there are MANY subjects to choose from.
Etcetera.

Bottom line remains that for no worries time keeping a solid state electronic digital quartz with an external power source is the measure of current things and the rest is added functionality of the watch beyond functionality.
Sometimes that added functionality overshadows the time keeping function an is an inferior performance preferred for fashion, appriciation, status or whatever reason.
Rolex illustrates this as this brand axed their best-by-far-and-thén-some oysterquartz and successor in favour of top notch desireable product image.
Preference apart there is no doubt that the oysterquartz was thé better Rolex; on par with the other models in all aspects but superlative in performance.
Basically the Rolex mechanical dive watch has been a fashion accessory since electronics in watches.
Personally I do not get what wis think is wrong with that and why they insist on revering imaginary ´qualities´ instead of just appreciating it as a wonderfull piece of stunningly well engineered and - made anachronistic technology.

[PreacherCain]

Prefer whatever you like, just do not confuse like with beter if you do not want to kid yourself.

Well... To say that watch A is "better" than watch B rather depends on what you think it is better at, no?

Clearly, a watch is primarily a timekeeping device - but, IMO at least, it's a timekeeping device in the same way that a biro, a Sharpie and a Mont Blanc are all writing implements. A watch can also be (among other things): decoration, a status symbol, a piece of art, and a means of self-expression.

To one person, a watch may simply be a timekeeping device, and accuracy would the quite reasonably be the one criterion by which they judge it, but other people tend not to divorce the timekeeping function so completely from the more subjective aspects when deciding what we prefer.

Or to put it another way, context is important: a G-shock would be "better" for wearing while mountain-biking than a Patek Philippe. The opposite could well be true for wearing at a black tie dinner.

Then again, I am quite a fan of more "old-school" technology in various aspects of life, so I am biased... :)

[Huertecilla]

Prefer whatever you like, just do not confuse like with beter if you do not want to kid yourself.

Well... To say that watch A is "better" than watch B rather depends on what you think it is better at, no?

That is what I wrote :idea:

A wristwatch can have many functions and it is horses for courses.
The race for functionality has been run for decennia now. Unfortunately.
On the one hand the tc quartz is curtailing the perceived need for better accuracy and the mechanical fashion is curtailing funding for other development.

I think the initative to stop third party supply of ETA calibers may prove to be another stroke of Hayek´s genius in this perspective.
The mechanical fashion in luxury watches will not remain at the current dizzy, unsupported hight and thén what?

[andyb]

... Anyway, what is the raison d'etre of the modern wrist watch? It's more than just doing what most people want and telling the time? What's the cut-off period for 'modern'?

That's it, the very point I was making... perhaps a little too subtly. There is an ever shrinking raison d'etre for the modern wristwatch beyond a simple, reliable and easily portable implement for telling the time at a moments notice. Since we already have an embarrassment of riches in the choices we can make to fulfil this requirement, why do we need such investment and effort just to reinvent the wheel? Our 'modern' technology driven lifestyles already quell the need for many people to "must" wear a wristwatch and even when compelled to do so, anything beyond a fifty quid Casio is gilding the lily in terms of primary role performance.

My question wasn't 'but yeah, what's the point of a watch these days?' but more along the lines of what your thoughts were on what the reason of a watch is nowadays. From what you write above, it's true, there's a redundancy - but it seems to imply that the 'modern wristwatch' is just heading in the direction of being jewellery only. That can't be all that a watch is to be these days, can it?

[lysanderxiii]

I mostly live a low tech life eating home grown food and the F91-W does the job... etc, etc, etc.

Or, to put it more succinctly, I makes you happy. I am glad you are happy with your collection.

Now, is it possible that other types of watches make other people (who are not you) happy? It is possible that they have different criteria for what will make them happy? Is it possible that for some, the mechanical movement gives them enjoyment? Do you feel some need to denigrate other peoples choices?

As to this:

the mechanical fashion is curtailing funding for other development.

That is ridiculous. Does the continued production of petrol and diesel powered car curtail development of future vehicles with alternate power sources? No, it funds it....

[Geewhizz]

I have a hand wound and a quartz (both are busted)
So my next one will be an auto.

[lysanderxiii]

From what [Huertecilla] write[s] seems to imply that the 'modern wristwatch' is just heading in the direction of being jewellery only. That can't be all that a watch is to be these days, can it?

The watch, either pocket or wrist has always been a dual purpose item. It has been a useful tool to tell time, and is has been an ornament. Otherwise, why would there be such things as engraved gold cased pocket watches?

This is still the case. There are those who place functionality above all else (the 21 jewel railroad grade Hamilton in a nickel brass case), and those who place the ornamental qualities above all else (the diamond encrusted 48mm wrist bangle), and those with tastes somewhere in-between.

Some people seem to think that there are only the two extremes and the pure functionality is the only way to go. But, I am curious why these people do not seem to see that from a pure functionality view, quartz, even TC quartz, is dead compared to CSA….

[andyb]

Truth be known it is not the mechanicals that are costing horology dearly, it is the thermo-compensated quartz that is holding up progress... :shock:

And, they cost society dearly as well.

If money and effort wasted on these things, which are barely able to hold 5 second per year (which is far too inaccurate for GPS and frequency hopping radio communication), we would have cheap chip scale atomic clocks....

Example: the GPS requirement for four satellites for a positive location fix is due to poor quartz clock performance in the receiver; this could be reduced to just three if the receiver had an atomic clock. That means 25% fewer satellites to launch and maintain. :wink:

But no, we have to waste effort on crappy thermo-compensated quartz clock that are a million times inferior to atomics... :roll:

lIf you have the prevailing view that quartz is taking a back seat to mechanicals then where does that leave chip scale atomic clocks? From a marketing p.o.v they still won't have the 'soul' of a mechanical.

Anyway, would we need portable atomic timepieces or is it sufficient to have radio controlled (by GPS signal or otherwise) standard quartz watches? Do we need to have autonomous, non-tethered accuracy? Is the accuracy of a quartz, corrected daily, not sufficient. I mean, you can drive radio signal driven from whatever atomic clock is the most accurate (and update it) - although you're still out by 3X10^6 x the distance to your watch plus however long it takes for the watch to do what it does.

Would it be correct to assume that to use 3 satellites for a fix, even if the receiver had a super accurate clock, the receiver would have to have been factory set to UTC from the same source as the satellites? Like a master clock?

[andyb]

From what [Huertecilla] write[s] seems to imply that the 'modern wristwatch' is just heading in the direction of being jewellery only. That can't be all that a watch is to be these days, can it?

The watch, either pocket or wrist has always been a dual purpose item. It has been a useful tool to tell time, and is has been an ornament. Otherwise, why would there be such things as engraved gold cased pocket watches?

This is still the case. There are those who place functionality above all else (the 21 jewel railroad grade Hamilton in a nickel brass case), and those who place the ornamental qualities above all else (the diamond encrusted 48mm wrist bangle), and those with tastes somewhere in-between.

Some people seem to think that there are only the two extremes and the pure functionality is the only way to go. But, I am curious why these people do not seem to see that from a pure functionality view, quartz, even TC quartz, is dead compared to CSA….

To be fair, I was replying to studs. And I agree with you. I don't know if there's any CSA powered wristwatches out there yet though. If I could buy one and afford one (and yes, liked the look of it) I don't see why I wouldn't own one over a TC quartz.

[thenikjones]

If you go for a Panerai Hand-Wind is the only way to go, all others Auto

? Hein
explain!
Are you saying that Panerai is the ultimative handwound watch or...?

Please share your arguments on this VERY bold statement, considering that the vast majority of handwound Panerais are powered by modified Unitas 6497 movements, except for the very very few original Pannies with their Angelus movements and the high end 8 and 10 days in house Panerai movements OP XIV, P2002, P2004, P2005

I think you misunderstood - I believe Bazza is saying - if you buy a Panerai, buy a hand-wound model [I would agree]

He is not saying [AFAIK] that if you are buying a hand-wound watch, to buy a Panerai - that would be very bold indeed :!: :wink:

[verv]

i like auto and handwound.

i dont like quartz.. it would always feel like a cheap version of an auto/mech.
ive tried, and they get flipped instantly.. so now i wouldnt bother.

the exploded diagrams noted earlier in the thread left me cold as well, so theres no hope.
(not that i was looking for any, as far as battery operated is concerned)

[Redd]

On impluse I purchased a Citizen Eco Drive on the bay at the weekend as a M-F grab and run watch. After auto's only for some time now I'm looking forward to seeing how I get on with it.

[studs]

To be fair, I was replying to studs...

I’ll sum up thus and then leave it at that…

Technological development of many and varied tools and implements still in prolific use today; from the axe, through the pen, right down to the zip, is effectively at an end. These products have reached their zenith in terms of essential form and function within their remit. I just happen to believe that the wristwatch (in terms of pure performance you understand and not the subjective, intangible and esoteric qualities we WIS are so fond of) has now reached a similar point in its history and being. Put simply, there are no longer any sufficiently strong evolutionary drivers for further meaningful technological gain for the wristwatch in its own right. Impatient horological techno-geeks will have to be content with the implementations of unrelated trickle down technologies for their kicks from now on and that’s only if anyone can ever be sufficiently bothered to even put them into a watch. All imho of course.

[DaveS]

Over 60's viewpoint.

Autos: Great for 20's - 60's who are active enough to keep them wound.

Hand wound: Great for 20's to 60's who can remember to wind them at least once per day/

Quartz: Great for 60 - 65: who aren't active and/or can't remember to wind a watch and/or can remember what time is or give a toss what time it is.

Only kidding! :D

Cheers
Dave

[mickygee]

auto, is in my opinion far superior to everything else, no need to wind and has the intrinsic value of the mechanised movement

[robbie]

Just to be perverse; I've always hankered after a quartz Rolex. Unloved in the tidal surge of mechanicals but with a great provenance. Robbie

[aksing]

I've got a Breitling Steelfish auto for weekends, a Cartier Tank hand wind for special occasions and a Tag quartz for just quickly putting on and going anywhere.

[MonkeyBoy]

I have a hand wound, I even wind it up sometimes

[lambros]

If you want a more personal relation definatelly hand wound in my opinion.
Best
L

[earlsy]

Hand wind. I enjoy the ritual of winding daily... One wrist watch, one pocket watch and an alarm clock...

[AndySquirrel]

They are all great :)

[andyb]

Technological development of many and varied tools and implements still in prolific use today; from the axe, through the pen, right down to the zip, is effectively at an end. These products have reached their zenith in terms of essential form and function within their remit.

Form and function is not the same as technological development. The function of a pen and the form hasn't changed much from a stick used to draw in the sand or the dirt. Technologically we've gone from there to wax tablet & stylus, up to quill pens, fountain pens, biros, gel pens & space pens (ink tech), touch screen & styles/electronic tablet & stylus, 'livescribes' and other digital pens. I'm not up to speed on axes and zips but yes, the form & function is stable. The technological development of these however, probably advances via the materials used. The door is still open for technological advance.

I just happen to believe that the wristwatch (in terms of pure performance you understand and not the subjective, intangible and esoteric qualities we WIS are so fond of) has now reached a similar point in its history and being. Put simply, there are no longer any sufficiently strong evolutionary drivers for further meaningful technological gain for the wristwatch in its own right. Impatient horological techno-geeks will have to be content with the implementations of unrelated trickle down technologies for their kicks from now on and that’s only if anyone can ever be sufficiently bothered to even put them into a watch. All imho of course.

I think I see where you are coming from. That is, there is no need to focus pure development on the wristwatch anymore as we've reached some sort of plateau. But since the form and function had been settled on since someone first strapped a mechanical watch to their wrist, what were and are the evolutionary drivers for further meaningful technological gain of the wristwatch alone?
In other words, your statement could have been applied at that point in time; since then we've seen vibrating quartz, solar power, batteries, etc. (trickle down tech not specifically developed for the wristwatch alone?). Beyond 'watch+strap+wrist = wristwatch' could we say there hasn't been any 'sufficiently strong evolutionary drivers'? We've already got a wristwatch.

So what am I getting at? That your statement is correct but that what I think you imply by it, is false. There is no plateau so far, maybe just a lessening of the slope, we're not done with tech yet and someone will always be sufficiently bothered to put it into a wristwatch if there's money to be made or just because they can.

[Harry Tuttle]

What interested me when the first digital cameras were introduced, was that once free of the requirement to present a piece of film to a light source at a 90 degree angle and to have some sort of device for holding the film tight fed and from one end to another, a camera could be free to follow a new form factor. And for the first few years that's what happened, you had some radical designs that followed the form of the face, or freed the user from a view finder altogether. These designs gradually faded away in favour of a return to a traditional SLR shape that squished the users nose against the back of the camera and forced them to look down an increasingly tunnel like frame. Why did this happen? I can only guess that it was something to do with conservative end users demanding that cameras looked like a proper camera and only paying for ones that did, no matter how much the design may have constrained the way they took pictures.

With the advent of digital watches perhaps the same was true. When the first LED and LCD designs were produced there was an opportunity to radically change the design of watches once there was no real need for a clockwork mechanism. But once again the market swung back away from digital to analogue traditional shaped watches. Again, the purchaser making it quite clear that they wanted a particular type of form and function that looked a lot like a traditional watch, probably catching the manufacturers by surprise from what I've read on forums like this.

But I think that watches are different to cameras even though both are highly influenced by developments in technology. Cameras are primarily devices for capturing images, and although there are other devices that can do this job, none really come close to the quality of a high end DSLR. There are of course people who respond to cameras aesthetically and maybe even collect them. But collectors are not generally buying in the general market, they're buying second hand cameras and so are not really directly participating in the market forces that drive camera evolution.

A watch, it seems to me, is not primarily a horological device although that is its purpose. I'd hazard a guess that for the vast majority of us here and possibly in the general populace they are about our childhood memories of the watch our father wore when we unquestioningly held him at the centre of our world; or they are a totem of our dreams of another more exotic and exciting life like the Bond Submariner; or they represent our desire to be of a different status to our humdrum and ordinary lives and we become someone else when we strap on the same watch worn by George Clooney or Nicole Kidman; or they are the watch that went to the moon and were worn by a childhood hero; or they are whatever it is that you dream of.

Whatever it is, we're not responding to the watch as a purely mechanical or electrical device, it has become a sort of avatar. And I guess that is why there is so much emotion invested in them, and its that emotion that lies behind much of this thread. So actually I don't really think it matters much whether the watch is quartz, hand wound or automatic, or rather, it matters to me, but for completely personal reasons in a different way to that way it matters to you.

I'm going to always want a Speedmaster because Pete Conrad and Buzz Aldrin wore them on the moon. I'm not buying a Speedmaster because its been tested by NASA or even that it is that accurate (although I'm sure it's a damned fine watch) I'm buying Tranquility Base, and the welling up of tears every time I see film of the Saturn 5s going up and to be reminded of the poetry of mission controllers calling out over the loop at Houston. That's my avatar and I'm sure yours are all different but equally as powerful, otherwise why would we spend so much time and energy here?

So the short answer for me is that when I go hill walking or sailing I'm going to wear a cheap quartz that is accurate, water tight and I don't care whether it gets bashed. The fact that I can sling it in the corner and it'll probably still be going when I pick it up next time is a bonus. No matter how much some of us buy into the myth of mechanical military watches, like most every squaddy in the world I'm going to probably buy a G-shock because I don't really care about it that much (deeply sorry to all G-shock fans) and because of that its expendable.

If I go diving I'm going to use a computer and I may take a watch as a back-up. When I used to dive it was a quartz Aqualand. That watch is broken now, so the next time I dive it may well be a Seiko. Actually it doesn't matter, the fact that the watch has been on an adventure with me means we have a bond, and it becomes special because of that.

For everyday wear I'm going to choose a mechanical watch. The watch will have a design I like and in my case will be different to the popular watches that everyone else I work with wears. I'll fondly imagine that it says something about my taste and it'll have some sort of history or story that makes it interesting to me but probably not to any one else. Part of what I do professionally is ergonomics, so I'm interested in design and ease of use and telling the time at a glance so there will be that aspect involved in my choice of watch. Most of the time it'll be an automatic for convenience (and because there is something undeniably cool about a mechanism that's almost like a perpetual motion machine). At the weekend it'll probably be a hand wound because its damned difficult to keep two automatics going at once and watch winders seem to me to be a little bit silly (of course your mileage may vary) and it seems less hassle to pick up a hand wound for occasional use.

But in my dreams I'm always going to be walking on the moon with Pete Conrad, or diving with Jaques Cousteau and the watches are only really a short cut for this.

And that's my answer and its just right. And its not your answer and that's right too, because that makes it all the more interesting and fun...

[Matt O.]

Something neat about the thought of handing down a mechanical, serviceable watch. Too many things can and will go wrong with a quartz over time for it to really be an heirloom. That said, I have but two mechanical watches and too many quartz models. However, those two mechanical models were from each grandfather.

I think you have to have one of each to really appreciate all fully. Like listening to a little opera and classical can help you appreciate rock & roll... :cheers:

[gregory]

Automatic AND manual hand wound for me.. as they are both mechanical, which I find pleasing.

Quartz watches are fine.. but in general, don't have a sweeping hand movement, which is one of my favourite aesthetics of a watch. How the hand flows.

You can throw electronic into the equation... now that is a perpetual flow of a sweeping second hand. Without the jitter.

However... the jitter appeals to me. It still means no battery. :)

[andyb190]

I have 2 quartz (Zeno and Breitling Pluton)....the Zeno I wear to work where there is a risk of it being wrecked in a scuffle. I love the B but only use it occasionally ...mostly to set my 2 hand winds.

I have 2 handwinds, (Railmaster XXL, Glycine KMU48), that are essential for me; because of the above I only wear my better watches every few days and autos would always be on a winder. Having to hand wind them adds to the occasion and helps me.......well it just makes me feel good.

[gregory]

Having to hand wind them adds to the occasion and helps me.......well it just makes me feel good.

What he said too ^^^^ !

Just gonna wind mine up now.. it always takes me back, and reminds me of my dad when I was younger. The old fashioned way. :)