Is the glass press fit into the outer metal much like I suppose the top crystal, or sealed in place by other means?
I'm not a fan personally, but I'm wondering whether my general distrust of them is an unfounded concern born of not much more than a dislike.
I dont like em, but the im not a blingy person, bit like putting a glass bonnet on a car, making a see through washing machine, or transparent trousers, but some will always be tempted, the crystal is normally held in place just in the same way as the crystal to the face of the watch.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
On regimental omega watches, they have a sapphire crystal fitted on the caseback the same way as on the dial.
I disagree. The display back isn't to show off to others or make a statement in any way, as no-one else can see it. It's more to allow the owner to admire the beauty of the movement themselves.Originally Posted by number2
OK, ta for that.
I have a bit of an irrational phobia that there somehow a weak spot, water resistance over time or what have you I don't know. Yet, seen nil threads on this concern so can't be that much of an issue. But then, I do like a solid back with engraving or pattern - despite that only ever being visible when you take the watch off!
* double post *
Watches with display backs aren't ones you'd want to go swimming with. I like them: you've paid for a fancy movement, and it's nice to be able to see it.
Omega 600m display backs - I'd say there is no need to mistrust them.
It's just a matter of time...
This seems to manage 600m quite happliy....Watches with display backs aren't ones you'd want to go swimming with. I like them: you've paid for a fancy movement, and it's nice to be able to see it.
For me display backs are a real must. Very few of my watches don't have them. I love to be able to see the movement whenever I want.
Agreed - some are very interested in the movements, and this is a way to enjoy it without opening the case all the time. And if you have a case back like that fitted, justdont go swimming with it....I disagree. The display back isn't to show off to others or make a statement in any way, as no-one else can see it. It's more to allow the owner to admire the beauty of the movement themselves.
Thanks for the additional comments.
Must admit, on something like a nicely finished Unitas or what have you, I can see the attraction. At the lower end of the scale, I can't help wonder why something like a basic '5' with a 7S26 has a display back on virtually all current models, I'm sure the older ones didn't. But I suppose, they are 3atm. Does a solid back make any difference I wonder?
Well, there's an exception to everything. Wouldn't fancy swimming in this, but maybe on a NATO? ;-)This seems to manage 600m quite happliy....
I don't know about yours, but my washing machine has a display front :wink:
Hummm, for some reason i just dont see the point (no pun intended)
Lets marvel in the fact that we all like different things.
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
'Populism, the last refuge of a Tory scoundrel'.
As mentioned they are generally pressed in on a sealing gasket.
It is an extra joint needing attention to keep watertight.
The biggest issue is making a ring from the caseback that would otherwise be the bottom of a box, adding structural stiffnes and strength.
Most watches with a rear window will not exceed 5 Bar WR for that reason.
Quite enough for the vást majority of watch owners but it illustrates that yes, you do have technical grounds for ´mistrust´; the rear window negatively affects the integrity and wr of the case considerably.
Take Rolex. There would be nó techical issue with one on a Cellini (Rolex even máke one in the Prince), not much if any with the chrono but it would be a gotspe on a sub and ludicrous on the deepsea.
Lastly is adds bulk; both weight and hight, as it is typically considerably thicker than a one piece steel lid.
Ah, thanks Huertecilla, that's useful. Regarding your last point - I hadn't considered that, interesting observation. Cheers.As mentioned they are generally pressed in on a sealing gasket.
It is an extra joint needing attention to keep watertight.
The biggest issue is making a ring from the caseback that would otherwise be a lid on a box adding structural stiffnes and strength.
Most watches with a rear window will not exceed 5 Bar WR for that reason.
Quite enough for the vást majority of watch owners but it illustrates that yes, you do have technical grounds for ´mistrust´
Lastly is adds bulk; both weight and hight, as it is typically considerably thicker than a one piece steel lid.
Despite adding weight and hight, the WR of the watch is down the drain.
Not because of the extra joint but because the integral stiffnes of the case with a steel back is vastly greater than without.
Taste and preference are something completely different. Just as the intended use of the watch.
Are these casebacks often used as an easy way of saving costs on precious metals in high end watches (with savings pocketed by the manufacturer)?
A display case back is considerably more expensive to produce that a solid metal one.
´Precious metal´ would be gold or platinum and the pricing of watches made in thóse is an art form belonging to the jewelry trade more than to watch marketing.
I love them especially if you've got something worth showing.
+1
“ Ford... you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.” HHGTTG
i look at my zenith movement more than the face, even thought about changing the strap so I wear it upside down to see it more often!
Have Rolex never made a watch with a display back then?
As has already been pointed out, the new Planet Ocean is rated to 600m with a display back, so I wouldn't call that down the drain...
Despite adding weight and hight, the WR of the watch is down the drain.
The foto is of a Rolex....As has already been pointed out, the new Planet Ocean is rated to 600m with a display back, so I wouldn't call that down the drain...
Despite adding weight and hight, the WR of the watch is down the drain.
As to that new PO. With enough engineering effort, there will always be exceptions confirming the rule.
I wouldn't care to have one on a diver but on watches that don't have great water resistance anyway I think they look nice. Even the lowly 2801 can be attractive.
I don't really get the decreased water resistance argument.
If it's ok to have crystal on the front of the watch, then surely it's not a problem to have it on the back! Especially when most watches never go more than a few feet underwater.
(I know there is probably one more gasket to go, but that's only another small theoretical risk.)
That is it. I'd love to have one, just to look at, you know, when you've a spare few minutes, just adminiring the beauty of it.
Don't like them, don't see the point of them and would prefer a more elaborate caseback.
The only positive I can see is that they may limit the use of the Nato strap.
I've never liked them, they always look cheesy to me.
I know what the movement looks like and what it does. :wink:
I can understand to a certain extent with a manual wind or microrotor but when all you see is a full size rotor waving about covering most of the movement and adding even more bulk to the case.............no thanks.
Cheers,
Neil.
It´s the same as making a cabrio from a modern car; the case back is part of the structural rigidity. A window is a hole. You will need to strengthen the frame a lót to get the same stiffness.
It is only an issue if the watch case nééds the structural integrity.
The only thing I do not like about the rear windows is the effect on watchmakers; window dressing has become important to the extent of watch design adapting to the look even.
Blued screws are a must instead of hardened.
The ´decoration´ has become a goal instead of a resúlt of proper finishing surfaces/edges.
From a mark of quality it has become superficial appearance.
Just like ´Swiss Made´ realy....
Surely convertible cars are easy? Just take the roof off - you've got metal on the floor of the car and you already have windscreens so it must be ok, right?
Except that it ruins the stiffness of the car unless you put in a shed-load of engineering to fix it and is probably heavier.
So, like the PO it's possible to do, but not always desirable.
EDIT: Ha, 'Cilla beat me by a few seconds.
I like them; it's nice to see the detail of the movement that justifies all this money we spend over the equivalent quartz watch. I don't personally understand the whole WR concern - how many of us *actually* dive below, say, 10m? I'm sure a display back is capable of reliably remaining waterproof in the swimming pool...
I'm well aware that's a Rolex, I was merely quoting your post...The foto is of a Rolex....As has already been pointed out, the new Planet Ocean is rated to 600m with a display back, so I wouldn't call that down the drain...
Despite adding weight and hight, the WR of the watch is down the drain.
As to that new PO. With enough engineering effort, there will always be exceptions confirming the rule.
It is nice to be able to enjoy the internal beauty of a watch, that said there are some watches that just need a solid back or they dont feel right on the wrist, Panerai are the most obvious for this where there is just a certian feel that you get with solid backs on the wrist and as the majority of time it is on the wrist its probably more important that it feels nice rather than occasionally looks nice
RIAC
Depends on how you approach it as a design concept, if you take a car and cut the roof of yes you normally end up with a compromise but if you design it to be convertible from the start you will normally get a better result.
Not sure where Im going with this analogy to watches but my Fortis has a display back rated to 200m, lets face it as said before 100m is more that most will ever use. Personally I like them and most of my watches have them.
I enjoy a display back; for no other reason than I like to watch the cogs and springs and things moving about. On a deeper level I like to see a good quality of finish and some of the decoration is wonderful. I suspect some of it derives from a fascination for cutaway drawings of aeroplanes etc. in books I read as a boy, too. I enjoy my Spaceview just as much as any other watch which shows off its movement, despite it being considerably less interesting to watch...!
My Hour Vision is the daddy of all my display watches: as I understand it, it's basically a display case, with metal fittings as required - despite the sides of a movement being rather dull, I somehow enjoy the fact that I can see them. :)
Omega Hour Vision Blue balance detail by RobK76, on Flickr
It barely qualifies as an exception; merely conventional engineering, scaled up. They had to make it fatter to cater for the thick glass, which means the chrono version is nearly 20mm thick. I am sure if they'd tried, they could have incorporated a suitably thick display back with fancier case technology to thin the whole package down - but that would have added cost, and possibly would not suit the buyer profile.The foto is of a Rolex....As has already been pointed out, the new Planet Ocean is rated to 600m with a display back, so I wouldn't call that down the drain...
Despite adding weight and hight, the WR of the watch is down the drain.
As to that new PO. With enough engineering effort, there will always be exceptions confirming the rule.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
I think "the point" is so you can look at the movement :wink:
Now this however, I don't see the point.....(no pun intended)
It isnt a problem, Huertecilla exaggerates.
Sapphire is harder and stiffer than steel anyway, and comparing it to the rigidity of a car is not really valid.
Screws dont have to be blued, and all screws would be tempered anyway, using hardened screws is a no-no they tend to snap when tightened.
What it does is add a cost to the manufacturer, and also requires the movement to look at least decent...
which is irrelant as it is sitting on a gasket; for structural integrity it could be not there.
The rim need to be made stronger, thicker and profiled to compensate.
if one wants to do it right the case needs be beefed up dito too.
As observed is it no issue for 5Bar. Just a tiny bit, hardly noticeable thicker, heavier.
For anything more WR it gets more noticeable.
For serious WR, it becomes silly.
The structurally strongest constructions don´t have a caseback.
It is kind of funny.
The WR competition clashing with window dressing and stíll most maintain that they like tool watches :bigsmurf:
Bottom line is; there is solid ground for the distrust by the OT.
Whether that is important or a priority is mostly about taste and preference and not really what his thread was about :idea:
Display backs?
I can take them or leave them.
However I do find the concept of transparent trousers strangely appealing. :shock:
Both my Rolex Seadweller and GMT have sapphire backs - it's just that some idiot in Switzerland assembled them back to front :)
Given the "stresses and strains" your average watch case comes under (i.e. none), then this never - except for perhaps performing simulated depth testing.
I'm no engineer, but the cabriolet analogy is pretty weak as I believe this relates to torsional stiffness i.e. the chassis and bodywork twisting as the car corners/rides over bumps. Watch cases don't really come under these sort of stresses.
The only downside of display backs for me is that they can feel a little "sweaty" in hot weather. Given the choice of having one or not, I would have one everytime.
which is irrelant as it is sitting on a gasket; for structural integrity it could be not there.
Bottom line is; there is solid ground for the distrust by the OT.
Its not irrelevant and theres very shaky ground at best. The pressure would always come from the outside pressing the sapphire into the steel, not out, so in fact its stronger than the steel would have been. The only weak point is the gasket, which is the same as on the front of the watch anyway and needs replacing at regular intervals.
The issue for the manufacturer is of course that it adds cost to the watch and movement, nothing else.
Not really; the manufacturer simply passes the cost on in full, and then some, to the consumer.
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
Would of course depend what price range the maker has targeted. Or what profit margins they would like to keep. Or what ETA lets them buy... :)Not really; the manufacturer simply passes the cost on in full, and then some, to the consumer.
+1 Suits dress watches, pilot watches etc more than divers.I wouldn't care to have one on a diver but on watches that don't have great water resistance anyway I think they look nice. Even the lowly 2801 can be attractive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
