Watches

[civpilot]

paddington said:

justayellowbadge said:

Bennem said:

What about the movements from Sinn?

BTW what damage will it do to a chronometer to leave the chronometer function running? I guess just wear it out and because the watch is doing two things continuously strain the mechanism?

Right. A CHRONOMETER is a measurement of accuracy. A CHRONOGRAPH is the stopwatch function you allude to.

Oh, and Sinn are fabulous, but they don't manujfacture any movements - They use ETA and Valjoux.

Um, isn't a CHRONOMETER an accurate watch, while a CHRONOGRAPH is a watch with a stopwatch function? After establishing your definitions you also neglected to answer the question. I'm no horologist but it appears from a (very) brief investigation that running the chronograph will not affect the movement in an automatic watch.

but arn't most on this thread talking about "Mechanical" watches as opposed to "Automatic" watches? (ie, ones you wind yourself every morning not the ones that wind themselves through the movement on your wrist)

Two entirely different beasties and running the Chronograph on a mechanical watch obviously effects the watch in that it lasts far less time between manual winds, not sure if it effects accuracy. Running the Chronograph on an automatic watch as you say has no effect on the watches running.

[anonymous-user]

northernboy said:

swerni said:

I would go along with this.
I have a submariner and before that a GMT
Wife has a Yacht Master

and none of them are great at keeping time

Having said that still think they are great watches and in August the replacement for the submariner finally arrives

and yes it's another rolex

It is strange to me, that I used to think that they did not look nice, and now suddenly find myself thinking that they really do look great.

Jewellery for men. Cool.

I looked at a colleagues GMT the other day, it was a 21st birthday present and he's now 60.

The watch looked great and he wears it most days. That's what I like about some of these watches like the GMT( II ) , submariners or other makes like Breitling Navitimers ,Omega speedmasters etc is that they stand the test of time and still look good 40 years on. These watches' design itself has changed so little over the years. Many dress watches seem to age well also but I prefer a steel looking watch myself.

I'm still a litttle surprised the Daytona looks so different from the previous model.

[Gio G]

I was in the market for a Rolex myself, after owning a Seamaster for a number of years. However opted for the IWC double Chronograph instead

What convinced me was that aparently Rolex make around 800,000 - 1m pieces a year, compared to IWC which make around 18,000 year. This information was given to me by jeweler. Does anyone know whether this production figures are correct?

[tertius]

Gio G said:

I was in the market for a Rolex myself, after owning a Seamaster for a number of years. However opted for the IWC double Chronograph instead

What convinced me was that aparently Rolex make around 800,000 - 1m pieces a year, compared to IWC which make around 18,000 year. This information was given to me by jeweler. Does anyone know whether this production figures are correct?

Rolex certainly make more watches than any other (high end) Swiss maker, I've heard the figure of 750,000 quoted, but its not something Rolex make public.

No idea on IWC's production numbers, I think Breitling are in second place with 150-200,000.

Edited to to qualify the Swiss maker comment.

Edited by tertius on Tuesday 13th March 18:06

[Suckmychrsitmas]

Surely, though, it's all relative. At one extreme you've got AHCI members making perhaps less than a hundred watches a year and at the other you have Swatch making hundreds of thousands.

[hutchingsp]

Gio G said:

What convinced me was that aparently Rolex make around 800,000 - 1m pieces a year, compared to IWC which make around 18,000 year. This information was given to me by jeweler. Does anyone know whether this production figures are correct?

It ties in with most figures I've heard mentioned. As I said they're good watches and should last a lifetime, I wouldn't dispute that, I just don't think that for £4k there's a lot of "exclusivity" for lack of a better word.

[Mahatma Bag]

I've had an automatic omega seamaster for yonks, pretty indestructible but the timekeeping is rubbish, loses seconds a day. Costs as much to service as my Audi. Still, it never runs out of batteries, and James Bond had one!

[paddington]

civpilot said:

paddington said:

justayellowbadge said:

Bennem said:

What about the movements from Sinn?

BTW what damage will it do to a chronometer to leave the chronometer function running? I guess just wear it out and because the watch is doing two things continuously strain the mechanism?

Right. A CHRONOMETER is a measurement of accuracy. A CHRONOGRAPH is the stopwatch function you allude to.

Oh, and Sinn are fabulous, but they don't manujfacture any movements - They use ETA and Valjoux.

Um, isn't a CHRONOMETER an accurate watch, while a CHRONOGRAPH is a watch with a stopwatch function? After establishing your definitions you also neglected to answer the question. I'm no horologist but it appears from a (very) brief investigation that running the chronograph will not affect the movement in an automatic watch.

but arn't most on this thread talking about "Mechanical" watches as opposed to "Automatic" watches? (ie, ones you wind yourself every morning not the ones that wind themselves through the movement on your wrist)

Two entirely different beasties and running the Chronograph on a mechanical watch obviously effects the watch in that it lasts far less time between manual winds, not sure if it effects accuracy. Running the Chronograph on an automatic watch as you say has no effect on the watches running.

Yes, you're quite right. So it seems as if running a chronograph on either a mechanical or automatic watch will not have a detrimental affect on the mechanism. It will simply drain the power reserve quickly on a mechanical watch.

I have been looking at investing in my first decent watch and I really really like the newish Tag Carrera Chronograph. I realise it's not in the same league as some of the watches being discussed on here but the design is fantastic (IMO). It's also not a certified chronometer (unlike certain Omegas in a similar price range) so I think it might be less accurate. Fortunately my job is not so time-sensitive as NB's so I could put up with it. Anyone got one??

[tertius]

paddington said:

I have been looking at investing in my first decent watch and I really really like the newish Tag Carrera Chronograph. I realise it's not in the same league as some of the watches being discussed on here but the design is fantastic (IMO). It's also not a certified chronometer (unlike certain Omegas in a similar price range) so I think it might be less accurate. Fortunately my job is not so time-sensitive as NB's so I could put up with it. Anyone got one??

No, but I lust after an original (pre-Tag) Heuer Carrera. Which would be about the same price (or less) and much more desirable in my view. It would be hand wound, however.

As an aside, I'm not sure that "mechanical" is quite the right term for a hand-wound watch - automatic watches are "mechanical" (ie not quartz) but wound automatically. Hand wound watches are "mechanical" but wound by hand. So I would say either hand-wound or automatic to differentiate the winding mechanisms of mechanical watches.

[northernboy]

Just edited to say, thanks very much for all the advice. Back at the start it really was academic interest. By this afternoon, I boight an Explorer II.

Edited by northernboy on Thursday 15th March 23:04