Is the traditional quest for mechanical watch accuracy now irrelevant?

fatherbowie · Aug 28, 2019

It's kind of like a science that has turned into an art, as well as a marketing feature. It's an irrelevant pursuit in terms of actual application, but it's still relevant to people who enjoy them, and companies that profit from them.

Tohono Rat · Aug 28, 2019

The telos of a watch it to tell time. From that perspective, the better a watch achieves this goal, the better it is (at least from an Aristotelian perspective). Of course accuracy matters!

There are really two questions. First: "how accurate is necessary?" Pretty much everyone would be happy with, say, chronometer levels of accuracy. Some are fine with ±30 SPD. But who in their right mind would be OK with ±2 hours per day? There is a point at which inaccuracy goes from being acceptable to being unacceptable. So, yes, it matters. To some more than to others. For me, it is extremely important. Which is why I tend toward chronometers.

The second question is "how much does accuracy matter compared to other factors?" This is certainly a matter of personal preference. Some people place it at or near the top of their list in evaluating a watch. However, for most, I suspect, it is behind things like overall aesthetics of the watch, price, movement finishing, in-house vs. sourced movement, etc. Where on the list of priorities accuracy lies will vary from person to person.

parnassus · Aug 28, 2019

irrelevant, to the extent that most people nowadays care less and less about the intricacy and functionality of watch movements and its mechanical details. inherently to watchmaking and horology, mechanical accuracy will never be moot.

alexandrov · Aug 28, 2019

everything above F-91W is just a bijou

John Price · Aug 28, 2019

My mechanical watches are not irrelevant to me. I'm one of those few who rarely carry a cellphone. And when I do, it's easier for me to turn my wrist to see the time than fish my phone out of my pocket. That said, I never need accuracy to within a few seconds a day. If my watch were to be off by 30 seconds I'd still be close enough to "on time" for things that I'd be okay (this makes the assumption that I'll wear a different watch the next day and need to set it to start the day). THAT SAID, I do like my watches to run within 5 to 10 seconds a day as, like you, I find the accuracy of these little mechanical machines to be very impressive. How many seconds are in a day? And to be off by only a few is amazing to me.

yongsoo1982 · Aug 28, 2019

utzelu said:
Better accuracy doesn't sell in mechanical watch market. They are now relegated to jewelry or at most, art status.

you missed the point.. accuracy doesnt sell in a mechanical watch market because mechanical watches couldn't compete with the accuracy of quartz. You don't think that if mechanical watches were to surpass the accuracy of a cheap-o quartz that they wouldn't use that in marketing?

Stoshman · Aug 28, 2019

Only for about 50 years, since the invention of quartz watches.

Mechanical watches should be appreciated for their beauty, engineering, and overall utility. Accuracy is a plus, but not the reason for owning them.

jason10mm · Aug 28, 2019

Stoshman said:
Only for about 50 years, since the invention of quartz watches.

Mechanical watches should be appreciated for their beauty, engineering, and overall utility. Accuracy is a plus, but not the reason for owning them.

The end result of this line of reasoning would be a wrist watch-LIKE piece of jewelry what has no movement inside and thus CAN'T tell time. Since this is, AFAICT, not an emerging jewelry fashion trend (though I've head of folks wearing watches without the time or date set, they at least should work). Or a quartz that is as finely detailed (on the exterior) as a mechanical watch. But since mechanical watches are still, by far, the leading part of the high end watch market, I gotta think that there is a substantial romantic attachment to a mechanical movement that gives it value far in excess of its physical cost, even when it is completely hidden in the case.

utzelu · Aug 28, 2019

yongsoo1982 said:
you missed the point.. accuracy doesnt sell in a mechanical watch market because mechanical watches couldn't compete with the accuracy of quartz. You don't think that if mechanical watches were to surpass the accuracy of a cheap-o quartz that they wouldn't use that in marketing?

Of course they would use it in their marketing. But the cost of such a watch would be prohibitive for most people, hence it wouldn't happen. I am not saying I wouldn't like to see it happening, I am saying it is futile to even attempt it for mass market. Do you think we will see high accuracy mechanical watches in the future sold for under $500? I doubt it.

utzelu · Aug 28, 2019

Tohono Rat said:
The telos of a watch it to tell time. From that perspective, the better a watch achieves this goal, the better it is (at least from an Aristotelian perspective). Of course accuracy matters!

There are really two questions. First: "how accurate is necessary?" Pretty much everyone would be happy with, say, chronometer levels of accuracy. Some are fine with ±30 SPD. But who in their right mind would be OK with ±2 hours per day? There is a point at which inaccuracy goes from being acceptable to being unacceptable. So, yes, it matters. To some more than to others. For me, it is extremely important. Which is why I tend toward chronometers.

The second question is "how much does accuracy matter compared to other factors?" This is certainly a matter of personal preference. Some people place it at or near the top of their list in evaluating a watch. However, for most, I suspect, it is behind things like overall aesthetics of the watch, price, movement finishing, in-house vs. sourced movement, etc. Where on the list of priorities accuracy lies will vary from person to person.

Agree with your last sentence. But the OP's question was if the quest for improved accuracy in the mechanical watch industry is still relevant. So we need to think on a higher order of magnitude than ourselves. If we only think from our narrow point of view (as WIS), of course the accuracy is relevant, especially that it proves a higher level of quality in a watch. But on a bigger scale (7 billion people), it is irrelevant.

absael · Aug 28, 2019

I don't obsess about the accuracy of my watches (NTTAWWT), but I would like to see improvements made in the less expensive movements. Right now I'm wearing my Orient, which is my "beater" watch. I have to set the time every day because it can gain up to a minute or so. I'm not expecting COSC-level timekeeping for $100, but I'd be a lot happier if it were within 20 seconds/day.

My most accurate watches gain 7 seconds/day. Certainly not terrible, but better would be preferable.

At the high end, if I owned a newer Rolex that was consistently within a couple of seconds, I don't think I'd be complaining... so I guess my tl;dr is that I don't think the pursuit of accuracy is irrelevant, up to a point.

yongsoo1982 · Aug 28, 2019

utzelu said:
Of course they would use it in their marketing. But the cost of such a watch would be prohibitive for most people, hence it wouldn't happen. I am not saying I wouldn't like to see it happening, I am saying it is futile to even attempt it for mass market.

which market are we talking about now? mass market or mechanical watch market? the two aren't the same. yes, mass market--average person on the street, couldn't care less about watches unless they're Apple, Fitbit, etc. and no way are they likely to pay more than $100 for something that just tells time. I completely agree.

relevant for the mechanical watch market, yes. The focus for mechanical watches? at the moment--no. the focus of HAQ, yes. Personally, I can't wait until the Citizen Calibre 0100 makes its way into more accessible pieces (price and productions).

utzelu said:
Do you think we will see high accuracy mechanical watches in the future sold for under $500? I doubt it.

well, "the future" is a long time. Next 5 years? probably not. 10? I don't know. Advances in balance spring alloys, more cost efficient ways to manage deviation tolerances / eliminating deviations in balance spring production, and more competition, I could see as factoring in to lower-priced offerings. The explosion of microbrands should be some indication that better quality can be had at lower prices.

Now, will we see these better than COSC mechanicals from the established brands like Rolex, PP, etc.? Definitely not. But I could see micro or some chinese brands down the road--depending upon calibre availability--using them.

Still above $500, but a Sea-Gull tourbillon can be had for around $1100 (quality may not be there, who knows) while generally most think of them as starting in the 5 digit range.

just sayin, tech has a way of advancing faster than we anticipate. production costs and availability could certainly drive something like that down "in the future".

jacer35 · Aug 29, 2019

Tohono Rat said:
The telos of a watch it to tell time. From that perspective, the better a watch achieves this goal, the better it is (at least from an Aristotelian perspective). Of course accuracy matters!

There are really two questions. First: "how accurate is necessary?" Pretty much everyone would be happy with, say, chronometer levels of accuracy. Some are fine with ±30 SPD. But who in their right mind would be OK with ±2 hours per day? There is a point at which inaccuracy goes from being acceptable to being unacceptable. So, yes, it matters. To some more than to others. For me, it is extremely important. Which is why I tend toward chronometers.

The second question is "how much does accuracy matter compared to other factors?" This is certainly a matter of personal preference. Some people place it at or near the top of their list in evaluating a watch. However, for most, I suspect, it is behind things like overall aesthetics of the watch, price, movement finishing, in-house vs. sourced movement, etc. Where on the list of priorities accuracy lies will vary from person to person.

Very good points. Thanks for your answer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

59yukon01 · Aug 29, 2019

The worse thing I've done in this hobby was download the Watch Check app. Before that I was blissfully happy not knowing how they ran.

Come to think about it I wore my SKX173 for 16 straight years and all I can remember is it was close enough.

Now I get annoyed enough with a slow watch I don't fully enjoy it. Too fast it's kind of the same thing.

Don't get me started on the wacky 6r15 movement.

Rokovakian · Aug 29, 2019

It's all about context. For my modern mechanical, it's well within what would be COSC accuracy, even though it's German. As for my vintage mechanicals, it's whatever. I bought those for charm more than anything. Chasing accuracy in the mechanical world is fine, up to a point. It made sense back when mechanical was literally the only option available. Beyond that point, my quartz pieces take up the mantle and run like hell.

So the quest isn't an irrelevant one in my view, just so long as people don't obsess over it by constantly comparing to quartz.

jacer35 · Aug 29, 2019

Stoshman said:
Only for about 50 years, since the invention of quartz watches.

Mechanical watches should be appreciated for their beauty, engineering, and overall utility. Accuracy is a plus, but not the reason for owning them.

Thanks for your answer. I agree with your first 3 reasons but not your last point! I feel accuracy is part of engineering as well. If a watch is accurate consistently you get a sense of satisfaction that it is well engineered. Just as we enjoy a nicely finished case or dial merely for the sake of appreciating beauty.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jacer35 · Aug 29, 2019

jason10mm said:
The end result of this line of reasoning would be a wrist watch-LIKE piece of jewelry what has no movement inside and thus CAN'T tell time. Since this is, AFAICT, not an emerging jewelry fashion trend (though I've head of folks wearing watches without the time or date set, they at least should work). Or a quartz that is as finely detailed (on the exterior) as a mechanical watch. But since mechanical watches are still, by far, the leading part of the high end watch market, I gotta think that there is a substantial romantic attachment to a mechanical movement that gives it value far in excess of its physical cost, even when it is completely hidden in the case.

You articulated that far better than I could have - I agree. Thanks for answering

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jacer35 · Aug 29, 2019

yongsoo1982 said:
you missed the point.. accuracy doesnt sell in a mechanical watch market because mechanical watches couldn't compete with the accuracy of quartz. You don't think that if mechanical watches were to surpass the accuracy of a cheap-o quartz that they wouldn't use that in marketing?

Actually I would be drawn to marketing plugging an accurate mechanical movement even though it is an inferior timekeeper to quartz. Rolex is a good example - being +/-2s/d certainly is good marketing. I think if anyone had to choose between 2 equally attractive and well made mechanicals but one was running to COSC or Rolex chronometer standards and the other wasn't then most of us would choose the Chronometer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NC_Hager626 · Aug 29, 2019

Q. Does anyone else still get excited about the pursuit of mechanical watch accuracy that has been such a vital part horological development and tradition?
A. No, I do not get excited about the pursuit of a mechanical watch's accuracy. Instead, I appreciate a well made watch that operates within its manufacturer's set parameters and its overall aesthetics.

jacer35 · Aug 29, 2019

Rokovakian said:
It's all about context. For my modern mechanical, it's well within what would be COSC accuracy, even though it's German. As for my vintage mechanicals, it's whatever. I bought those for charm more than anything. Chasing accuracy in the mechanical world is fine, up to a point. It made sense back when mechanical was literally the only option available. Beyond that point, my quartz pieces take up the mantle and run like hell.

So the quest isn't an irrelevant one in my view, just so long as people don't obsess over it by constantly comparing to quartz.

I think I'm obsessed but it's mainly a geek hobby obsession not an obsession for practical reasons of timekeeping so much. I agree about context though. I'm completely delighted when a mechanical runs at under +2s day even though I would be appalled if my quartz watch was out by more than + or - 0.5s/d ! I do however get fed up with some of my 7s26 movements - having to adjust them every day or two if you're wearing them for a few days in a trot, because they can get 'out' so much.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the traditional quest for mechanical watch accuracy now irrelevant?

fatherbowie

Tohono Rat

parnassus

alexandrov

John Price

yongsoo1982

Stoshman

jason10mm

utzelu

utzelu

absael

yongsoo1982

jacer35

59yukon01

Rokovakian

jacer35

jacer35

jacer35

NC_Hager626

jacer35

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities