closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 104

Thread: Preferring quartz over mechanical?

  1. #1
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    487

    Preferring quartz over mechanical?

    This has been something I've been thinking about lately with watch enthusiasts, it seems mostly everyone tends to favour mechanical over quartz, usually with the argument that an mechanical has "soul" whereas a quartz does not. Do you get many the other way round? Favouring the quartz over an automatic? I have seen a few but very rare ever see anyone with this point of view.

    This is of course only directed to the watch enthusiasts since your average person will most likely favour a quartz.

  2. #2
    Grand Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    14,564
    There's a distinct snobbery about the mechanical watch (And, it seems to me, for automatics above manual watches - all wrong, imo).

    I'd like to say I was above it, but when I bought my Hydroconquest, I succumbed and swapped my original order for a quartz one for an automatic, although that was partly because I'd just (on a bit of a whim) bought myself a Citizen quartz watch.

    I suppose there's a strong argument that there's more WORK in a mechanical watch and it's that that 'watch enthusiasts' appreciate. There's nothing interesting about the way a quartz mechanism looks (I know someone will post the most complex quartz mechanism available in response, but the most complex mechanical mechanism will still 'win' )

    If you want to tell the time, get a quartz

    M.
    Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?

  3. #3
    Craftsman canuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    671
    I prefer automatics but with the expectation that I'm always going to be a few seconds off per day but with the trade-off of having a seconds hand that hits the marks. Now if I'm wearing a quartz, I expect it to be perfect (time and hand hitting their marks perfectly) and when this isn't the case it just not good enough in my opinion. With that said, I prefer the citizen eco-drive quartz as it doesn't need a battery and wish more manufacturers could use the technology. My eco-drives all keep perfect time and the seconds hands hit their marks... anything else is too frustrating as I can't help but look at it 'missing'.
    Last edited by canuck; 7th July 2013 at 11:15.

  4. #4
    Master bigbaddes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Markinch, Fife.
    Posts
    1,433
    Me likeee both. frankly I am still amazed that mechanical devices can be produced to be anything like as accurate as they are. that said I have worked in the electronics and semiconductor industries for years and the "out by seconds a day" horrifies me at a certain level. hence my toes are dipped in both ponds...for someone to say that a quartz watch has less soul than a mechanical simply means that they do not have any inkling of the goings on at component level never mind the basic physics below that again. and to be brutally honest most of the time I just like watches 'cos they look nice

  5. #5
    Master RJM25R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wondering why people with no interest in watches are on a watch forum?
    Posts
    7,991
    Blog Entries
    5
    I buy watches if I like the way they look, feel and wear, and feel they're good value for money (I rarely buy brand new so I can have more). Movement is of secondary concern.

    I have a quartz Seamaster bond, I don't think the auto is better or worse but for the price, it seemed better value.

    My Monaco is auto, but I would happily buy a quartz version (if such a thing existed)

  6. #6
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    487
    Cheers for the input guys. Also I have heard before when people say they fail to see why people purchase expensive quartz watches, since the movement probably only cost £10-£50. Ok let's just assume this is true....but does making mechanical movements actually cost THAT much more to justify the price?

  7. #7
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    West Wales
    Posts
    2,783
    My beater, purchased around 1980.

    All I've ever done is change the battery a few times.

    Brilliant watch....only 33 years old.


    Img_0754 by Dave in Wales, on Flickr

  8. #8
    I much prefer my current watches to be quartz.

    With vintage watches bought for the history it is different.

    I have quite a number of mechanical watches, that I got many years ago. They sit there unused and unworn in the main. Why? They don't keep very good time by today's best standards, they need constant adjustment, they are relatively fragile and if I wear them they will need very expensive servicing down the line, often putting me at the mercy of some mercenary watch company.

    Quartz contain much more of man's skills and ingenuity than a clockwork watch. If I was to transport a watchmaker from the 19th century to today he would understand and could work on the mechanical watch. However, a solar, atomic watch would be indistinguishable from magic to him.

    However, probably the main reason I don't buy Swiss mechanicals any more, is that I don't like to feel like a mug.

    Quartz when first produced were far more expensive than mechanicals. However as design and production techniques improved they became vastly more cheaper to produce.

    Actually the same thing has happened to mechanical watches though you wouldn't know it. Production techniques, design, automated machinery etc etc will have reduced the cost of production of mechanical watches by a great amount. (Nearly all mechanical watches are mass produced by machinery).

    The same thing has happened across nearly all spheres, cars, TVs, white goods etc etc. These are much cheaper to buy today, relative to average incomes, for the consumer than they were in the Sixties. The quality and performance is much better as well. But with watches they have hugely increased the relative price of most Swiss watches. You are not paying a true market price, you are paying a controlled, semi cartel, price based on marketing. Why don't people hanker after old Bakelite TVs with their slow switching valves and general fragility? Nobody has marketed them as some wonderful desirable thing as against the soulless digital things we actually buy today, that's why..

    Consumers in this market are seen as mugs to be squeezed for as much money as they can be, unrelated to the cost or actual performance of the product. Marketing is to convince people they are getting something special when it isn't.

    Yes, people still like their, relatively slow, classic cars with their unreliable multi carbs, distributors, basic brakes and suspensions etc etc. Hell I have got a rare classic sports car myself that I have owned from new.

    However, just try to manufacture a similar spec'd car today and sell it in the market, as a new product, at a huge premium over modern cars and see how far you get!

    My daughter indulges herself in designer bags. She owns quite a few running up to $4000. They run well beyond this out there as well.

    Why do women lust after a Chanel handbag? Do they use amazing materials not used on 'ordinary' bags? Do they perform so much better?

    Or has marketing convinced them that they are buying into some luxurious and exclusive lifestyle not available to owners of pleb bags?

    Must be some reason!

    Just imagine if Quartz had remained as expensive as when it was first brought out. Only a very small minority of consumers could afford them.

    If that was the same today. Instead of people going ooh ahh at someone posting their latest mechanical Patek or ALS, they would be doing it to someone posting their exclusive quartz watch, unobtainable except to the richest.

    The jump second? Well, before quartz, this was a highly desirable very rare and very expensive complication on a mechanical watch. Now that it is ubiquitous on quartz, people apparently dislike the jump second and like the more exclusive 'stutter' second. Why? Anything to do with marketing do you think?

    I am sure that there will be plenty of people on here who will declare that if quartz had remained hugely expensive and exclusive, they would think exactly the same as now.

    However, believe me, by and large they wouldn't. They would be cooing over the miracle of that jump second, ultra accurate, ultra exclusive, ultra expensive, quartz watch. The majority of us having to make do with the poorly performing, more common mechanical.

    Its the name of the game.


    No, the main reason why I don't buy Swiss mechanicals is that I like to go through life without feeling like a mug, which I would if I spent $10,000 on a mass produced SS mechanical watch.







    Mitch
    Last edited by Mitch; 7th July 2013 at 11:37.

  9. #9
    Master AIDM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somerset.
    Posts
    2,323
    Blog Entries
    22
    I'm also in the camp that likes watches, the movement auto or quartz isn't that relevant to whether I like the watch or not.

    I will admit to a mechanical snobbery in my early watch fancying days, if you search you'll probably be able to quote me as saying 'quartz have no soul' whatever that actually means! But there are quartz watches that provide that same 'more than just a load of components' feeling on the wrist IMHO as an example:



    And more recent:



    Not all quartz are the same - equally not all mechanical movements are the same, there are some pretty cheap and naff versions of them both to be found!

    Rob

  10. #10
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,442
    I like both, but on balance end up wearing quartz more often as some of my favourites are quartz - an Oysterquartz and a Grand Seiko Quartz. Due to the highly accurate, thermocompensated in-house movements in these I find them no less 'soulful' or interesting than autos, in fact more unique than a great many run of the mill mechanicals. A couple of old style and new style quartz Omega ATs also get plenty of use - the independent hour hand is useful when changing time zone, and puts them in a worthy tradition going back to the Megaquartz (I've had a couple of those too over the years). They are an obvious choice for a weekend away.

    That's not to say I don't like mechanicals as I very much appreciate those too, but there's a limit to how many I want due to the service charges. I'm not on one 'side' or the other, I simply like watches that have something special about them. Some of those happen to be quartz, and once you find one that is quartz, interesting and great looking, it will inevitably get a lot of wrist time due to the convenience.

    This debate often comes up and people seem to get quite passionate about it. Lately a few more people seem to be speaking up for quartz, or questioning the pre-conception that mechanical = fine craftsmenship = expensive = luxury = superior. A few may also be thinking that something like a GS 9F quartz actually has an awful lot going for it compared to, say, an ETA2824. For me, I can appreciate the anachronistic romance of mechanical and the futuristic feel of the quartz - even the retro-futuristic appeal of early quartz. I just like watches.

  11. #11
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    ...
    Wow...I have to say that was an interesting read and you make some good points. Cheers for that.

  12. #12
    Master Glen Goyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    3,452
    My latest acuistion is a G-shock. Actually 4 G-Shocks. Two are atomic solar and I must say it is great to know these watches are never more than a fraction of a second off. Solar also means you never need to change batteries. Then the G-shock part means it can survive anything from heat to shocks and water. Should you really damage the case you can buy a new one for practically nothing.

    You have to like the style but there is a lot to respect on these digitals.

  13. #13
    Prefer the sweep of seconds hand to a ticking action.
    If it were possible to get a quartz to sweep without draining battery life, I would be in.

  14. #14
    I love mechanicals, now a days after wearing ecodrive and kinetic I just cant really get on with autos. I want reliability and accuracy along with low service costs. All these come with quartz.

  15. #15
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    N.ireland
    Posts
    5,058
    Excuse to show new watch pic.

  16. #16
    Master TakesALickin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indianapolis, USA
    Posts
    2,343
    I agree with everything Mitch said above, and thank him for saying it, because I had too many barley pops last night and I'd most likely be trying to come up with something that well thought out if he hadn't said it first. And my head hurts too much right now for that.

    It's my observation that the mechanical obsession is the provence of the newer watch collector, and that over time most collectors come back (at least partiallly) to quartz. The technology in and of itself is quite an achievement. The convenience of ownership, with less need for service, can't be overlooked. After you've owned several dozen mechanicals and had to deal with their accuracy and maintenance issues, the bloom starts to come off the rose.

    So right now, I don't have a preference for one over the other. I like to think there is room in my garden for many different flowers.

  17. #17
    Grand Master Neil.C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SE England
    Posts
    27,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    Why don't people hanker after old Bakelite TVs with their slow switching valves and general fragility? Nobody has marketed them as some wonderful desirable thing as against the soulless digital things we actually buy today, that's why..
    True of TV's but people pay a lot more for valve guitar amps.

    And you can hear the difference.

    Old technology is not always worse.
    Cheers,
    Neil.

  18. #18
    Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    2,898
    Quote Originally Posted by UKWatchGuy View Post
    Prefer the sweep of seconds hand to a ticking action.
    If it were possible to get a quartz to sweep without draining battery life, I would be in.
    Try an Accutron or F300 or Megaquartz

  19. #19
    Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ayrshire
    Posts
    2,898
    I like interesting watches.

    Manuals , Autos , I find these interesting.

    Tuning fork types (hummers) I find interesting. Although I find most of the Accutron's ugly as sin and the spaceview to be interestig rather than attractive. If hummers had become the standard over quartz I doubt I would be quite so enchanted by them ( they do sound nice though)

    Quartz...its not that interesting in itself ; I toyed with buying an 80s seamaster quartz but I couldn't quite shake the feeling that the quartz nature would always leave me disatisfied.

    I was quite excited by the Omega Z33 thread but left cold by the actual watch itself (not really to do with it being quartz though). However I have bought other mechanical watches where the internal mechanism was the least of the attraction : Uboat Classico and Magrette Regattare, more just the bonkers design of the watches.

  20. #20
    Master Artistmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Devon, U.K.
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.f View Post
    Excuse to show new watch pic.
    That is just a beautiful watch.... a true piece of horological history too and very important for that.

  21. #21
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    3,271
    I am a lazy so and so and my gripe is getting the battery changed every few years. You can argue that automatics need servicing too and cost a lot more.

    As some have eluded there are some very very good quartz model out there.

  22. #22
    Craftsman canuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Artistmike View Post
    That is just a beautiful watch.... a true piece of horological history too and very important for that.
    I couldn't live with those screw heads not all being the same orientation though.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by tim2012 View Post
    I am a lazy so and so and my gripe is getting the battery changed every few years. You can argue that automatics need servicing too and cost a lot more.

    As some have eluded there are some very very good quartz model out there.
    Not a problem with ecodrive/kinetic and now seiko,s solar

  24. #24
    I seem to recall reading somewhere an account of the relative merits of Seiko mechanical and quartz watches as written by a respected Seiko designer. From this my enduring recollection is the wonderfully simple remark "...mechanical is for 'appreciation'..." .
    Of course this may mean different things to different people at different times, but for me it has provided a useful distinction. I wear quartz for telling the time at work and mechanical at the weekend for pleasure - or I used to.
    I have always liked that a mechanical watch when not being worn is at rest, whereas the life expectancy of a quartz watch oscillating furiously all the time, is diminishing continuously in the watch box. The reputed engineering quality and longevity of the Seiko 9F quartz removes this hang up. I now enjoy wearing this quartz movement inside a Grand Seiko case at the weekend as much as my mechanical watches.
    Mitch's comments regarding Swiss mechanicals resonate with me. Except for two Oris, and numerous from Eddie, my remainder are from Japan and Germany - perhaps though its just that different marketing works on me.
    Forpetesake.

  25. #25
    Craftsman Sara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Hamburg, DE
    Posts
    643
    Such good arguments here. Starting to question why I'm so on the warpath about lack of automatics in small ladies style.... Do I really want a nice watch that keeps requiring services, it may as well be going in for much cheaper battery changes.... But I do love the idea of that beautiful tiny precise motion wrapped up inside an automatic. Nnngghhh.

  26. #26
    Craftsman MarkB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    NLD
    Posts
    468
    With a few watch models you are able to choose between quartz and mechanical, like a Seamaster. A tough choice for me because I have no preference.

    If I like the watch the movement is not that important, although I prefer Seiko and Miyota above ETA and try to stay away from Russian and Chinese movements (without apparent reason).

    I just find it a bit strange to have a classical looking piece with a quartz movement, but that is just as strange as a shock proof, beat the hell out of it with a mechanical movement.

  27. #27
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    2,562
    I used to prefer mechanical over quartz but now my first choice is quartz although the second hand not being bang on the marker on my Seamaster makes my OCD kick in.

    However i still like to have one cheapish mechanical for some strange reason and although i haven't one in my collection i have been looking at Glycine/Longines etc to fill that gap.

    Re a previous reply the thought of a quartz with a sweeping hand would be nice.

    Can anyone recommend a quartz watch with sweeping hand ???

  28. #28
    Master j0hnbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northerly
    Posts
    2,793
    I think there's a place for both in everyone's collection. I don't think the debate can be distilled down though to the simple dichotomy of quartz versus mechanical, as it fails to distinguish between HEQ, modern quartz, tuning forks, etc.

    Some of my favourite watches to own were Omegas with the tuning fork mech, but I think if I had to own one watch only (as I do currently), then it would be an automatic.

  29. #29
    Master Pitch3110's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Suffolk
    Posts
    5,779
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    I much prefer my current watches to be quartz.

    With vintage watches bought for the history it is different.

    I have quite a number of mechanical watches, that I got many years ago. They sit there unused and unworn in the main. Why? They don't keep very good time by today's best standards, they need constant adjustment, they are relatively fragile and if I wear them they will need very expensive servicing down the line, often putting me at the mercy of some mercenary watch company.

    Quartz contain much more of man's skills and ingenuity than a clockwork watch. If I was to transport a watchmaker from the 19th century to today he would understand and could work on the mechanical watch. However, a solar, atomic watch would be indistinguishable from magic to him.

    However, probably the main reason I don't buy Swiss mechanicals any more, is that I don't like to feel like a mug.

    Quartz when first produced were far more expensive than mechanicals. However as design and production techniques improved they became vastly more cheaper to produce.

    Actually the same thing has happened to mechanical watches though you wouldn't know it. Production techniques, design, automated machinery etc etc will have reduced the cost of production of mechanical watches by a great amount. (Nearly all mechanical watches are mass produced by machinery).

    The same thing has happened across nearly all spheres, cars, TVs, white goods etc etc. These are much cheaper to buy today, relative to average incomes, for the consumer than they were in the Sixties. The quality and performance is much better as well. But with watches they have hugely increased the relative price of most Swiss watches. You are not paying a true market price, you are paying a controlled, semi cartel, price based on marketing. Why don't people hanker after old Bakelite TVs with their slow switching valves and general fragility? Nobody has marketed them as some wonderful desirable thing as against the soulless digital things we actually buy today, that's why..

    Consumers in this market are seen as mugs to be squeezed for as much money as they can be, unrelated to the cost or actual performance of the product. Marketing is to convince people they are getting something special when it isn't.

    Yes, people still like their, relatively slow, classic cars with their unreliable multi carbs, distributors, basic brakes and suspensions etc etc. Hell I have got a rare classic sports car myself that I have owned from new.

    However, just try to manufacture a similar spec'd car today and sell it in the market, as a new product, at a huge premium over modern cars and see how far you get!

    My daughter indulges herself in designer bags. She owns quite a few running up to $4000. They run well beyond this out there as well.

    Why do women lust after a Chanel handbag? Do they use amazing materials not used on 'ordinary' bags? Do they perform so much better?

    Or has marketing convinced them that they are buying into some luxurious and exclusive lifestyle not available to owners of pleb bags?

    Must be some reason!

    Just imagine if Quartz had remained as expensive as when it was first brought out. Only a very small minority of consumers could afford them.

    If that was the same today. Instead of people going ooh ahh at someone posting their latest mechanical Patek or ALS, they would be doing it to someone posting their exclusive quartz watch, unobtainable except to the richest.

    The jump second? Well, before quartz, this was a highly desirable very rare and very expensive complication on a mechanical watch. Now that it is ubiquitous on quartz, people apparently dislike the jump second and like the more exclusive 'stutter' second. Why? Anything to do with marketing do you think?

    I am sure that there will be plenty of people on here who will declare that if quartz had remained hugely expensive and exclusive, they would think exactly the same as now.

    However, believe me, by and large they wouldn't. They would be cooing over the miracle of that jump second, ultra accurate, ultra exclusive, ultra expensive, quartz watch. The majority of us having to make do with the poorly performing, more common mechanical.

    Its the name of the game.


    No, the main reason why I don't buy Swiss mechanicals is that I like to go through life without feeling like a mug, which I would if I spent $10,000 on a mass produced SS mechanical watch.







    Mitch

    And longest post of the year goes to........... Mitch.

    That's a Piggin SA

    Good though

    Paul

  30. #30
    Grand Master MartynJC (UK)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Somewhere else
    Posts
    12,386
    Blog Entries
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
    ...

    ... I am sure that there will be plenty of people on here who will declare that if quartz had remained hugely expensive and exclusive, they would think exactly the same as now.

    However, believe me, by and large they wouldn't. They would be cooing over the miracle of that jump second, ultra accurate, ultra exclusive, ultra expensive, quartz watch. The majority of us having to make do with the poorly performing, more common mechanical.

    Its the name of the game.

    Mitch
    Mitch - have you seen the price of Omega's Z-33 recently or the latest Breitling Emergency - perhaps they heard you mate!
    “ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG

  31. #31
    Master Caruso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Worthing
    Posts
    2,611
    I started my watch collection collecting vintage digitals, so I've always liked quartz. I later came round to the appeal of mechanical watches.

    I have a couple of quartz Omegas, an LED Time Computer 2 from 1974 and a modern quartz Seamaster AT. The movement in the TC2 was always just a relabeled plastic Hamilton/Pulsar module. But the movement in the AT is far better quality and more visually appealing than I've seen in an of my old quartz watches.

  32. #32
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,442
    Quote Originally Posted by mjc1216 View Post

    Can anyone recommend a quartz watch with sweeping hand ???
    Well, the Bulova precisionist has one, but I'm not going to recommend it!

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by MartynJC (UK) View Post
    Mitch - have you seen the price of Omega's Z-33 recently or the latest Breitling Emergency - perhaps they heard you mate!

    Well, mechanicals can be too big and ugly as well, just like those two quartz.






    Mitch

  34. #34
    Master Steve748's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,053
    This is the only quartz I have left from about half a dozen I used to own



    I have only worn it a couple of times and I have owned it for several years.

    I now prefer mechanical after wearing the same quartz watch for 30 years.

  35. #35
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia.
    Posts
    585
    I think I've just about come full circle. Started, like many, with quartz before really getting into watches. Became fascinated with mechanical watches and their history and craft. More recently, I've become less tolerant of their limitations, especially as my collection has grown. I still appreciate and enjoy them and will always have a few, but the general perception that I sense amongst many that a 'real' or 'luxury' watch should be mechanical is little more than a fabrication. It's a bit of a shame because the result is that high quality modern quartz are not available to the same extent as high quality mechanicals.

  36. #36
    Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    S. Wales
    Posts
    2,656
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennO View Post
    It's a bit of a shame because the result is that high quality modern quartz are not available to the same extent as high quality mechanicals.
    Couldn't agree more. I think my Omega Bond Quartz is probably my favourite of all my watches, and I would have no compunction about buying more expensive quartz watches in preference to mechanicals if

    a) They were more readily available, and
    b) I could afford them!

    Rob

  37. #37
    Craftsman bigmul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    NE29
    Posts
    740
    I do find it quite strange, possibly from just reading this forum too much though, about the pre-conception of seeing someone wearing mechanical or quartz too.

    I'd love an omega AT and the quartz is affordable, same case, same design, so why do people seem to tell everyone to save up (double!) for the auto!

  38. #38
    Grand Master Neil.C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SE England
    Posts
    27,118
    One point in the quartz v mechanical debate is longevity.

    If you have a mechanical watch, no matter how old, a watchmaker can make a part for it if required.

    Some older quartz can be repaired but in the main if the module goes and you can't get another.......
    Cheers,
    Neil.

  39. #39
    Grand Master Neil.C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    SE England
    Posts
    27,118
    Quote Originally Posted by forpetesake View Post
    I seem to recall reading somewhere an account of the relative merits of Seiko mechanical and quartz watches as written by a respected Seiko designer. From this my enduring recollection is the wonderfully simple remark "...mechanical is for 'appreciation'..." .
    Funny thing about Seiko...

    They really pushed to make quartz watches fairly affordable, they were still pretty expensive at the time and equivalent in cost to decent Swiss mechanicals but far cheaper than they ever had been.

    In their wisdom they thought that nobody would want mechanical watches anymore in the wonderful new world of quartz. Many people around the world (including me) believed them and much of the old Swiss watch industry was decimated.

    Seiko stopped mechanical watch production except for cheap '5's to sell around the third world where watch cells were not easily available.

    Stopped making their excellent 6138/9 mech chrono's.

    Shut down Grand Seiko.

    And you know what?

    Around the eighties people started getting fed up with super accurate quartz watches that could now be bought cheaply at any petrol station, being surrounded as they were then (and even more so now) with all manner of computers and electronic gewjaws.

    They longed for anachronistic stuff and a mechanical watch was something easy to use and wear that was different from 99% of the population.

    Biver and Hayek cleverly tapped into this need and the Swiss mechanical watch was reborn (of course Rolex never went away )

    Seiko saw what was happening and realised they were missing a trick.

    So they started up making high quality mechs again, reopened Grand Seiko and then everybody was happy!
    Cheers,
    Neil.

  40. #40
    I find that I go through phases of favouring one other the other (currently in the quartz camp) but do like both.

    R
    Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.

  41. #41
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    North West
    Posts
    429
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil.C View Post
    One point in the quartz v mechanical debate is longevity.

    If you have a mechanical watch, no matter how old, a watchmaker can make a part for it if required.

    Some older quartz can be repaired but in the main if the module goes and you can't get another.......
    Agreed. I have a Breitling Intruder bought in 1998 which is now obsolete and for which Breitling themselves no longer have the parts in order to repair. Which is not on, really. Puts me off anything more expensive than a G-Shock when it comes to quartz now.

  42. #42
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sutton Coldfield
    Posts
    1,802
    I can see positives and negatives for each type of movement to be honest. I have a good assortment of all movements in my small collection and I must admit whilst I do prefer an automatic or mechanical watch just because it's just somehow more INTERESTING, I do find it a chore picking them out of the draw, winding them, setting the time (and date on some watches) when I can just pluck my G-Shock out and it's ready to go straight away.

    For that very reason it does make automatics or mechanical watches feel like more of an occasion when putting them on - part of the ritual of getting ready to go on a night out, whereas the quartz's just feel like the utility watch - just put it on and go. I know that's not the case and that there are quartz watches I could never afford to buy - but that's just how it feels in my mind :)

  43. #43
    Mechanical movements in luxury watches are worth more for a lot of reasons.

  44. #44
    I like both - but can honestly say, I wouldn't spend the same type of money that I spend on Automatic watches on quartz - I've spend a few thousand on a quartz watch before - but that is an exception and not one I think I'd ever repeat.
    It's just a matter of time...

  45. #45
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil.C View Post
    One point in the quartz v mechanical debate is longevity.

    If you have a mechanical watch, no matter how old, a watchmaker can make a part for it if required.

    Some older quartz can be repaired but in the main if the module goes and you can't get another.......
    +1.....a point I`ve tried to make several times in the past. Usually a mechanical watch can be made to run, even if it's not in the best condition after 50-60 years of use. Not so for a quartz; when the electronic bits die they have to be replaced and the replacements may not be available. A dead quartz watch is in danger of staying dead until second-hand parts can be sourced. Not a good long-term proposition IMO, a factor that won`t worry the majority of buyers.

    I`ll always prefer mechanical watches. They are fascinating machines in miniature, and that's the appeal for me. I think you have to have an empathy for mechanical items to fully appreciate them. I`ve assembled many watches and it still amazes me how accurate a mechanical watch can be when you consider all the factors that affect performance and the design challenges that have been overcome.

    Quartz watches only score on one minor point, which is accuracy. If you can overlook the irony of this point you'll appreciate mechanical watches.....if not, maybe they're not for you.

    Paul

  46. #46
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    29

    auto + Eco/solar

    Like some others I sit in both camps because I enjoy the mechanics of automatic watches (of which I have 4) and appreciate the accuracy of quartz - 4 also.
    That said, I am currently very taken with the Citizen ecodrive and Seiko solar as these offer good quality timepieces with the accuracy of quartz and not having to worry about battery replacement (yet?) or (auto) servicing. And OK if the watch "dies" and I'm not "attached" to it then the replacement cost is likely to be less than depreciation of a more expensive watch - Rolex notwithstanding perhaps.
    This is never going to change my appreciation of mechanical watches, but it certainly has moved me away from the 2-3 year (replacement) life standard quartz battery watch

  47. #47
    As enjoyable as I am finding this discussion, my selection of which watch to wear at any given moment is probably more instinctive than reflective.
    It may be influenced by the planned activity, the occasion and certainly by my mood at that time.
    Whilst quartz certainly provides the most rational timekeeping solution for my lifestyle, I would feel poorer being without a hand winding mechanical dress watch for those luxuriously self-indulgent moments.
    Given this way of thinking, I have recently begun to question if certain of my automatic "tool watches" would be better equipped with a quartz movement inside. Damasko DA37 with a Ronda quartz module - would that be so wrong? - maybe its just my mood today.

  48. #48
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    1,294
    I have just bought my first mechanical automatic watch, after a lifetime of quartz. I accept fully that it won't be as accurate, but so long as it is accurate to a few seconds a day, then that is enough.

    The reasons i bought a mechanical are many: it's an engineering miracle, its a lovely piece of jewellery, and its a present to me to mark a big birthday.

    I have to say tho, that a greater scientific miracle is the quartz analogue watch. My last one was (is) over 15 years old and is still accurate to 6 seconds or so a month, having had only basic servicing in all those years.

  49. #49
    I'm firmly in both camps. Of my regular wearers, I had 2 quartz and 2 auto. Now I find myself with 3 quartz a 1 auto. I'm intending to change things around so that I get back to 3q + 2a. This is more to do with the particular watches I want to have in the collection, rather than which movement.
    However I'm a mechanical engineer by training and there is something special about having a little mechanical marvel ticking away on the wrist.

  50. #50
    Grand Master Daddelvirks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Leiden- Netherlands
    Posts
    40,069
    Blog Entries
    1
    I love my "soulless" Tuna just as much as the mechanical ones I own.
    Just for different reasons.

    Daddel.
    Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information