timefactors watches
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: I've always beleived this to be true

  1. #1
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    usa and india
    Posts
    326

    I've always beleived this to be true

    The following is the relevant part that I am referring to.

    "I've always been a fan of quartz movements when it comes to diver's watches, or really any watch with a screw-down crown. The more the screw-down mechanism is utilized, the more likely it is to fail, and depending on the watch and precise nature of the failure, might require replacement of the entire watch case. This makes low-maintenance quartz movements the functional ideal for watches that employ screw-down crowns for their needed water resistance, as they are accurate enough to minimize the number of times you'd have to access the crown to the end of non-31-day months and the occasional, every-other-year battery change."

    Link to the full article:
    http://watchestowear.blogspot.com/20...ar-medium.html

    Do you agree with the view?

  2. #2
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    15,700
    I think the logic's irrefutable.

    Screw-down crowns eventually wear on the threads, together with wear on the pendant tube threads. This happens when the crown is screwed or unscrewed so it stands to reason that the more times this happens the sooner it'll fail.

    I`ve replaced several damaged pendant tubes and crowns where the threads have become worn and failed. They've all been automatics, can`t think of a failure on a quartz. My own quartz pre-Bond Seamaster Pro is around 30 years old and the pendant tube threads are still fine, probably because the crown gets used 2 or 3 times/year.

    The robustness of the design also plays its part, some could be a lot better.

    Unless a watch is specifically designed as a diver I don`t think it should have a screw down crown, it's another source of trouble waiting to happen.

    Paul

  3. #3
    Master snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    8,714
    A couple of thoughts:

    1) Most people don't take their 'diver' in the shower, let alone to any depth.

    2) If you're wearing a diver's watch on a diving holiday, you'd probably only unscrew the crown once, to set it, before you went.

    Wear, for sure, but not a lot and, anyway, you'd probably need to unscrew the crown on a quartz, to adjust to different timezone, wouldn't you?

    The watch I dive in in the UK is quartz, because it was quite cheap and I wouldn't mind the loss of a £129 watch!

    However, I certainly don't worry about my mechanical diver's watches when I dive in them abroad.

    M

  4. #4
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    15,700
    The crown gets far more use on a mechanical watch, regardless of time zones !

    Even if the watch is fairly accurate the chances are the time gets reset once/week. If a watch is worn as part of a collection it'll need resetting each time it's worn. It doesn`t add up to a huge amount of wear but it's far more than a quartz watch gets. If the owner's a bit clumsy there's a chance for the starter threads to get burred slightly every time, the worst thing you can do is attempt to screw the crown in but just 'catch' the starter thread, the crown springs back and the starter thread gets very slightly burred. Screwing it in one long continuous action should avoid this.

    All other things being equal, after a period of years the threads on a mechanical are more likely to give problems than on a quartz, I think the logic's sound on that point. Whether that should influence a buying decision is another matter!

    Paul

  5. #5
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    596
    A mechanical hand-wind with a screw down crown would be asking for quick wear.

  6. #6
    Craftsman bedlam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Fremantle, Western Australia (GMT +8)
    Posts
    832
    Fundamentally, the need to fiddle with crowns is more an issue for people like us with many watches than it would ever be for the normal punter. When I wear one watch for sustained periods, usually on holiday, I would only ever adjust the watch when changing time zones...and being a quartz doesn't protect the watch from that.

    I've dived for years with many watches and never had a crown failure. But then I'm careful with any crown whether it's on a quartz or a mechanical.

    The biggest watch failure I have had is a quartz (G-Shock) movement dying completely when left on the car dash in the summer sun. Something a mechanical watch would shrug off.
    Last edited by bedlam; 14th March 2018 at 16:31.

  7. #7
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    939
    I was under the impression that Autos were preferred, as if they did leak, they would still run, unlike a quartz?
    Last edited by EchoSevenNine; 14th March 2018 at 17:07.

  8. #8
    Another relevant point here is that a diverís watch has no need for a date, further reducing the instances on which the crown needs unscrewing.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by EchoSevenNine View Post
    I was under the impression that Autos were preferred, as if they did leak, they would still run, unlike a quartz?
    It wouldn't run for long, nor would it be accurate enough for your life to depended on it. If you're only timer is compromised under water it's time to come up, quartz or auto.

  10. #10
    Craftsman Geralt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    I think the logic's irrefutable.
    ...
    Quite so, but the line of reasoning is flawed. Far be it from me etc., but ISTR that a screw down crown makes no difference to water resistance, but to protect the crown/stem from knocks.

    Also, the OP's quoted blog comment about being a fan of screw down crowns but admitting they're more likely to fail seems a bit disingenuous.

    If the overall argument is that a screw down crown on a quartz gets less wear than on a mechanical, then that's glaringly self-evident.
    Last edited by Geralt; 14th March 2018 at 18:47.

  11. #11
    Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Geralt View Post
    Quite so, but the line of reasoning is flawed. Far be it from me etc., but ISTR that a screw down crown makes no difference to water resistance, but to protect the crown/stem from knocks.
    I think that depends on the design of the crown and if there is a seal in the crown that seals against the crown tube.

  12. #12
    Master sweets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bristol - UK
    Posts
    3,088
    There is also merit in the converse logic.
    The more you use a crown for time and/or date adjustment, the more likely you are to maintain it screwed tight onto the seal.
    All crowns have the ability to work themselves loose, and if you are not regularly ensuring it is tight, you may miss it loosening and therefore leaking.

    I might add that I have had a few hand wind watches with screwdown crowns, the most notable being my Excelsior Park Monte Carlo, powered by the Valjoux 7740. That dates from the 80s, had the original crown and it was perfect, with multiple turns required to screw it in. Sure, the seals may have been a bit worn after a while, but the mechanism itself was perfect.

    As we all know, there are those with mechanical sympathy, who can operate such things without damage, and those without that can wreck stuff almost just by looking at it.

    Which camp you are in is more important to how this stuff behaves.

    As an aside, I know when Fortis first did the B42 range, the crown was designed too large (>8mm diameter) for the screwdown thread. As a result, ham-fisted owners had enough leverage to strip the thread completely, and many did. Fortis modified the design to keep the 200m WR but use a non-screwdown crown, relying on multiple stem-sealing O-rings instead. However, more sympathetic owners had no problem whatsoever. I didn't on mine.

    Dave

  13. #13
    Master mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    4,329
    Quote Originally Posted by SimonConnell View Post
    Another relevant point here is that a diverís watch has no need for a date, further reducing the instances on which the crown needs unscrewing.
    I have 8 dive watches, Simon, including one rated to 3000 meters. 7 of them have dates...

    Simon

Posting Permissions

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