Aren't mechanical watches obsolete technology? Why are so many sold? They cost more than quartz, cost more to maintain than quartz, are less accurate than quartz.
But more than half my collection is mechanical. This is totally illogical behaviour.
So why is it? In my case it's maybe a sentimental appreciation of mechanical engineering.
Why do you buy mechanical watches?
Yes it is totally illogical and quite frankly stupid. It is however, nice to have a technically intricate item on your wrist.
What is even dafter is that the good ones such as Patek and Rolex appreciate in value.
This is a nice forum about watches but it attracts some really argumentative types who would fight to the death over a sheet of toilet paper. Thus one has to wonder if the entire concept of mechanical watch is totally barmy in its entirety.
Last edited by Mick P; 15th April 2021 at 09:18.
FTFY Mick.Originally Posted by Mick P
For me it's the 'romance' of the object, the sense of history, of a small work of mechanical art beating away on my wrist doing it's job.
A quartz or 'smart' timepiece's invention is too close in history for any sort of 'emotional patina' to have built up around the idea of them.
Once we all have 'eye-phones' that project the time constantly into the corner of our view I suspect an S1 Apple watch will have some of the same allure but until then a mechanical watch is it.
Also they are cool as hell.
I've been through a bit of a quartz phase, and it's boring. A quartz watch, while stunningly accurate and hugely impressive in its own way for that, just isn't an object to enjoy and interact with. It's just a device that tells the time.
A watch that runs a little fast on the wrist during the day, but that I can learn the quirks of and have it run slow through the night with some careful positional regulation, is a much more interesting thing to own.
It's fun to me that my Panerai runs maybe half a second a day slow but towards the end of the power reserve it speeds up, maintaining an average of 0spd.
The same 0spd isn't fun on a Longines VHP. Oh look, it's telling the time. Again.
Mechanical watches are anachronistic. We hold onto history with them. Look at the brand marketing - typically connecting to times, wealth and achievements that are beyond us, but they think we aspire to.
We are fools. But even fools are the most wise sometimes.
Mechanical watches - nobody needs them.
I think that is the nub of it. The difference between need and want. We have achieved beyond the necessary and so can chase trinkets and baubles. Such is modern life.
Martyn
+1
Vanity is expensive.
Yep, have one quartz which I love, but it never stays on the wrist for more than a few days - I always want to get back to one of my autos sooner than later. Never been able to think of a good reason reason why this is, but you have probably hit the nail on the head.
Similar to cars I suppose - you can have a really dull motor that gets you from A to B, which some people are completely happy with. Or you can have something that gives you a twinge of excitement every time you look at it or drive it. Same story for me with watches. and cars come to think of it...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's try an analogy. Swords.
Before the Iron Age there was the Bronze Age. Bronze swords, when compared with their Iron equivalents were heavy and soft. There are stories of having to stop in the middle of a battle to re-straighten a bronze sword before carrying on. At some point all battle swords were made of Iron. But Bronze swords did not vanish. They were relegated to being ceremonial and decorative for a couple of hundred years more before they completely disappeared.
Today nobody will be seen dead using a mechanical device in order to time an important event. So, mechanical watches are not purchased to tell the time... They are purchased to perform decorative and ceremonial duties. What those might be for you, it is up to you. For me, I need all the decoration I can get.
THIN is the new BLACK
It will be 'time' on the left and 'bank balance' on the right. It was in a book called Farewell Horizontal.
THIN is the new BLACK
I still associate Quartz watches as the lower end of scale, certainly pricewise and I struggle with the concept of the likes of Omega and Grand Seiko putting Quartz movements in their watches that cost thousands. The thought that every three years or so the watch will just stop and will have to be sent away somewhere because you don't want the guy at the local Timpson scratching the hell out of the back of the case is just a faff.
At least CWC put those little battery covers on their G10 that can be opened with a coin. Clearly some thought about the end user went into that design.
Over time I have began to appreciate hand wound watches more, no messing, wind them up and over a day or two they run down. Automatics, whilst appearing to be the ideal design are subject to accuracy issues related to actual usage. As often stated, sit on the couch all day and your automatic won't keep good time.
Personally, I'd rather have parts that interact and move rather than a lump of plastic that is controlled by a chip.
I love the engineering and craftsmanship that goes into mechanical watches. Battery operated watches have the place, but I do not connect with them. I use them mainly for occasions where I would not want to damage my autos e.g Gym, DIY etc...
If we look at the basic function of a watch in its simplest form, it measures the earth's movement in space. Therefore, for me, the allure of a mechanical watch is that a man with the right tools and a 'very special set of skills' can produce an instrument from scratch that sits on your wrist, is self-powered and can measure each turn of the earth broken down into eighty-six-thousand-four-hundreths of a turn and be accurate to within a handful of seconds each day is amazing.
However, I would go on to say that whilst I would never have given house room to a quartz piece previously (with the exception of a 1511-calibre Omega Marine Chronometer), since joining this forum and seeing the level of knowledge about quartz movements, my stance has considerably eased. I now always have a 'rufty-tufty' G-Shock in the collection that has to be multi-band 6 and solar-powered (currently a GWG-1000 Mudmaster) and only last week, I added a brand new 9F Grand Seiko. I had started looking at videos with the intention of getting either a Spring Drive or a mechanical but was so amazed by the level of thought and craftsmanship that goes into their 9F movement, I wanted one of those more and I'm thoroughly delighted with it.
I prefer a watch that I can start and stop at will.
I really hate having to arrange for a battery to be changed. And when a battery goes flat...I have solar powered watches and these are the best of both worlds, but for me as with some others here, having a piece of history on your wrist that has taken centuries to perfect with minute adjustment and invention is appealing.
Also, for me, manual and automatics have always kept great time. I tend to set them a minute or two fast anyway, so usually early to where I want to be/have to go.
As for whether mechanical watches are obsolete, I would suggest not.
They tell the time, and that's what I use them for.
I think it's partly an issue of scale, for me - I can see what goes on inside a mechanical watch, the interaction of springs, wheels and bearings makes intuitive sense and with an exhibition case back, one can actually see the mechanism doing its work. Add to that the layer of exclusivity/cost/heritage/marketing that has accreted around the technology over the past couple of decades, and it's an enticing proposition; I'd be lying if I claimed that no part of my enjoyment of a 1969 Speedmaster related to Apollo and space...
Having said that, I should think my collection is about half-and-half mechanical and quartz; some of the early quartz movements (e.g. Omega's 1310) are very cool in their own right, and as a timekeeping technology it is magnificent. I have a couple in the collection which drift by only a handful of seconds per year, without any outside correction - and that, to me, is fundamentally extremely impressive.
At root though, none of this is remotely "necessary" and none of it is linked to the performance of a function for me. Watches are jewellery, and they're technically interesting. So, best of all worlds for me.
I think the short answer is that we are human beings, not robots.
Sometimes we choose wood over steel or plastic. Sometimes we pay extra for hand turned wood over CNC machined.
We appreciate craftsmanship.
Obviously doesn't apply to aircraft or hospital equipment. And if you need a watch that's ridiculously tough and accurate, you're covered.
It represents a wonderful snapshot of the development of mechanical engineering over centuries. All in miniature, on your wrist. A delight.
What a terrific summary! :thumbup:
In all other areas I'm generally an early adopter of technology ... I did my degree in Electronics and worked in design and marketing of tech companies for 20 years always focusing on high-tech innovation ... yet through all that I have always had a mechanical watch.
I have always be fascinated and amazed that a tiny mechanical machine can live inside a small water & shock proof case and work for years un loved on your wrist.
I take the view that the two greatest inventions of all time are the watch and the bicycle.
My bike is the latest carbon bike with electronic gears, hydraulic brakes and tubeless tyres ... latest spec; yet my watch is still old school.
The other point is my watch is probably the highest quality personal possession I own and will likely outlast any other item I have; it is nice to own one item (well a few) that is truly high quality in todays throw away society.
The watch I have on today is 19 years old; it looks and functions like new and will hopefully be much the same in another twenty years ... I don't think anything else I own today will still be in daily use in 20 years time ...
Here a photo ... just because ...
For day to day practical purposes, I now find my mechanical watches to have become irrelevant. Solar atomic G-Shock looks after me at work and Grand Seiko 9F/Citizen A660 quartz delivers a little effortless compensatory luxury on weekday evenings. At these times I really couldn't be bothered with power reserves.
My mechanicals have developed a niche role as a weekend recreational distraction. I like to ponder which to wear and tinker with such as strap changes. I like their longevity, their mechanical 'aesthetic', that they are inactive until I power them and their relatively relaxed beat rate thereafter.
For me, this simple pleasure could if allowed, be adulterated by the pervading aspirational marketing/branding which accompanies many mechanicals and the related endless considerations of signaling and investment. So I seem to have avoided certain brands and generally keep what's on my wrist to myself.
Last edited by forpetesake; 18th April 2021 at 21:14.
I like the sweeping second... among other things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s what fascinated me about them when I was a nipper and knew only the digital count or the analogue tick, tick, tick......
That smooth continued sweep had me hooked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love my mechanical watches, but I feel that this thread under-appreciates quartz so far. Most of a decent quality quartz is still mechanical, and some of the early quartz innovations are a pleasurable diversion all of their own.
I think a mechanical (inc auto) watch only really appeal to a certain type of person. People that like mechanical things that might be a bit geeky (like me)
Most of the people I know who wear watch wear a quartz one, it does exactly what they want from the object, tell the time with the minimum of fuss.
A few of them have ONE nice watch, which might be an auto from a well known brand, this is only worn on high days and holidays as jewellery. The majority don't wear a watch - they have a phone
Are they obsolete? - YEP!
is owning a collection of mechanical watches illogical? - NOPE! - you like them and you could argue they need less maintenance than a quartz as the battery does not go every other year. They are also better for the environment - no batteries hitting land fill!
Why do I buy them?
I am a geek
I like them and find them interesting
Its cheaper than a drug habit.
As someone whose collection is almost all mechanical, I do wonder about this, especially given that when I'm really in a rush or about to do a physical activity while wearing a watch, I'll often reach for one of my two quartz watches.
One aspect of the current quartz watch market is that I don't feel there is nearly so much choice or desirability in terms of design when compared to the mechanical watch market - I rarely see a quartz watch I'd like whereas I could financially ruin myself on an almost daily basis with new mechanical offerings.
But what if all the big Swiss brands offered exactly the same range as they currently, but with quartz movements, or even with a choice of movement. Would we really care, or choose a mechanical movement. The branding element would be the same and the watches would be just as attractive to look at. If they made the price the same, I think that would also account for a lot of the desirability and aspirational side of things, especially in this current instagram led market.
For me, mechanical watches are totally obsolete! Inaccurate, fragile, high servicing requirements. Quartz just does the job so much better and cheaper!!
I'm sorry but I just don't understand the argument that Quartz are 'boring' or that mechanical watches are 'characterful' - I find correcting the time every day or so on a mechanical as irritating rather than interesting!
1376 posts later and you finally realise this isn't the game for you.
Why? I'm interestered in watches. Are you saying I have to be into Mechanical watches only?
Just imagine how much fun you'd have if you enjoyed mechanical watches too. That said, no-one in the history of the Internet has ever had their mind changed by someone on a forum so you're right, mechanical watches are irritating, quartz rocks.
Why?? I'm interested in watches. Are you saying I HAVE to be interested in mechanical watches?
I agree.
I'm 'done' with mechanical watches.
Part of the reason is akin to the Townshend Whelen quote:
"Only accurate rifles are interesting"
But a major part is I'm bored of mechanical watch fragility and insane servicing costs.
If I only wanted to know the time I wouldn't bother owning a watch.
For me, it is something I have always been interested in. It is "my constant". Why mechanical? As someone else said above, "because it is cool".
THIN is the new BLACK
I’ve had mechanical longer than Quartz. Quartz need regular batteries and thus resealing again. In the apocalypse. Mechanical should still work. One of my Seiko’s (5) is 40 years old. Not opened or serviced. Still works. Had a Seiko quartz that had countless batteries. It was then serviced. And restored. I subsequently lost it.
But mechanical watches just seem right.
Not owned a G Shock. So can’t comment.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I sold my old Omega Seamaster Pro co-axial as there is a very similar looking quartz version of the same watch and to me that just spoilt what was 'special' about the Seamaster.
I appreciate that there is no logic to that at all.
I still regret selling the watch to this day.
I actually quite like a number of quartz watches.
I have also sold quartz watches that I regret selling too.
For me it is both emotive and irrational, but it is what it is.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. I initially got into automatic watches as I like the idea that you don't need to change the batteries on a mechanical watch. Of course I found out later that you need to service it after some time..
I also inherited the preference for mechanical watches from my dad. More so in his day, a good mechanical watch is a mark of quality and dare I say a status symbol. Of course now the Apple watch has replaced that image somewhat as lots of business leaders have it in place of luxury watches.
I do still have a G-shock mostly because I need a tough sports watch and they have a good solar system.
I like mechanical watches because I like anachronistic old things.
As well as mechanical watches, I like, and use, fountain pens and books made out of paper rather than any e-book type thing.
I own quite a few quartz watches but while OK they are essentially boring compared to mechanicals IMO.
Cheers,
Neil.
I don't subscribe to theory that all quartz watches are boring, but there are quartz movements and then there are quartz movements.
Seiko have produced some very interesting quartz movements over the years. e.g. the 7c in the tuna is a fantastic quality movement that offers incredible levels of accuracy for years without the simplest bit of maintenance (batteries last for years). The thermo compensated movements in Breitlings are quite special, even more mundane (but quality) quartz movements can be used in innovative ways such as the Sinn UX.
I do find quartz chronographs sterile though - even the mechanical quartz, in my mind they are a bit of a cheat and lack character.
Interesting, reading the last two posts, I think I would have to put my hand up to missing a layer of what you're both getting. For me, the fascination is 'toolwatch'; and less about how that is delivered, but more about the finished fit-for-role article. I was definitely affected by the National Geographic 'watches for heroes and explorers' theme of the Rolex ads of my youth ...I think, now that I no longer perceive Rolex as being tool, my enjoyment comes from the hunt for something that fills that niche, today... and for me, that still requires an analogue face.
For me the Sinn UX is the ultimate tool watch, (the one on SC is very tempting) it is designed to do a job and it does it very well. If I were walking about at the bottom of the Marianas Trench I would want a UX on my wrist!
The same reason Vinyl is still a thing
And the and reason physical art will remain
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess the quartz fans who can't stand mechanical watches really are just into the jewellery/aesthetic aspect.
Otherwise, why not just use a digital watch? Or even simply rely on your phone?
I have to say if there was a 38-40mm Grand Seiko diver with a 9F movement I'd be pretty tempted ... but all the GS dive watches are huge.
Last edited by Montello; 15th April 2021 at 22:04.
😂😂
I've written and deleted 3 answers that I would have said to you in a pub, because that assertion/question is such an excruciatingly couch-potato last-to-get-picked-for-the-team world view that it makes me want to snap a pencil 😂
So I've refined my answer to this:
If you ever find yourself doing something where you need to be able to tell the time with a quarter-second glance in physically awkward situations (be that sailing, climbing, pulling a sled or timing a fireplan at night) you need an analogue watch face in a robust waterproof watch: unlike a digital, that you literally have to read, analogue presents a 'picture' that your brain 'gets' at a glance; you don't actually have to read it (and you don't have to get it out of a pocket or worry about water🙄😂) ... which is why toolwatches, for people who need to know 'time' at a glance, will always be analogue and robust.
Probably the only time I would choose a mechanical watch over a quartz would be arctic or high mountain work as I would have a niggling (but probably unfounded,) concern over the effect of sustained 'very cold' on a quartz watch (but I never had to make that choice as I wore a 16710 on all my arctic adventures).
You don't need a pencil when you have a mobile device.
Mechanical = Magical
😂😂😂 outstanding!
But they're useful for when your mobile device loses signal or battery.
But the sound reproduction from a good vinyl setup is higher quality than digital, but that's another discussion for another forum.
If we're looking at mechanical watch movements as an art form, then that adds another angle not previously discussed. Very good.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
