Perhaps Nigel Farrage will treat himself...Originally Posted by amcneill
M
Definitely not a rotor – don’t know what that blithering idiot was thinking of.
In his defence though, he does find the S on 2 or 3 of the wheels to be a tad amusing, even interesting to a degree – so all’s forgiven on this occasion.
I don't think those screws are incorrectly fitted, it looks to my eye that the plate/bridges are made with very poor tolerances.
F.T.F.A.
I want to start this post saying that this movement could be pre-production or a prototype, I just don't know. I hope it isn't production.
The screws: Obviously hand blued and not dipped or oven heated. Oven heating gives a great even colour but doesn't look hand made, dipping just looks too blue and fake. When you blue the screw it has to be perfectly polished, clean and flawless, you can see the patchiness of the bluing and the lack of blue in the slot of the screws. Also the colour varies too much between the screws.
If the slots are patchy due to being a prototype and being removed and installed lots, then they need to hollow ground their screwdrivers to avoid this.
The countersinking being off centre is just sloppy in a photo released to press.
No decoration on the plates is not really a huge issue but it looks a bit dull. If you look at this Daniels watch you can see he has put the winding and ratchet wheel on the bridge which helps visually and on this Daniels/Smith anniversary he has used engraving to add detail.
Barrel arbor not being jewelled on a watch of this price just seems really odd to me, the jewels only cost a few pounds each.
Balance cock really thins down which unless it is really thick just isn't a good idea to me. This is why Rolex use a bridge for strength and stability and Daniels uses steel for strength.
The beat adjustment is crazy big and I can just see in many years time someone adjusting the beat and bending the bridge. You have to design watches to take in to account that some people who repair and service watches aren't very good at it.
No shock suspension is a shock to me! Since the 50's almost every watch made has this as standard and for a wrist watch I can see lots of broken balance staffs ahead for Loomes! If you are really sticking to this English made only thing and don't want to use Kif or Inca, you could at the very least use a simple shock system like Breguets Pare-chute as it is much easier to make than Inca for example.
The weak design on the bridges is another odd one, who ever choose the lines of the bridges did so for aesthetic reasons (even though I find it ugly) not engineering principles. Just look at the above Daniels watches to see how none of the bridges have cut in appendages and they all taper out, not in.
The wheels of the watch having these 'S' letters I can't seeing a good idea either. This is a gimmick and has been used as they are stamped or machine cut, not hand cut. Again thinking for the future repair of these watches many generations down the line, if the wheel comes out of true I can't imagine trying to adjust it with a design like this.
That's enough for now from this picture, I couldn't fit anymore text in my original picture to continue analysing the issues with this movement.
Fascinating analysis, thank you! I hadn't spotted so many of those details. The offset screw and the 'S' wheels in particular. I'm guessing the shape of the main plate was for aestethic reasons to expose more of the movement, could the same issues with weakness be said of the smaller plate?
I thinks that's enough to be getting on with. Thank you.
+1 for me32dc's comments! A very disappointing start for the Loomes UK-special. If it's problems are mainly pre-production/prototype issues, then he should have waited for prototype 2.0 before showing it!
I wonder if the fit and finish problems are due to having to integrate what seems to be a large number of outside manufacturers.
Doesn't Sir Alex Ferguson live local to Stoney Bridge aka STAMFORD, I bet he'll be buying one!
:)
If indeed that is a beat adjusting lever, to me it looks like another "scalloped" area much like the plates. I think it's all balance cock which means beat adjustment would have to be done by rotating the hairspring collet - a big step backwards.
But surely, it's what most engineering companies do? Suggesting that an F1 car would have fit and finish issues because it has parts made all over the Midlands would clearly not be true. If the USP is British sourcing and they are positively promoting the ability to have precision parts made in low quantities there can be no get-out for these not being up to the job. It may be that these are prototype parts but that begs the question why show the watch now if it's not in its final form? It's not like anyone is waiting with baited breath. It would seem to me to be the horological equivalent of the ill-fated Keating supercar - well meaning and unable to stand much critical attention.
You could be right with that, not clear enough in the picture and with the old style cap jewel plate it is unlikely to be adjustable. I was trying to be positive in hoping it was adjustable, rather than as you say turning the hairspring collet.
If it was easy everyone would be doing it. The attempt is better than no attempt.
With regards Loomes inhouse parts, I spoke to Robert via email and he states they polish the sapphires inhouse!
IMO he sounds an ok chap though haven't me him in person.
Bry
This I find hard to believe, and wouldn't until I see them doing it. If they are then genuinely hats off to them.
You have to use diamond shards and dust on thread to cut the holes and shape them to olives etc. Seriously serious amounts of work, Rogers doesn't do this and Daniels didn't do it all the time.
"We are the only firm in England to cut and polish our own sapphire crystals – it became a vital aspect of creating an entirely English-made watch – and we were fortunate indeed to find a firm who still have 1940s polishing machinery that was originally used for watch glasses." - almost comes across like trying to add fake heritage. Who am I to say though.
My response is about sapphire jewels not sapphire glass. I only read sapphire in the response before and assumed they meant the jewels.
That's what I thought! I'm totally underwhelmed by the movement,visually it has to do a lot better. As for the lack of shockproofing..........surely they can't be serious
I don't dislike the style and the case, but there's nothing special about the watch other than the 'Made in England' appeal. A laudible project, but the end product leaves me cold.
Paul
Last edited by walkerwek1958; 2nd November 2016 at 17:32.
His supplier uses a laser cutting process, rather than the Stepanov or the old school method, apparently.
The Chinese quartz from Amazon comment was pretty accurate - based solely on looks I wouldn't pay £28.50 for that never mind £28,500. I wish I could unsee those lugs!!
Great analysis by me32dc - when you start spotting all those details and issues it makes the price tag even more laughable. If that is a prototype movement they've really shot themselves in the foot releasing those pics to the press it seems.
I respectfully disagree. Meaning well and having a go is all very noble but history is littered with ill-conceived or poorly executed business ideas that were well intentioned. My view is that if you can't do this well then you shouldn't be doing it at all.
That's very true but what of it? Without trying there can be no chance of success.
That's very absolutist. It's all very well to say such things with the benefit of not having tried it oneself.
In the real world, trying to do something that is very difficult and pioneering does not always bring perfection. It can be just a small step in a larger journey.
QFMFT.
me32dc's analysis of the movement is excellent, don`t know who he is but he obviously gets 'up close and personal' with watch movements and that puts him in a minority on this forum. I could see it wasn`t great but I couldn`t analyse it so rigorously.
It's also very worrying; if this is a prototype they've done themselves no favours.
God loves a trier, but I`m struggling to see the merit in this. That's harsh, but I fear this venture is doomed to commercial failure.
Paul
Loomes Folly
Saw this yesterday evening at Salon QP. Did not get a look at the calibre but the watch itself is actually quite nice, much better than on the photos. Whether it is worthy of its price tag when compared with its competitors... depends on the price you would be prepared to pay for its USP, "made in Great Britain" .
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I sae it last night too and it was as i expected...
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Paul, I agree, but on the basis that most people don't know enough to see the potentially serious issues in the movement, and this forum is more informed than many a buyer, does it therefore matter? People will potentially buy without full knowledge seeing the 'Made in GB' story they have put together.
Personally I find it horrid, but best of luck to them. Without a venture like this, and trying it in the first place, there is no method of iterating and improving over time (assuming the movement isn't so bad it's a write-off).
I agree.
I believe Robert has sold a few already! :)
Saw this just now at SalonQP. I hadn't heard about it before, but I was intrigued by the British Made schtick.
To my eyes, it was wholly underwhelming in the flesh, not an attractive watch at all.
The thing that struck me most was the movement, which just didn't look good. It was difficult to get a really good look at it, but it looked to me like the plates were highly polished. That didn't look good, and had the effect of cheapening the look, as opposed to the kind of striping or even blasting finish that you might expect for the price.
There were a lot of people gathered around their stand though, so the publicity is obviously working for them.
You don't need to be technical to see most of the issues with the movement: ugly undecorated plates, uneven discoloured screws, poorly counter-sunk, those stupid gimmicky cheap looking "S" gears. I think most people who see it will dislike it.
Could of course be a prototype or something, but if that were the case, you'd think they wouldn't put it on public display.
Actually I think you most certainly do need to be technical to see all that. The vast majority of people (including people who'd buy other Loomes watches) will just look at it and think "yeah, springy wheelie bits". A few might even know it's called a movement, but most won't even know that. They won't be able to compare it with anything; they won't even think to compare it.
I fully accept that the movement has severe problems but most wouldbe buyers just wouldn't know or care. It won't affect them.
First, 2 images of the Loomes 'Robin':
Then, the early Smiths movement on which it's based (and which Mr Loomes states clearly is so):
Both are un-shock-protected (which is perhaps where Mr Loomes acquired the habit that continues in the new 'Stamford Original').
The screws are off-centre in the flower engravings too. ;-)
The curly L of Loomes is nice, but some of the other detail is a bit can you tell what it is yet
Yes he started by decorating old smiths movements making them more fancy looking after he sourced a large amount of smiths movements NOS.
Very different decorating a movement to making your own, however he has clearly taken a large amount of inspiration from the smiths movement for the new one:
Pallet fork bridge is the same
Jewel location the same so I suspect the same train as in same number of teeth on pinion and wheel.
Same barrel and winding wheel location and same design having the click under the bridge and no visible ratchet wheel
Same number of screws holding the bridges in the same places, just a change on the balance cock
Mainplate machined out in the same places and raised in the same places.
So I would say his new movement is just a copy of the smiths design with newly manufactured made parts, but not updated or improved upon by the looks of it.
I don't want to come across as the anti loomes brigade, I have nothing against the guy. I just don't think this watch is as good as he is trying to make out.
Oh dear ! Hideous looking graffiti on what was one of Smiths better made watches.
I put it in the same pigeonhole as Clive Sinclair's C5.
The price is absurd.
Makes sense that it comes from Stamford
The original Smiths Imperial was bought in bulk by Companies to be given as presentation watches for loyal service.
In 9ct cases, I saw loads of them for repair during the 70s usually with broken set lever springs. These springs were obsolete for a while which greatly undermined their worth and upset their recipients. Due to the volume of breakages eventually someone started to make the set lever springs again.
Imagine how these people felt when given a watch for 45 years loyal service which stopped after 2 !
Here is a useful summary of British watch making.
http://great-british-watch.co.uk/british-watchmaking/
The same process that ROGER DUBUIS did to this CYMA movement, albeit much more skilfully than LOOMES:Yes he started by decorating old smiths movements making them more fancy looking after he sourced a large amount of smiths movements NOS.
Very different decorating a movement to making your own, however he has clearly taken a large amount of inspiration from the smiths movement for the new one:
Pallet fork bridge is the same
Jewel location the same so I suspect the same train as in same number of teeth on pinion and wheel.
Same barrel and winding wheel location and same design having the click under the bridge and no visible ratchet wheel
Same number of screws holding the bridges in the same places, just a change on the balance cock
Mainplate machined out in the same places and raised in the same places.
So I would say his new movement is just a copy of the smiths design with newly manufactured made parts, but not updated or improved upon by the looks of it.
I don't want to come across as the anti loomes brigade, I have nothing against the guy. I just don't think this watch is as good as he is trying to make out.
Indeed, DUBUIS's work merits the 'Poincon de Geneve': http://www.poincondegeneve.ch/en
Seen it today at SalonQP and thoroughly unimpressed. Had a ten minute conversation with Robert about the project and he is incredibly proud of it, and some of the lengths he's gone to in order to source the right components are admirable, but it's all at the expense of a watch you'd actually want to wear. The finishing quality is *awful*. My photo is not the best but half the printing of the number '60' on the sub dial is simply not there, it reads more like '50'. For £28k?! He confessed some of the components in the movement of the presentation piece were still being refined, but we're not talking an overhaul, just tiny details. This is essentially the watch as customers will receive it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"British watchmaking" is clearly going down the gurgler. Hideously ugly and outrageously expensive, all in the same watch!
Anyone want to talk about the lugs?
And is the subdial printing really that offcentre....or is the photo confusing me?
Last edited by Der Amf; 5th November 2016 at 20:09.
No.
"We were driven on by those in the industry who said this "couldn't be done" (the manufacturing of all the components in England). Robert stubbornly believed it could and has spent the last few years working towards this moment. "
When they said it couldn't be done, they were right. Why Roger "stubbornly" spent years working towards a movement that looks like a student's practice project after a few weeks of watchmaking school is a mystery.
Unforgivable:
Last edited by GrandS; 5th November 2016 at 20:10.
Loomes should take a look at our hosts website and take some inspiration on design.
Sadly it it has the look of a low end 1970s design. Would have thought he would have a better idea than that.
At least they machine their own cocks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
