Reply With QuoteDo they need to evolve? genuine question.
longer service times would be lovely though.
Other than variations in presentation what else can be done to create the ultimate timepiece? Greater accuracy? Longer service intervals? What improvement would clinch it for you?
Do they need to evolve? genuine question.
longer service times would be lovely though.
For me, I guess it would be affordability. Unfortunately the most complex and unusual pieces are out of reach, I guess because of rarity (such low production numbers) and they come from niche manufacture.
I think they will continue to evolve - new materials, colour combinations made possible with new techniques. A lot will depend on the marketing department rather than R&D determining what reaches us. There are probably enough riches to keep the watch market going but maybe with less mainstream players. Sorry, I digress.
Many ultimates have already been produced. It's moving that tech into mainstream (affordable) that I wish they would do).
Others? Martyn
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 20th September 2022 at 08:28.
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
We are staring to see some of the more unusual complications filtering down to the lower price points. Using basic base movements and modifying them to suit. I think this will ‘evolve’ more and we will see other complications being possible in cheaper watches.
I don't think so. Wrist watches continue to evolve, but mechanical ones are at heart a legacy technology. Now, first and foremost they're jewellery and that doesn't need to evolve. Small innovations will continue to be made and new materials, manufacturing processes, styles will be used but Apple, Garmin and Samsung and the like is where real innovation on the wrist lies.Originally Posted by flareslove
Watch brands need to keep finding ways in which we need to keep buying new ones so incremental evolution is in some part will continue but it's not the be all and end all. Omega spent a fortune on re-creating old movements for Special Edition Speedmasters for example.
This.
There has been little evolution in off-the-shelf calibres in 20-30 years. The power reserve of the powermatic 80 is in theory, a great update to the 2824 but the new movement is designed so that it can’t be adjusted / regulated and I’m sure it’s just there to give SWATCH leverage over Sellita and independent watch repairs and services.
A 2892 with a 5 day power reserve and a 10-year service interval would be great to see. It must be possible and mass production would make it affordable but there’s a pervasive conservatism that states that the staples are as good as they need to be. You don’t hear that about engines, planes, manufacturing processes. Every other industry tries to move things forward and high end innovations tend to trickle down, I don’t get why in horology, there’s a perception that ETA have conquered ebauches and all anyone can do is clone them.
I posted a similar topic about a year ago stating something like the rota wobble and thickness of a 7750 could be improved on and it seemed to draw a comment or two saying it was perfect as it was.
Here is my point illustrated.
A difference in opinion, I guess
A 2892 with a 5 day power reserve and a 10-year service interval would be great to see
For me this wold be the greatest improvement - not having to wind every few days or keep automatics on the go before they run out. Which is why my IWC 8 day handwound is shaping up to be my fav. watch….
I struggle to think of any, what complications are you thinking of?
TBH, can't even think of any we need that aren't commonplace already.
There are lots of complications and specifications that were the preserve of higher end watches that are now in much more affordable ones.
Long power reserves (Powermatic 80, for instance)
Anti-magnetism thru use of silicon (or other non-magnetic) hairsprings
Traveller (not office) GMT
Greater accuracy too
If a response to my post, most of those aren't complications!
Agree though, there'll always be incremental improvements in design.
There are 4 watches currently on the market with silicon oscillators but the buying public does not appear to be interested. This puts a block on any further investements in evolution. People seem to prefer traditionality. It's the nature of the beast.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
Off the top of my head, I have seen a tourbilion for around 1k (yes it’s Chinese but it’s notable) power reserve indications are becoming more common place, then you have alarms, equation of time display etc. All at lower price points than they were originally.
I would argue a true travel GMT is a complication as well.
Whether we need them or not is a different discussion. GMT and Chronographs are pretty handy
Last edited by Sinnlover; 20th September 2022 at 14:38.
If the press is to be believed it took 8 new patents for Patek to produce the 5326 this year (combining an Annual Calendar with travel time complications)
https://www.esquire.com/uk/watches/a...ppe-5326g-001/
I guess innovation is not dead?
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
I can see evolution in a way but a bit limited. My thinking is mechanical watches have no purpose anymore, an apple/Android/Garmin digital computer on the wrist far exceeds any functionality a mechanical watch offers. Mechanical have survived by carving a link to luxury. This makes them attracted to two types of consumer, the collector, and the normal people. The normal people I reckon don't buy an omega because of the escapement, or it's anti-magnetic properties, or a patek for it's perpetual calendar, a deep sea for its water resistance or a Seiko for its lume.... It's just asthetic, price and cache of the brand. So developing is not a big driver for the brand. Then there is us.... The haute horology sell in small enough numbers that something that catches our eye may matter to them so evolution may continue.... But once at the mass end, Rolex and such.... Sales to l collectors don't drive their profits do they? So why evolve? I realise though, omega and others are driving evolution quite a bit so my logic may be very flawed!
Mechanical watches are an anachronism anyway so no real any need to evolve IMO.
Cheers,
Neil.
But that’s been true since 1980 with the “digital revolution”? Seems like they refuse to die. I guess eventually they will go the way of the bowler hat and briefcase. But maybe not for another couple of generations. Social media seems to make mechanical watches and certain brands “must have” items for the digital - must have now - generation, obtained by whatever means (it seems).
AP have bought out their “digital” watch face - not sure it is a complication though
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
Great topic
I'm quite certain mechanical watches can and will continue to evolve - not just because new materials will obviously appear in time, but also because so much of watchmaking is a matter of tradition and has barely been questioned in 200 years, never-mind, truly been revisited.
Just one example that occurs to me that could potentially have an application is the use of magnetic suspension and magnetic bearings to improve shock-resistance and reduce friction. I own and have used turntables that have both features, and they work extremely well to decouple the pickup from some sources of noise and distortion. It won't be easy to miniaturise these to the scale needed, and you'll certainly need to exclude ferrous metals from critical parts of the movement (hardly a new thing) but it's certainly not impossible.
Similar with 'ceramic' components in the movement - those offer the potential for near super-long wear-free lifetimes provided you make the materials suitably non-brittle, something which I believe is already creeping into some movement manufacture.
I'd also love to see the latest ultra-low power light emitting diode technologies coupled with miniature solar cells and new gen supercapacitors so that we can finally have dials that light-up as bright and long as the advertising suggests, rather than the dim and short-lived reality of Luminova and Tritium...
It does feel that way.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
I guess in the same way you could ask if record players will continue to evolve? Ultimately we all know that the natural "evolution" led to completely different technology in order to overcome the limitations. Small improvements and advances can still be made, but more for the fun and the challenge of it rather than any serious consumer demand.
I guess Mechanical watches COULD continue to evolve, but since they are techologically redundant, and principally sold on prestige rather than any intrinsic quality, there is nothing really to promote genuine progress.
If quartz watches hadn't been invented, then the mechanical watch market would be very different. I guess we'd now have far better mechanical watches with better accuracy and higher resilience, at quartz-like prices.
If quartz wasn't invented we'd still be running tuning forks... I agree with the rest of your conclusion.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
For me accuracy and longer power reserve are ideal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly!
Cheers,
Neil.
And how do you think this can be achieved?
Longer power reserve isn’t easy. Reducing the beat rate of the movement is one way, but that’s a retrograde step, high beat movements were developed for a reason. Bigger mainspring barrel, to house a longer spring, isn’t easy, the whole movement would beed re- designing. Reducing friction in the movement, thus allowing a thinner/ longer mainspring, us another approach but again it isn’t easy. The twin barrel approach is another answer but that makes for a thick movement, which is hardly desirable.
Better accuracy would result from improved precision, but more attention to regulating the movement is an easier way to improve what the owner perceives as accuracy. A free check/adjust after 3 months would be worthwhile.
They don't have to "evolve". Watches got more accurate and durable during the quartz revolution but people quickly changed back to mechanical, less accurate watches because they have SOUL.
Low mileage air cooled old Porsche 911's cost more than new now. It's nowhere near as fast or technically advanced but people are willing to pay for genuine, analog driving experience. They don't want a car that's full of electronic gimmicks... and when you drive it it feels like you're sitting in a laptop.
With automatic watches... it's the same analog, basic feel that people are looking for. And always will be.
Sorry, there are loads more than 4. Look Here
This is exactly what is being talked about, silicon oscillators, previously from Omega, Patek and Rolex, now to be found in a $700 Tissot, let alone Hamilton, Oris, Longines etc etc
I think you are confusing WIS types and the general public!
Some, but by no means all, WIS rejected quartz and declared that mechanical watches had 'soul' (I disagree), but the General Public embraced quartz watches by the billion (because they are cheap and accurate), and have recently moved further into electronic watches with almost everyone who has a watch now wearing an Apple watch or a fitbit or similar! Even analogue quartz watches are a rarity these days. Of course, most of the public haven't the faintest idea what goes on inside a watch, but the idea of watch without batteries is now incomprehensible to most people.
I think the current focus in this moment is the hybrid watches more than the evolution of the mechanic watches.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
I am referring to silicon oscillators as opposed to silicon escapements.
"The whole purpose of mechanical watches is to be impertinent." ~ Lionel a Marca, CEO of Breguet
There are so many ways in which they can evolve. New complications, new ways of indicating the time, improved accuracy, better value, better finishing.
There are so many people interested in mechanical watches, both talented creators but more importantly willing buyers, that I think evolution will continue.
No. They've evolved plenty anyway.
People are getting sick of evolving tech anyway. We're rapidly losing touch - no pun intended - with the tangible.
Posting Permissions
