Reply With QuoteYes that would seriously bug me I count 7 screws all on differing alignment and at that price it's criminal!
So, it's $164,100 as tested, and Hodinkee gushed about it, including the following:
"What truly sets this watch apart though is that tourbillon and the technical architecture surrounding it. The mirror-polished bridge extends almost the full width of the dial, from 8 o'clock to 4 o'clock and the swooping shape of the tourbillon case itself is ornate enough to make itself known without going overboard. The deep opening offers a lot of negative space, providing amble room for visually appreciating each component."
However, the photo immediately below that quote showed this (not cropped):
I mean - LOOK AT THOSE SCREW HEADS! My electrician does a better job of levelling out the heads on a lightswitch, and no one's even looking at them, let alone paying $164,100.
Horizontal, vertical, mirrored symmetry... I don't care how, but they should have made this nice. And Hodinkee should have called them on it when they didn't.
Or is it just me?
Yes that would seriously bug me I count 7 screws all on differing alignment and at that price it's criminal!
Last edited by Jackwibble; 9th August 2016 at 19:59.
[Mode name dropping] It is actually a topic I discussed directly with JC Biver, at a WIS meet in Paris he had organised for us a short time after he had taken over Hublot. [/Mode name dropping]
We could not believe that at their price point the screws were not aligned.
It turns out it is virtually impossible to do, and that you would need to test hundreds of screws for a specific thread before you arrived at the right result. I am not sure I believed him 100% but he sounded like a man who had tried to tackle the issue before I mentioned it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
And I can completely accept that the cost of the watch isn't in the screws. Yet there must be a more elegant solution to the problem, like Genta's hexagonal heads on the AP RO with the screws underneath.
Probably more to do with thread length and pitch also the amount of torque you can safely apply to the piece.
Surely there must be a bunch of ways you can do this, from better matched tapping of the original holes, to remanufacturing screws for alignment at torque, to shimming or shaving the workpiece, to whatever... heck, they could even have fudged it and capped the screws or changed the design to avoid them altogether.
At $164,100 there is just zero excuse not to take the care. If Seiko produced a 5 with something like that on the dial it would be laughed right off the internet.
Honestly, who gives a toss?
Agree, the two main screws have a high aesthetic value. A solution like that is unacceptable.
Yes, agree it's very poor. If the alignment is almost impossible, and I can sypathise with the reasons, then why not cover the screws with a thin screw head 'blank' that looks aligned? Looks to be enough depth and after faffing around making a tourbillon, can't be all that difficult, surely.
This topic shows up every now and then, and gets the armchair watchmakers up in arms. Its impossible to do, guess you have to have some clue about micromechanics, or mechanics at all, to understand why. But why listen to those in the know, eh? Even Roger Smith wrote a piece about this on a famous horology site... google it for enlightenment.
Oh well, Im sure Lange, FP Journe, Hublot, and all the rest are crying into their pillows tonight because "JGJG" refuses to buy their watches.
Originally Posted by GrandS
Not you, clearly.....
It would annoy me. I recall in Wayne's video review of the Aquanaut he was praising PP because the logo on the crown lined up perfectly with the case and he highlighted that on some Rolex he has owned that the crown logo on the crown head can end up on a funny angle to the case.
Some may dismiss this as OCD, buy if you were engineering a watch from scratch, isnt this something that you would want to get right.
It's happens I guess. Must be difficult to line up the screws perfectly. It personally wouldn't bother me that much. Same with bezels not aligned properly.
My PP 5726 crown doesn't line up like Wayne's does but it doesn't really bother me either.
Some lubricant on the cogs of my iwc did annoy me though. So much so that I sent it back!
I'm with those with OCD most of the time as I have plenty of issues, but this example of alignment wouldn't bother me.
In fact, quite the opposite as perfectly aligned screw heads often suggests fake screws. Either detail that's been machined in, or been stuck on.
Hi
The only way they could be made to all line up is if they then screwed into a nut or screw with an inner thread on the other side of the dial or bridge. For many watches this would add depth that isn't really available in the movement.
Would probably work okay on a pocket watch size movement though
I remember some time ago Hublot were posed this question, I think the answer then was they wouldn't do it even if they could as that would be too like the Royal Oak bezel
Cheers
Tim
Those considering spending that sort of money perhaps?
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Easy answer. Use a torx head and torque permitting there is a 4x greater chance to attain symmetry.
As hard as it might be for a Ł5k watch, I would be expecting a little more effort and imagination at this price point.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
For $165k you are paying for the movement and the detail, the absolute perfection.
If you don't really mind, why would you pay that much for a watch in the first place?
I'll even spare the internet experts the effort: Watchmaking 101: Why dont dial-side screws line up?
Agreed with the comment that I'd rather see real screws, misalignment and all, than the cosmetically-aligned but non-functional ones that would appease those who don't actually get how stuff works.
Doesn't bother me. I'd rather the watchmaker tightened the screws correctly, than back them off a bit for "symmetry".
Yes, heaven forbid they kludge this by over torquing some screws and under torquing others. Give me screws that are correctly torqued and not symmetric any day of the week.
This is the way Dufour and nature intended it to be. I would not have it any other way.
This^^^^^^or cover the heads with dummy heads,
Loads of screw head talk on here! I don't think I would even notice unless someone pointed it out
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Those moaning about it are unlikely to buy it anyways.
This.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I can't see this ever being a problem I'll have to deal with unfortunately.
However, if I had to solve this supposedly insurmountable problem, I would probably use very fine rubber* washers, to allow the screws to be tightened to negligibly different depths without affecting the applied torque. Unlike some of the other options such as nuts & bolts, this should add only negligible thickness. The washer would need to be extremely thin so it isn't noticeable, just enough to allow up to a half turn of play at the required torque. Maybe even just a quarter turn, combined with selecting screws that are already close to being aligned (should be doable at this price). As a happy side-effect, it should also make the screws less prone to loosening due to vibration.
$164,100 should about cover my consulting fee, thanks.
* Other materials may work and be easier to manufacture, e.g., paper.
Wouldn't rubber degrade and crumble inside the movement over time?
They're screws, that's what they look like when they are tightened correctly.
This rubber washer idea would never be adopted by any self respecting watchmaker. Never ever.
So shim them. It's far from "impossible".
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Forget scews use pop rivets. Works on my Land Rovers just fine 😆
You could also glue the entire watch together. It is an inelegant travesty, but perhaps it will satisfy people who suffer from obscure nerdy phobias and who's mission in life is to find silly solutions to non existing problems.
I usually care about OCD stuff like this, but on this occasion, if I was wearing a watch like that (and I have tried that watch at the ALS Manufacture in Dresden on my visit), I honestly couldnt care less about the orientation of the screws, so long as they didnt compromise any part of the functionality of the movement.
99.99% of the watch (based on cost) is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
What point are you making?
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Not sure, that we are a bunch of nerds with phobias perhaps...
As the storm said to the teacup "I want to be in you"
It's hardly a new complaint: even that fly-by-night, minor "French" watch assembler, AL Breguet, couldn't be bothered to align his screws...
Probably.
But why would you expect the screws to align?
Watch screws have very coarse threads; when they tighten they tighten suddenly, it isn't like torquing up a high tensile fitting on a car. They're either tight or they're not; once resistance is felt any attempt to apply significantly more torque will snap the head off. There's simply no scope for adjusting alignment without setting the screws too loose, it isn't possible. Wood screws can be set with the heads aligned...... But that's totally different.
A watch movement is a machine held together with screws. Is it really credible to accept the screw heads on a machine to align? Maybe the manufacturer shouldn't let the owner see the movement because his lack of understanding will lead to the mistaken perception that screw alignment is an indicator of quality?
Frankly, I find it incredible that anyone would expect machine screws to have their heads in alignment; must admit I laughed when I read some of the responses. It shows how little understanding most watch owners have.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 11th August 2016 at 09:33.
+1
Perceptions of quality
1. aligned screws
2. it's heavy
3. it's big
4. bracelet is chunky
5. has an amazing clasp
6. it's got more jewels
7. it's got a crystal case back
IMO all nonsense
Depends on the exact material used. In the worst case it shouldn't be any more hazardous than clock oil, so could be replaced at servicing (as is normally done with the rubber gaskets in any waterproof watch). I expect there are quite a few plastics that would work very well and $164k per unit buys you a fair bit of R&D.
Last edited by robt; 11th August 2016 at 12:03.
I think in this particular case, because of the price point & because the 2 screws are relatively large and feature prominently on the face of the watch, I would not be happy(*).
(*) actually at 1/100 of the price, with the screws featuring so prominently it would sill annoy me significantly. But only after someone else had pointed it out :)
The plastic washer just needs rebranding, the more blatant the nonsense the better eg Soft Ceramic, or Pliant Organic Alloy
Cheap/natural rubber compounds would have that concern, but there are many stabilised rubbers and non-rubber polymers which could be used.
Most seals used nowadays are easily able to see 10 years service life without the watch losing its water fastness.
With the appropriate material used, such shims/washers could last even longer – so not even a necessary change at each service.
Unfortunately, the original premise of the thread topic is ill-conceived, as the nature of AL&S watches’ assembly requires an indication that every part of it looks/feels like it matches up to expectation.
If you had movement and tourbillon bridge screws all perfectly aligned, it would lose a certain charm that it exhibits as is, perhaps even adding an element of sterility.
Such a perception does not sit well with the often romanticised notion that these haute horology pieces are a form of art, and aligned screws would be the equivalent of a masterpiece painting created as a result of colouring by numbers.
Last edited by PJ S; 11th August 2016 at 16:45.
Informative and well put, thank you.
Posting Permissions
