Which Tourbillon?

[AshW]

Any suggestions?

[PJ S]

FFS, give us a bit of a bding clue!

[AshW]

Sorry, been looking at Omega, Breguet, Jeager etc.

Omega Centre seemed to be excellent value if you don't go for bling.

[Sheetmaself]

One in a pocket watch otherwise its a complication too far!

Dont get me wrong their mesmerising but then so are other complications which actually perform a function like a minute repeater.

In fact feck it, it's your money what kind of style or watch houses do you like?

[DCerebrate]

There is only one master Tourbillon maker.

https://vimeo.com/77638692

[Emonda03]

Many differing types of Tourbillon, far from a complication to far in my book, love them.
You don't have to show your tourbillon, the panerai is a lovely one, no sign of it from the front, relatively simple, but flip it over & its mesmerising to watch the tourbillon rotate







Or you can have it on the front but disguise it by wrapping a skull round it






Or just enjoy looking at it face on, complicated 3d look....




Or maybe the more classic look.....

[sad61t]

Smart watch with a Tourbillon animation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C0R3yGkxBM

[Sheetmaself]

They are a remarkable bit of engineering, but if you look at what yhey are designed to do then there is absolutely no reason for one in a wristwatch, again this is not to say that there not desirable just that there solving a problem which does not exist in a moveable watch.

That said the OP wants one and we all have things that maybe have little use in the real world.

[Emonda03]

I understood that a tourbillon came about initially to make a watch more accurate, in that with it moving it was not as susceptible to the forces of gravity etc....so as much as it is something 'fun' to have it did come about for a purpose, not just for asthetics

[Wills2]

I don't think it matters "Which Tourbillon?" Just get the one you like the most.

I love the Franck Muller ones myself.

[130R]

[Sheetmaself]

Emonda03 said:

I understood that a tourbillon came about initially to make a watch more accurate, in that with it moving it was not as susceptible to the forces of gravity etc....so as much as it is something 'fun' to have it did come about for a purpose, not just for asthetics

I hate people like me.

It actually came about to make watches more accurate that generally stayed on the same axis, ie a pocket watch, by changing the axis of the movement itself to minimise the forces of gravity etc on the movement. A wrist watch is moved on its axis enough for this to occurr naturally during wear with the need for a tourbillon.

dhead mode off

[Wills2]

Yep they're not needed (from what I've read) but look so wonderful, if I could I would.

[nikaiyo2]

I quite like tha Tag Heuer one, or the Bell and Ross Phantom they are a bit more modern than most.

[Emonda03]

What the heck push the boat out and go for a quadruple tourby....

[AlexC1981]

I like this one. Not too flashy, you get a nice view of the tourbillon and the hands are dead central on the dial, unlike some I've seen.

[piquet]

the panerai tourbllon is designed to be a in a wrist watch based on the positions we tend to keep our forearms in which is why it's at a funny angle

oh and according the the patek people a movement or tourbilon visible from the face is a big no no, as the oils tend to be damaged by UV and blue light although that could have been an excuse

[EddieSteadyGo]

Emonda03 said:

Or maybe the more classic look.....

Oh yes

Also like the idea of the Panerai.

Would like to have a RM, but don't think a sport watch benefits from a tourbillon