are mechanical watches more than just jewellery?

[bordseye]

as the CEO of Rolex once said.

Elsewhere on the forum Troc wrote "It’s all relative I guess and yes, my Garmin is technically way more accurate but my JLC is accurate to 1-2 seconds a day which is more than enough for my daily activities. " He got me thinking.

For a while now I have pondered buying myself an expensive mechanical watch but not pushed the button mostly because of the hype and bubble in the market. So my daily watch is still an Apple one. More accurate than a mechanical one but I agree with Troc - that accuracy is no real use. But what Apple offers and a mechanical one doesnt offer is real daily use.

The timers for example are used for everything from the 5 minute gun racing my boat, to timing something in the oven. The message function means that I dont need to carry a phone. As does the phone function. It tells me the weather forecast. It reminds me of appointments. When I fell heavily whilst walking the dog, the emergency system kicked in to check I was OK and to call for help if needed. It monitors my activity / fitness levels. It monitors my heart rate with alarms for regularatory.

None of these functions are absolutely vital but then neither is knowing the time. But it does seem to me that a fondness for old style mechanical watches not that the likes of Apple are here is much the same as a fondness for the slide rule now electronic calculators have arrived.

I'm not a jewelry person but if I were one, then I might well keep the Apple and buy a diamond signet ring. Or even a gold chain a la Lewis Hamilton.

[grumbledoak]

Most are jewelry. Some are Veblen goods.

You cannot usually see the mechanism inside, and objectively better mechanisms than clockwork have been invented - quartz, for one.

[NDA]

Some are jewellery - cheap movements in bling packages.

But some are mechanical masterpieces and that's why many buy them. It's Tesla Vs Ferrari in a way - one is a functional appliance and will get you efficiently from A to B, another is one where you might savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it.

[Stunters]

NDA said:

Some are jewellery - cheap movements in bling packages.

But some are mechanical masterpieces and that's why many buy them. It's Tesla Vs Ferrari in a way - one is a functional appliance and will get you efficiently from A to B, another is one where you might savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it.

Interesting.
I don't wear any jewellery at all, but I do wear a watch every day and usually a mechanical one.

Personally, I think that all analogue mechanical watches can be considered as jewellery and also analogue quartz ones can be as well.

I also consider the mechanical masterpiece-type watches to be even more 'jewellery', because of their beauty and complexity. For me, the Tesla vs Ferrari analogy doesn't work because I don't think you 'drive a watch' or necessarily put more effort into reading the time (or other function). It's just an exquisite object, and therefore the very definition of jewellery for me.

Perhaps the analogy is costume jewellery vs the real thing from Asprey, Garrards etc!

[chuck_ster]

I don't get smartwatches as they don't have practical screens , so I have to carry a phone around anyway

[bordseye]

NDA said:

Some are jewellery - cheap movements in bling packages.

But some are mechanical masterpieces and that's why many buy them. It's Tesla Vs Ferrari in a way - one is a functional appliance and will get you efficiently from A to B, another is one where you might savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it.

I am not sure that the Tesla vs Ferrari simile really works since the Ferrari offers functions that the Tesla doesnt, and the Apple watch uses very high skill levels both to design and build, skills that are different to the mechanical watch builder but no less significant. In fact as someone whose tec education predates the integrated circuit, it seems to me that there is more skill that I dont comprehend in an Apple watch than it a mechanical one.

But leaving my personal view aside, do you think that the Rolex fanciers on here all buy to "savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it?". Could be I suppose. The reverse Sinclair reaction - people who are so used to modern electronics post that mans calculator that what amazes them is that some of the same functions can be done by cogs and wheels? Bit like the way a modern civil engineer might look at the pyramids and wonder how the hell they were built 4000 years before JCB.

[toon10]

Probably not.

I appreciate the engineering and history of my watches but in all honesty, my iPhone does a much better job at telling the time, being a chronograph, world timer, telling me the date, etc. than any of my watches do. I love my watches and still want more but they are more about how they look and make me feel than being practical tools.

I've never really understood smart watches as I have a phone that does that and more. To me, they look awful on the wrist. To others, smart watches make more sense than a mechanical watch that does nothing more than tell the time, less accurately! I see both sides but my own personal preference is to wear a lovely looking piece of jewelry to tell the time and use my phone for everything else.

[NDA]

bordseye said:

I am not sure that the Tesla vs Ferrari simile really works since the Ferrari offers functions that the Tesla doesnt, and the Apple watch uses very high skill levels both to design and build, skills that are different to the mechanical watch builder but no less significant. In fact as someone whose tec education predates the integrated circuit, it seems to me that there is more skill that I dont comprehend in an Apple watch than it a mechanical one.

But leaving my personal view aside, do you think that the Rolex fanciers on here all buy to "savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it?". Could be I suppose. The reverse Sinclair reaction - people who are so used to modern electronics post that mans calculator that what amazes them is that some of the same functions can be done by cogs and wheels? Bit like the way a modern civil engineer might look at the pyramids and wonder how the hell they were built 4000 years before JCB.

The Ferrari/Tesla comparison had little thought other than it's car Vs appliance and watch Vs appliance.

Most watch collectors I know are not YouTube flex knobs and definitely interested in the design and mechanical complexity of their watch rather than it's value or ability to influence other YouTube flex knobs.

I am more fascinated by a perpetual calendar (for example) than a quartz iPhone companion on my wrist. I did try the iWatch thing and was unimpressed.

[Countdown]

NDA said:

Some are jewellery - cheap movements in bling packages.

But some are mechanical masterpieces and that's why many buy them. It's Tesla Vs Ferrari in a way - one is a functional appliance and will get you efficiently from A to B, another is one where you might savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it.

In relation to the Mechanical masterpiece bit.....

If you drove a real Ferrari and a Kit Car "Ferrari" with all the badging removed you would expect most PHers to be able to tell the difference in multiple ways (ride, handling, acceleration, noise, interior). However I'm not sure if the vast majority of people would be able to tell the difference between a fake Rolex and a genuine one. They're purchased primarily as jewellery/status symbols rather than because of any "mechanical" enjoyment they supposedly provide (because it's hard to discern the difference in mechanical quality.

p.s. For the avoidance of doubt I don't think there's anything wrong at all with people having status symbols and showing them off. We all do it to some degree or other. I just think some people seem to want to pretend that their expensive watches aren't anything to do with Status.

[Flying machine]

bordseye, just go and buy a nice watch.

Yes they are pieces of jewellery for men that also tell the time.

[Jamescrs]

I dont really consider them jewellery, I dont wear any jewellery personally, not even a wedding ring but I do wear a watch everyday.

My best and favourite is my Omega Seamaster 300M which was a present to myself for my 40th.
It's not a daily, I wear a G-Shock at work.

I'm not a fan of smart watches. I've had a Garmin and Samsung in the past and I don't get on with them.

Ultimately though whichever side you fall on over whether or not its jewellery if you like it then go for it.

[NDA]

Countdown said:

We all do it to some degree or other. I just think some people seem to want to pretend that their expensive watches aren't anything to do with Status.

I guess so. It's a bit like having stables and tennis courts at home - if you ride and have an elegant forehand, they're still status symbols to some.

[TWW]

Great Q Bordseye,

Really interesting to hear about you falling on the dog walk - a family member of mine wears the Apple Watch to deal with frequent seizures, it has saved her quite a few times and alerted emergency contacts!

The question boils down to this: are mechanical watches superfluous and unnecessary in the face of quartz or digital watches?

Quartz/ digital will always beat mechanical when it comes to accuracy. They are also more easily engineered to be shock-proof, waterproof and generally more resilient.

There are no two ways about that - from a utilitarian viewpoint, this is why when the situation calls for accuracy and resilience, they are used - for example, in the case of first responders or soldiers.

BUT - there are certain areas where mechanical watches outperform their quartz/ digital brothers: they do not require battery replacements. Their movements can last decades - quite possibly centuries.

These might seem insignificant but there are applications where a lack of reliance on batteries is useful: if you need a watch for a certain event/ circumstance, it's useful to know that it only need be wound up, rather than have its battery checked.

Let's say you were travelling for a month, even if you ordered a brand new quartz/digital watch, there's no guarantee this hasn't been sat in a warehouse for months/ years waiting to be delivered to you, which means that when you strap it on at the beginning of your travel, you have no guarantee whether or not it will still be working at the end.

This is reflected in ISO guidelines for dive watches: they require an end-of-life indicator so that anyone relying on one would know it needed a battery replacement in advance of a dive. Of course, people don't rely on them anymore for diving - but there are a number of organisations which use these style watches.

It's also important to note that mechanical watches are often over-engineered by virtue of their inherent fragility: with shock protection systems, and excessive water resistance. Their higher price point also tends to result in higher quality materials and craftsmanship.

Finally, quite a few manufacturers are mechanical-only. Beyond luxury, Rolexes, for example, are highly-legible and a joy to use. Let's say I was travelling, I would choose a Rolex GMT-movement watch (GMT II or Explorer II) over an Apple Watch: I can decipher two or more time zones at a glance more easily than using an Apple Watch.

There are incredible quartz/ digital and fantastic mechanical watches. Each have their benefit and virtue.

I don't think mechanical is redundant.

[robemcdonald]

NDA said:

Some are jewellery - cheap movements in bling packages.

But some are mechanical masterpieces and that's why many buy them. It's Tesla Vs Ferrari in a way - one is a functional appliance and will get you efficiently from A to B, another is one where you might savour the journey and appreciate the skill required to build it.

I think this analogy really works.

Based on any meaningful, measurable statistic the Tesla easily wins; less expensive, more practical, more efficient and probably quicker too.

Same with an Apple Watch versus any sort of mechanical one.

I think I may finally understand why people want expensive watches in the same way I’d like a Ferrari..

[LunarOne]

Many watches are things of beauty, but when you consider that some of them are hand designs and built, they can take many hundreds or even thousands of hours to make by very skilled craftsmen. It's like having a beautiful oil painting, an art form that you can wear and one that you can admire wherever you are.

I don't know much about this particular watch, but I could look at it and admire its mechanical complexity for hours. Just stunning.





Pics from https://quillandpad.com/2020/09/01/3-new-tourbillo...

[Countdown]

NDA said:

Countdown said:

We all do it to some degree or other. I just think some people seem to want to pretend that their expensive watches aren't anything to do with Status.

I guess so. It's a bit like having stables and tennis courts at home - if you ride and have an elegant forehand, they're still status symbols to some.

But you can get tangible pleasure from riding horses and playing tennis (and from driving a Ferrari). Where's the physical pleasure from wearing a 22ct diamond, or a Rolex or from any kind of jewellery?

[toon10]

There's something magical about highly engineered mechanical watches. I'm flabbergasted by the shear mastery of being able to build something like the A Lange & Sohne triple split. The ability and craftsmenship that goes into making something that wonderous is staggering and yet, as a software developer, I could probably knock out a quick and easy application that achieves the same results and bang it on the Android store. I know what I'd rather be looking at and using though.

[NDA]

Countdown said:

But you can get tangible pleasure from riding horses and playing tennis (and from driving a Ferrari). Where's the physical pleasure from wearing a 22ct diamond, or a Rolex or from any kind of jewellery?

I doubt if such pleasures can be forensically dissected.

The pleasure of owning nice objects would be hard to describe if one is immune from such things. Why have a painting when a photograph of it will suffice?

[gregs656]

Flying machine said:

bordseye, just go and buy a nice watch.

Quite. All the salty posts about Rolex, now this. If you want one, buy one. If you don’t, stop thinking about it. They’re just objects.

[minimalist]

NDA said:

I doubt if such pleasures can be forensically dissected.

The pleasure of owning nice objects would be hard to describe if one is immune from such things. Why have a painting when a photograph of it will suffice?

For some, they are a reminder of a significant event. Each time they look at it, a memory is evoked. Perhaps a wedding, birth of a child, new job, big promotion etc.

Whether they are jewellery or not is subjective. My wife never winds up her DateJust. To her it is jewellery and she doesn't care. I use mine to tell the time as my phone is usually left on my desk or in the drawer or beside the bed.