It's not, but I would sure fancy an 1Hz automatic watch

 

Most automatic watches tick 6,8 or 10 times a second. I call it fine ticking as opposed to true continuous sweep (Seiko Spring Drive).

Fine ticking is important because it distinguishes the prestige of an automatic from the cheapness of $10 plastic watches.

I hate 1 second ticks so I'm not a fan of quartz, with the exception of the Bulova Precisionist (16 ticks/second, looks continuous).

 

I enjoy the seemless ticking of a sweeping second hand, however the only watch I own with a true second hand right now is my Parnis power reserve, the rest are chrono's with a 6-oclock minor-dial second hand.

 

I don't own a watch without a second hand, I like to see the movement on the dial, although on dress watch it can give a cleaner look without it.

 

To me sweep seconds is important, even if it's in a small subdial. If there were two side by side and they were alike except for the sweeping seconds I would take the one with the sweeping hand. As has been stated, I like to know the watch is working at a glance.

 

The actual definition of a "sweep seconds" hand is that hand "sweeps" the entire dial. It doesn't matter whether it "ticks" once per second or at some other frequency. Sub-dial seconds hands (at '6', or at '9', or elsewhere ...) are "non-sweep seconds" displays.

It depends on the watch. On some designs, I prefer no seconds hand, while on others, I do prefer one.

 

Well said.

 

My preference is 3 or 4 hand auto's. I've never liked automatic chrono's. So in short, yes the sweep hand is important to me.

 

Always prefer one -- there is something about watching it that makes me all happy inside, just like a hot woman.

 

I like having a seconds hand. I like it whether it pulses or sweeps.

 

I totally HATE Quartzes mostly because of 1 sec ticks, then for the battery and the generally ugly movement....

 

No, I'd be fine with a subdial seconds hand.

 

I often time things with my watch and not just look to see what time it is. I like having a seconds hand. Sweeping is more aesthetically pleasing, but I wouldn't turn down a good quartz just because of the seconds hand.

 

For me high beats 28k or 36k movements can hypnotize me very easy. I just love them. However if some gave me that 300k watch that just tells day and night I might have to work that into my rotation.

 

I wouldn't mind a deadbeat second mechanical like say this one

 

that is true awesome! the subdial is silly and, like someone else already said, would drive me nuts. but the quartz-like 1 second
ticks are alot more "mechanical" to me than a smoothly sweeping second hand.

 

^^^ That's a bit redundant, isn't it?

 

A sweeping second hand is certainly not a "must" for my watches. If your definition of sweeping is that the second hand sweeps the entire dial - I have plenty of manual wind 6487/8 based watches with small sub second dials However, I also have a manual wind watch without any seconds hand, and both of my 7750 based chronographs do not have the seconds sub dial.

I have no problems with any manual wind watch without the second hand. I wind those every morning, so I'm sure they'll run for at least 24 hours. With an automatic watch I would want some indication that the watch is running. Could be a second hand, a chronograph (could always start the stopwatch if I need to know) or it should have a display back to see the balance wheel.

 

For me, a method of measuring seconds is a must. Preferably a sweep seconds hand but a sub dial is acceptable.

As for quartz watches, the same applies but with a sweep second hand, it must hit its marks.... If only they all did!!

 

Not necessarily a must-have, I love a dress watch without sweeping second

 

Not necessarily a must-have, I love a dress watch without sweeping second

View attachment 426837

This watch would drive me nuts. A sub-dial is ok, but I prefer a sweeping seconds hand.

 

How about a case study, let's take a beautiful timepiece like this Zenith for example, on the n° 1 the small second sub-dial is smartly located at 9H, sincerily I can't see how could you convince me to go with the n° 2 (no sweeping second) ;-)

Personally the sweeping second is a MUST for me, it gives me a sort of dynamic view of the watch, when I see the second hand sweeping I know that my watch is alive.

 

How about a case study, let's take a beautiful timepiece like this Zenith for example, on the n° 1 the small second sub-dial is smartly located at 9H, sincerily I can't see how could you convince me to go with the n° 2 (no sweeping second) ;-)

I don't see how any one can go with #1......the subdial should be at 6 o'clock.

 

IMHO a perfect sweep is only obtainable with the higher heartbeat movements, that are for the most part out of my price range.

I am perfectly happy with the (lower priced) more broken sweep motion of the lower heartbeat movements. I have one that "stutters" when I tap the case a certain way. That doesn't bother me at all either, knowing that it is the result of gear-train mesh + tolerance accumulations and in my case does not alter the accuracy of the movement.

*EDIT* This commentary is based completely on a large-dial type second hand, not a subdial second hand complication, as I have not owned one yet.

 

IMHO a perfect sweep is only obtainable with the higher heartbeat movements, that are for the most part out of my price range.

I think it's very difficult to distinguish the difference between a 21600 and a 28800 when the sweep hand is located ins small sub-dial, at least by naked eyes.

 

For me it depends on the design of the watch.. The Zenith examples both look gorgeous to me so a second hand would be a plus (assuming everything remains the same).. This is one of my watch that I definitely think looks better due to the lack of second hand (center or subdial)..

 

For me it depends on the design of the watch.. The Zenith examples both look gorgeous to me so a second hand would be a plus (assuming everything remains the same).. This is one of my watch that I definitely think looks better due to the lack of second hand (center or subdial)..

My thougths exactly; it really depends on the design. I like the sweeping hand very much, but e.g. some dress watches look so much better without one.

BTW, I just love that Genta, it's so hilarious! :-d I was also thinking about your new JLC while reading this thread. Absolutely no need for a seconds hand there. ;-)

 

Are you asking about the smoothness with which the seconds hand moves? Or the area swept by the seconds hand.

If the former, apparent smothness is determined mostly by the movement beat and the length of the seconds hand. I enjoy movements that run from 18,000 to 36,000 bph to 300hz (tuning fork) to 1 hz(traditional quartz). No favorites.

If the latter then there are two basic designs: the so-called center sweeping seconds hand and the sub-seconds display. Again I enjoy wristwatches with either type of seconds display.

 

No the question is very simple, do you want a sweep second hand on the dial of your watch, be it center sweeping second or small second, and why.

So your post clearly shows that you want it

 

Absolutely! No dedicated chronocentric would own one without a second hand IMHO.

 

I prefer a center seconds hand, but I have a couple with a sub dial. I like both. That Genta has a different appeal, and I agree, it works quite well without the seconds display. A dress watch without a seconds hand is not for me.

 

I prefer second hands that sweep at continuously (or at least appears to do so) because it's fun to watch. Also, I absolutely HATE most quartz (except perhaps the higher end ones) because the seconds hand barely hit the indices perfectly. Last week, I looked at a couple Omega Aqua Terra quartz watches and both of the watches had second hands that did not even come close to hitting the indices, but rather in between indices.