Reply With QuoteHi WT. I too am a happy lurker, happy to have an off thread chat about movements as I see them.
JW
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Hi, new here but have been lurking and enjoying for quite a few months on and off. I've been interested in watches for a long time but only recently have I got the bug to learn significantly more. Some of your collections are huge, varied and mighty impressive, particularly to someone like me who has had the same 2 watches for over 20 years!
I have quite a few questions that I hope can be discussed/answered by those more knowledgable than me but don't want to bombard the forum! Anyway, here's the first:
What actually makes a great movement and how is a simpleton like me supposed to recognise one?
I tend to be someone who values function above all else, if something doesn't perform the role required of it, it is usually considered junk.
Forgetting decoration which can be viewed and assessed/judged given a suitable caseback (and isn't related to function anyway), the purpose of a movement as I see it is to be reliable, accurate, long lasting and resistant to the inevitable trials of actually wearing the item in diverse conditions with all the challenges that can bring.
I'm happy to learn from others how good say a Sellita 300 or ETA 2842 or Rolex 3135 etc is and why one of these might be considered superior, but what are the things that people in the know use to judge the functional qualities of a movement.
Would be interested to hear your thoughts, and also recommendations for reading material that will educate me, without going as far as learning to actually be a watchmaker!
Hi WT. I too am a happy lurker, happy to have an off thread chat about movements as I see them.
JW
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Maybe share on TZ as we are all learning?Originally Posted by JFW
Without experience in the "field" it's quite hard to notice the differences between movements especially nowadays with all the freaking chinese forgeries and clones (which can also be a form of forgery) going around.
Materials used in watchmaking can make the difference between a watch that will break down after 2-3 years and a watch that will last you for a LIFETIME. (yes, you read that correctly, provided that you service that movement at least every few years and you don't bash it against the walls) Moreso the good quality movement/watch can even be handed over to the next generation otherwise there wouldn't be any watches from the late 1800s or early 1900s still going around. I'm working on a 1940s watch these days and everything is very good shape. The watch itself is not a known brand but the movement is of good quality. Not Panerai level but definitely above average even for Swiss standards.
Craftsmanship plays an important role. It's one thing to mass produce stuff cheap and fast and another take your time and put some effort in a time piece. That's why reputable brands have been going strong for more or less a hundred years and don't churn out tens or hundreds of thousands of watches per month. A better designed/produced movement will function better, more accurate, for a longer period of time, maybe even indefinitely if you take good care of it.
Experience in the field is also important. The big brands usually have been in the business for many decades or even over a hundred years old. This means experience and know-how in design, production, innovation, sales and so on. It makes quite a bit of a difference.
Thanks for the kind offer which I'm not saying no to, but as MartynJC said, I too would prefer that it was a reply to the thread in case others have an interest. If that's not possible or too unwieldy, I understand.
Thanks for the input. I suppose what you say simply encompasses design and execution, though clearly calling it 'simple' is a gross errr simplification.
I suppose I should have been more specific in the question, what I'm hoping for is detail. As an example I recently watched a YT vid that had a lower cost Seiko movement specified as +45/-35 seconds per day. Clearly they would have no issue under the experience heading, so then it comes down to materials and craftsmanship. Presumably the tolerances of machining and finishing are the major players compared to say a Rolex 3135?
What I'm trying to understand is the detail of the differences in tolerances that are required, to take that Seiko movement to something that might be COSC certified as an example.
You can get many non-COSC movements up to COSC standards if you just re-service the movement (the correct and slower way, with attention to detail, not the fast and careless way) provided that it isn't damaged or anything like that.
One thing regarding COSC is that it costs money to get the certifications. So, most likely brands don't bother with this. It's also a chance thing. You can get a brand new cheap Seiko and a brand new expensive Zenith and both could have the same timekeeping. Sometimes the expensive ones come with less than advertised accuracy which means they usually go back for regulating or replacing.
If you'll see the insides of movements and work on them you'll quickly realize the differences between a cheap one and an expensive one. The expensive ones run better (usually), smoother, they're more reliable and, sometimes, it makes repairing/servicing slightly easier due to parts/materials being of better quality and not giving you headaches like some of the cheaper ones.
I've had better experiences with in-house movements, for example, than with the mass-produced ones. And I'm talking about Swiss movements here...
on this subject, i'd be interested to know how the Miyota range line up, which to avoid and which to look for. i know and like the 9105, but have no clue on most of the rest aside from the really cheap one that's used in every ultra cheap wannabe.
ktmog6uk
marchingontogether!
Isn’t accuracy a function of how long the manufacturer spends regulating the movement, more than the movement itself? I have three watches with 2824s, and one is from a micro brand and is much less accurate than the expensive watch. I suspect the expensive watch has the benefit of time spent at manufacturing stage, and the ability to reject movements due to tolerances (which might end up in the microbrand)
I suspect that for many (most?) the accuracy and reliability of any movement is a non-issue - today's movements are SO reliable and SO accurate that it just doesn't register. I don't think I have ever had a watch where it was a significant concern. Obviously as watch nerds we rightly take great interest and pleasure in these things but are they really a differentiator?
However, one thing that I do find important is what you might call movement suitability - how appropriate is the movement to the watch itself. The typical case of "unsuitability" is the small movement in a large case syndrome where the date window finds itself marooned in the middle of the dial. One would expect that the in-house manufacturer is at an advantage here as they can (or at least should be able to) modify or design a movement that is actually appropriate to their overall design. On which point i thought that when AP increased the size of the ROyal Oak (15300 to 15400 change) - keeping the same movement was very disappointing: the date migrated inwards and it just doesn't look right to my eyes.
Quality of design, parts, how well it was put together and oiled/lubricated, the quality control, improvements made over time to refine the parts / design as faults surfaced with real world users, are there any weak points or common faults, ease of servicing and the list goes on and on.
You certainly don't need a Rolex to have a great movement, many of the Japanese and affordable Swiss movements are very good.
It is something you need to research a lot though, it is very hard to answer.
I actually remember a watchmaker tell me that relatively cheap new Japanese movements are a better design than older Swiss ones costing several times more.
The beauty is that there is no one answer. From a functionality/technical standpoint, I guess you can make arguments about which movement is superior to another, but they are all inferior timekeepers compared to a cheap quartz or a smartphone. For me the allure of mechanical watches is all about the historical context and incremental innovations that make movements interesting. My suggestion is to read as much as you can about watches, here and on other fora as well as dedicated sites to learn as much as possible about mechanical watches. You'll find that certain movement makers and new features defined certain eras. Even if you prefer a modern watch you can still often trace the base movement to a significant innovation or just an iconic watch. As you learn, whatever you find interesting will make certain movements more "great" in your eyes.
Thanks for your thoughts, none of which I disagree with. However, it's moving away from what I'd like to learn about which is clearly down to me wording the question poorly.
Based on my current knowledge (which may well be wrong) I'd suggest that of the 3 movements quoted originally the Rolex 3135 would be considered superior from a purely functional/techinical standpoint and this is what I'd like to focus on. I take your point about a phone or quartz, but though not uninterested in quartz watches I'm way more interested in the marvel that is a mechanical wristwatch movement.
I am reading everything I can find, just finished the Hodinkee article about a Rolex factory visit which talks about the incremental and often unpublicised improvements they make. Alongside that I've also been watching loads of stuff about George Daniels and Roger Smith, the refinements the latter has been making to the co-axial has been particularly of interest. What I'd love to read/watch is a lengthy study of the technicalties of movements from design and materials choices/technology through to production and troubleshooting if such a thing exists.
Posting Permissions
