Reply With QuoteIt provides a visual confirmation that the watch is running.
After the thread on date v no date, it occurred to me that perhaps a second hand is an unnecessary feature on a watch. Sure it is nice to watch one sweep round,. Yet, apart from OCD checking of accuracy, of which I am totally guilty, does it perform any useful function?
Sent from my SM-G920F using TZ-UK mobile app
It provides a visual confirmation that the watch is running.
visual confirmation its running can be useful, more important on an automatic. If you've wound a manual that morning, you know it will be running all day so less of a concern. Depends more on aesthetic for me, some dials just look better without them.
Not necessarily. Had a manual that I wound and later on that day it had stopped. I only knew because I had a second hand.Originally Posted by td1596
Some of the older manual winds, in addition to winding, do require a gentle tap to get going.
But yes, I love the seconds hand for just watching it. I also time putting things in the micro for less than one minute.. tea. coffee, pancakes.... stuff like that. It comes in useful.
if something isn't lasting a day then i'd class that as broken, second hand or not
I like to see a sweeping seconds hand as otherwise a watch can look "dead".. I don't normally like chronographs for that reason, but thankfully my Sinn U1000 has a constant running sub-dial seconds hand.
How else can those with OCD check the timekeeping?
I'm just a very naughty boy.
Good deals with- VINSTINK, kevkojak, Optimum, Omegary, seikoking, acg, SPEEDY, kfman, Card Shark, wajhart, Jot, danboy, zenomega, gaz64, minke, Mal52, Alas, norfolkngood, Sparky, rdwiow, mrteatime, gravedodger, joeytheghost, lordoftheflies, Silver Hawk, Filterlab, brooksy, marmisto, Fray Bentos, Bootsy, Harvey69, Mantisgb, bristolboozer, Jedadiah, newtohorology, Zephod, jimm1, Draygo, Raptor.
I may have forgot one or two, apppologies.
Trying to regulate a mechanical watch without a seconds hand is fun.
Trying to determine whether a quartz watch without a seconds hand is running or not (after reassembly or even a battery swap) is also fun.
Trying to work out why a quartz watch that’s losing a few minutes/ day is real fun without a seconds hand.
They do serve a useful purpose.
Paul
This. I don't want to have to wait to see if I can see the minute hand moving or hear it ticking over whatever background noise there is.
Seconds hand or running indicator is a must.
You don’t know that it will be running all day if there’s a problem with it. Without a seconds hand there’s no way of quickly telling if the Watch is running or not.
Agreed, but irrelevant to this discussion.
Personally, I am all in favour of second hands, even if they are really the third hand on the watch. Second-hand second hands are also OK on vintage watches, as long as they are correct!
Being an aid to servicing seems a poor reason to have a second hand.
If your watch stops during the day it’s usually pretty obvious that the time is totally wrong, unless you just happen to look at it the moment it stops. I agree it can be useful, but once you have a 2 hander you very quickly get used to it. The main reason for having one should be design and aesthetics
"Seconds" are part of time, no need to exclude them if you don't have too.
Disagree - the main reason not to have one, should be design and aesthetics! A watch without a seconds hand, to me, is lacking, and needs to make up for the lack of seconds with something extraordinary.
If you think purely in terms of the necessary, you probably aren't buying a nice watch all.
I think we agree? Design should be the reason to have or not have one. There are lots of watches that would be ruined by a second hand eg Patek ellipse, Cartier Tank, some reverso’s etc
Yep. A dead dial is HARD to get used to. I couldn't.
Schofield have a range (or a part range) with a "sign of life" which is just the "pin" of the seconds hand rotating with a mark on it so you can tell the watch is running but the dial is cleaner which seemed a nice idea.
Bit of a weird question really.
A dress watch needs only a minute and hour hand, a second hand would be unnecessary and undesirable.
A normal watch can either have it or not, it would be down to personal preference, just like a date function.
A precision watch used for timing such as Speedies and Daytonas absolutely need a second hand.
That's neat.
Rado have their rotating anchor (though usually second hand also).
I've just looked at some videos of that rotating anchor, and it doesn't look like it's used to indicate life, rather just an ornament? Indeed this article suggests it is not linked to the movement in any way:
http://www.watchcarefully.com/articles/rado1.html
"The logo swings freely and is not tied at all to the winding of the watch or its running. It is, however, a subtle and most interesting feature."
Thanks, always assumed it was part of the mechanism.
I suppose I'm being pedantic - for me, its inclusion is function first, then aesthetics. Its exclusion is as such only for aesthetics, as in my use, it significantly detracts from the function of the watch.
Says who - why not days, years etc?
It may be sad but I sometimes just like to watch the sweep of the second hand around the dial.
It's a useful function for the reasons already mentioned but it's also quite freeing not to have one sometimes
this is what I was trying to say!
Takes the pressure off accurate time setting mind.
If the watch has a graduated track that’s fine enough, I find no second hand quite liberating, especially on lower beat movements. What annoys me more is a watch with a juddery sweep, step forward Miyota 8215.
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
I like to see a second hand, but not on quartz with the tick tick stuttering.
Several times I've tried to find the right anadigi for me, and never found one of the right style and specs for me which also was just a two hander - I always thought one of the benefits of an anadigi was not having to put up with the marker-missing seconds hand.
I used to have this two hander:
Only 35mm and very thin and light, the absence of a seconds hand really suited it, and it had a wonderful air of stillness. Nonetheless, notwithstanding that admiration, I found that once I had this similarly tiny thing...
...working again, I always preferred it, even when I wanted that sensation of being totally chilled out. Whether that's because of or despite the presence of the seconds subdial, I don't know.
Pah, who needs more than one hand....
This is probably my most relaxing watch to wear....
This NOS Benrus fits in the no date thread too.
I know this sounds weird bobbee but I really want to touch that bracelet. The texture interests me
I've sold watches because they didn't have a running seconds function/display, including a Sinn 757. That wasn't the only reason for selling it though it was certainly a factor.
If it's a quartz analogue then a second hand that hits the markers is preferable, something that my GW-3000 and SBGX063 are spot in with and something that my departed Sinn UX - with its infamous "bounce" - didn't.
Counting pulse, resps & capillary refill time - I can't manage without it.
what happened to bare below the elbows?
I'm a rebel.
Show me the evidence that a wristwatch has ever cause a serious infection in a patient and I will comply immediately. Until then, I wear a watch to work (unless the boss is doing a handwashing audit...)
As a microbiologist, I agree. The lack of white coat, the tucked in tie and sleeves rolled up way past your elbows is all a PR exercise as there is no documented evidence of any serious infection transmission occurring from these items.
Being clean and washing your hands well between patients is enough.
So until they stop surgeons and theatre staff running around in their scrubs, visiting the loo and canteen in them, make everyone who enters the hospital wear shoe socks and hair nets and put all the wards under positive pressure then maybe it might be worth reconsidering!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ooh, my favourite hobby horse!
I love how everyone is supposed to practice "evidence based medicine" these days for good reason yet AFAIK this is/was a DOH policy without any good evidence particularly in regard to wristwatches. Theory goes that you can't wash your hands properly with a watch on but fortunately I don't wear mine on my hand and don't touch patients with my wrist.
Relatives visiting wearing watches also seem to be fine and that doesn't kill many patients either.
Finally, half the clocks in hospital are missing/wrong or broken and when having to write the date and time on any piece of paper in sight something with that information on that can't be misconstrued by patients as you texting you other half is quite handy.
Back on topic now...
I'm amongst friends!
It's the one thing I miss on my Pogue - how can I set the time accurately if I don't know what second it is?
Send me your address, you can have it!
I find watches without second hands hard to get along with, I use a second hand to gauge a lot of things, for example how long I should cook my steak for, how fast my pickup truck accelerates, or what time it take me to clean my gun.. (ok only for cooking really)
Posting Permissions
