Horage Tourbillon 1

[anonymous-user]

Just noticed this on WF, a Tourbillon for under 7k. Looks amazing and customisation means you can tailer it to your tastes. Really is such an amazing watch for the price.

Horage Tourbillon 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAD-HlmsBQU

[Doofus]

The Spruce Goose said:

Just noticed this on WF, a Tourbillon for under 7k. Looks and amazing and customisation means you can tailer it to your tastes. Really is such an amazing watch for the price.

Horage Tourbillon 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAD-HlmsBQU

How much would it cost to remove the almost entirely useless tourbillon?

[anonymous-user]

Doofus said:

How much would it cost to remove the almost entirely useless tourbillon?

I don't know, why is it useless?

[Doofus]

The Spruce Goose said:

I don't know, why is it useless?

A tourbillon is intended to overcome the effects of gravity on a watch that remains mostly in a single position, such as a pocket watch. On a wristwatch, it achieves nothing of practical benefit. Although some think it looks nice.

[thebraketester]

Some of the finishing on that watch looks very shoddy.

[anonymous-user]

Doofus said:

A tourbillon is intended to overcome the effects of gravity on a watch that remains mostly in a single position, such as a pocket watch. On a wristwatch, it achieves nothing of practical benefit. Although some think it looks nice.

that applies to all watches then with it, I was amazed as the level of engineering that has gone into a watch for this price.

[Flying machine]

Doofus said:

The Spruce Goose said:

Just noticed this on WF, a Tourbillon for under 7k. Looks and amazing and customisation means you can tailer it to your tastes. Really is such an amazing watch for the price.

Horage Tourbillon 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAD-HlmsBQU

How much would it cost to remove the almost entirely useless tourbillon?

That seems like a fairly irrelevant comment, many high end watches have objectively useless complications e.g. moonphase, but IMO they are all the better for it - indulgent mechanical complexity for the sake of it and to make a visually interesting watch, which this is.

[Doofus]

Flying machine said:

That seems like a fairly irrelevant comment, many high end watches have objectively useless complications e.g. moonphase, but IMO they are all the better for it - indulgent mechanical complexity for the sake of it and to make a visually interesting watch, which this is.

I don't think 'irrelevant' is the right word. I don't like skeleton watches, and I don't like tourbillons, real or otherwise. Given tourbillons don't do anything, and given I don't like them, they should be banned.

[Flying machine]

Doofus said:

Flying machine said:

That seems like a fairly irrelevant comment, many high end watches have objectively useless complications e.g. moonphase, but IMO they are all the better for it - indulgent mechanical complexity for the sake of it and to make a visually interesting watch, which this is.

I don't think 'irrelevant' is the right word. I don't like skeleton watches, and I don't like tourbillons, real or otherwise. Given tourbillons don't do anything, and given I don't like them, they should be banned.

Fair enough, if that's what you think

[8Ace]

thebraketester said:

Some of the finishing on that watch looks very shoddy.

Really? Where?

[thebraketester]

8Ace said:

thebraketester said:

Some of the finishing on that watch looks very shoddy.

Really? Where?

On the wheels, also the hands look very rough too. Might not come across like that in actual fact, but the close up macros do not do it any fovours IMO

[anonymous-user]

thebraketester said:

On the wheels, also the hands look very rough too. Might not come across like that in actual fact, but the close up macros do not do it any fovours IMO

Funny when WF did a comparison against a Rolex and Grand Seiko.. Rolex look like a Chinese copy of itself in comparison