Originally Posted by
PreacherCain
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.