Most of quartz movements are repairable/serviceable. But they are generally cheap so replacing the entire movement is less costly in some cases.

 

I think the idea of “mechanical watch lasting forever, if properly cared for!” is more romance/marketing, than practical, for most people…

I have two kinetics from my Grandfather, but no watch from great grandfather, great great grandfather, etc. Apparently, some forum members have pocket watch like that, but not in my own experience.

I love quartz cause they work well, and last long without any service. The two kinetics from my Grandfather are like ~20 years old by now? Still running.

 

Long ago when they were still a relatively new concept I saw quartz watches exactly as you describe - a disposable commodity item.
Then there was the question of how readily batteries would be available in the future.
This was something that I always saw as giving an edge to mechanical watches.
40+ years on my old Seiko and Pulsar watches are still ticking happily away and keeping brilliant time. Ditto my dads old TAG Heuer 2000 quartz from 30-years ago.
No problems with batteries and all are still working well and will no doubt still be doing so long after I’ve quit this mortal coil.
As a result I’ve come to see quartz in a new light - especially with the advent of ‘renewable’ energy sources such as solar, kinetic and Spring Drive which require far longer intervals between the required battery replacement.
It doesn’t put me off mechanical watches but I do appreciate quartz far more today.
It’s great that you can leave them for days or weeks then put them on without needing to wind them or set the time and date.
They are generally more accurate - although my pre-ceramic Omega SMP runs well inside the typical +/-15 seconds per month accuracy quoted for most quartz watches.
It’s a shame that the Citizen Chronomaster watches aren’t generally available here in the UK as I think they are getting very close to being the perfect GADA watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I largely agree and would posit a secondary question... does it matter?

It seems like an intuitative agrument to make that mechanical watches will last forever, but the reality doesn't back that up. Think how many mechanical watches were made in the last century, how many are still in good working order or even more rarely actually in regular use? Nearly all have long since found their way to the watch graveyard or languish somewhere unseen for years.

The heirloom argument where they get passed down through the generations is largely dead, very few of the current generation have any interest in an old man's watch either. If a watch gives you pleasure and good service during your lifetime then it has served its purpose, and you, well.

As stated in the OP virtually all quartz movements can be repaired, and that includes component replacement on circuit boards. For the cheaper, decent quality movements then given the numbers of these produced it may well be the case that a new replacement movement will be available long after we've all gone. I have a few spare Ronda movements that will be fine in 50 or 100 years if needed.

The biggest argument against quartz is either batteries being left in them and leaking, up there with allowing water ingress to a mechanical? Or the fact that most run continuously whilst mechanicals, particularly those in a collection, may only be running and subject to wear for a small portion of time.
Just enjoy whatever gives you pleasure and don't think that a watch is important in any way to anyone other than you.

 

Oh boy it's been a while since we had one of these, haven't we?

Whatever your thoughts on mechanical vs quartz are, here's a gentle reminder that smartwatches are the biggest threat to both. Wearables are eating the lunch of "traditional" watches.

...and while some automatic or quartz movements are disposable, the amount of e-waste generated by smartwatches as byproduct of Moore's Law will soon surpass the waste created by changing batteries and replacing movements (if it hasn't already).

 

The idea of replacing the movement seems odd to me regarding cheap automatics. But I think that "work" is paid differently in different parts of the world. Here's my example : dropped an automatic running the Seiko NH35 and it went nuts for accuracy and beat error. Went to a shop that, judging by their Facebook page has worked on rolexes, iwc, you name it. The old gentleman working there opened it up in front of me to assess the damage and the escapement was busted and the rotor was snagging while turning. Here's the price (converted to dollars) for the repairs and oil (as it were, it seems that it needed oil too) : 30 bucks. Now, I'm sure in some places I could get a new movement for 30 bucks, but if I factor in the removal of the hands/dial and putting it back together, the price would certainly double. So I don't think that replacing the movement makes sense everywhere in the world. And I couldn't find a place to buy the movement in my country so I would have had to have it shipped.

 

I think when a lot of folks think of Quartz they think of the cheapy $20 Walmart quartz watch that you buy and use and then toss in the box you are giving to the thrift store after the battery dies.

During the golden age of quartz (about 1969 to about 1985), quartz watches were expensive, well made and designed to be repaired like a mechanical watch. Quartz watches have been around for over 50 years now. They are hardly a flash in the pan or a fad. My oldest quartz watch is a Seiko 3802 from Aug 1971. It was part of the first batch of 38 series quartz watches that were due to debut at the beginning of 1972. Seiko spent the last few months of 1971 producing the watches so that they had enough watches to sell from the onset. The 38 series was the first Seiko quartz produced in volume. The 1969 Astron (35SQ) and the 1970-1971 36SQ were of a limited production. The 38 series was very popular but expensive. My 1973 Seiko 3803-7010 (38QTW) cost 69,000 Yen in 1973. That is the equivalent of around 181,120 Yen in 2022. That comes out to around $1390 (depending on which conversion website you look at) so it was not cheap. Seiko exported their QT, QR and QS series to the USA and other countries under the numbers 2002, 3003, 4004. Model CZ003M (A model from the Seiko USA 4004 line) in 1977 cost $150 MSRP (about $711.64 in 2022) which was not cheap. Seiko finally had to offer a cheaper series called Type II starting in the mid 1970's as their quartz lines at the time were outside the ability of the bottom of the totem pole Salary Man (though the Seiko Type IIs were cheaper then the other quartz lines, they still were not super cheap. Seiko know folks spent a lot on these watches so they designed them to be serviced at various intervals just like a mechanical. They expected these watches to last the owner decades.

Here is my 3803

 

I agree with your reasoning.

However, I don't see any of the common mechanical movements disappearing from the market any time soon, so I don't expect problems to source spare parts for common Eta / Rolex / Omega / etc. movements for many decades. This is such a big market that the demand will create a supply. The same may be true for some quartz movements, though.

Even though the argument for mechanical movements is more sentimental than technically true, the fact that so many people believe it and buy mechanical watches for that reason (or just use it to justify an expensive purchase?) will keep the market alive.

 

Mechanical is marketing and way to charge more. Swiss been positioning them as special thing (despite boatload of cheap and reliable Japanese mechanical watches been around all that time). You charge more for special thing right? It created market and market now supports itself. Though it's as disposable as it goes in many cases. Service mechnical is not economical as dispose movement. Unless it's 2000$+ watch. Basic machine made ETA is cheaper to toss aside. Flip rotor onto new movement and here you go.

 

I love mechanical watches, but, if my life would depend on a single watch, I would choose (solar) quartz… Quartz is more accurate, shock resistanant, and there is a very high probability it will work (decades) longer without service compared to a mechanical.

 

I have said it a couple of times and completely second this post......

 

I have never had an expensive quartz movement, so when mine have died they have been binned.

 

Let's be honest: Getting a watch that one can pass down to the next generation is simply a justification for buying a watch we want. Sure, we may intend to pass it down (if we don't flip it first), but there's no guarantee the next generation will want it. And that's okay. Taste and what is valued always change from generation to generation. Always has, always will.

My dad had maybe 4 or 5 watches from his dad that sat in a box. My father was never interested in them, even though he had his own watches and wore them all the time. When I wanted a fancier watch than my Timex, he let me look through the box. None of the watches interested me. They weren't even bad watches. A Longines, a Seiko SQ, a couple other Seikos.

I don't care what the next generation does with my stuff because it's just stuff and I'll be dead. Probably none of us are landed nobility, so the Patek marketing is just a fantasy too.

 

I would say it comes down to lifestyle. I love mechanical watches but sometimes I just like the fact I can pick up a quartz watch after a week off the wrist with no need to adjust it.
Quartz are also lower maintenance, slimmer and generally cheaper.
Mechanical watches are more romantic though - think steam engine trains to modern electric trains.

 

Two quartz watches from the first half of the 90s, still running perfectly. One Mido from the 70s in need of service, date not flipping, but still running. So both can last a long time.

Just my experience and I agree with your reasoning OP.

 

The "argument" presumes that it's a binary choice for someone who can only have one.

I buy a watch because I like it. That's pretty much it. Accordingly, I have BOTH quartz and mechanical. My oldest watch is a digital Seiko that is 43 years old. Still working!

My oldest mechanical, is a Breitling Colt Ocean at 22 years old.

 

I'm over mechanical personally. All my watches right now are automatic (two Seikos and two Vostoks) and I'm already having trouble because I mostly wear two out of the four, and my main one (Seiko Alpinist) like, 80% of the time. So I have to manually wind a lot.
Also, I hate the lack of accuracy. I had a cheap digital Casio and I only adjusted the time like once a year maybe. With mechanical, at least once a week.

As the OP said and I've stated before too, I don't see how a cheap, run of the mill, mass produced mechanical movement has more "soul" than a quartz.

The "passing down" thing I don't care, I'm not having kids. Plus, I don't think wasteland raiders will care much about watches so when they find my body they probably won't even bother taking it.

So yeah, personally, if I could only have quartz, I'd be happy. Too bad the watches I like are mechanical only, with the exception of the Cartier Tank, but that has other issues for me. But I might have to buy one eventually because I really like it. Now if I could get a BB58 in quartz too...

 

Lots of quartz movements are serviceable. Also quartz is not subject to the same kind of wear from spring tension so it's less likely to need service anyway. Most quartz movements will tick happily away for decades as long as you don't let the battery eat it.

I prefer mechanical movements, but I don't have a practical justification for it. It's more about appreciation of history and an alternative to my otherwise inundation of electronic devices in my life. I like that my watch is powered by me.

It's a bit like CD vs vinyl. You know CDs sound better, but vinyl is something that is experienced. Heck, even CDs are "retro" nowadays.

 

...
I prefer mechanical movements, but I don't have a practical justification for it. It's more about appreciation of history and an alternative to my otherwise inundation of electronic devices in my life. I like that my watch is powered by me.

It's a bit like CD vs vinyl. You know CDs sound better, but vinyl is something that is experienced. Heck, even CDs are "retro" nowadays.

I think this is my justification right here for why my collection swings more towards mechanicals than quartz. Everything in my life is quickly becoming digital or electronic, and while I am no Luddite, I like the idea of a bit of old-school in my life, even if it is slightly more inconvenient in some way or another. Hence why I stick with Mechanical Watches, Double-Edge Safety Razors, a Vinyl Record Player, etc. Even my bicycle - while it is certainly NOT a vintage bike (2017), I still shy away from a 1x gear-train cause I like the nostalgia of having a larger range of chain-rings to choose from.

 

Quartz are more accurate, cheaper, more reliable, and cost a lot less to replace. It makes perfect sense to always buy a quartz, and that's why nearly all my collection is mechanical

 

Mechanical on the wrist and a digital quartz as the backup.

 

Old style quartz could be repaired not only mechanically but also electronically. It's not a complicated thing in case of analog quartz. few transistors, capacitor, resonator, coil and resistors with motor. All could be replaced with 3d party parts which fit. Made sense in 70s when parts been good for 20-40000 hours of work (better than vacuum tubes !!!). Today you can get cheap off the shelf parts which will last for century unless there is water intrusion. Quartz don't need "parts" more than mechanical movement and most of these can be recreated on micro CNC or lath.

 

My day job is as a reliability engineer. Probably the highest failure rate item (least reliable) on a quartz movement would be the motor(s) that advance the hands. If it's a digital watch, it'll be whatever light is used as a backlight. In the reliability world, things failure in normal service either randomly or due to some wearout mode. (That's omitting induced failures like dropping the watch, exposure to strong magnetic fields, etc.) If there are analog hands with the quartz movement, the movement benefits from a service to lubricate the gears to extend the mechanical life of the gears. An analog quartz watch movement reliability is probably still in the mid-100,000's mean hours between failures. There are quartz movements which are still working decades after purchase If it's 30 years, that's 262,800 hours assuming it was working the entire time. For digital quartz movements, the reliability is much higher - probably high 100,000's of hours between failures. A quartz crystal oscillator, for example, has a reliability of around 18 milliion hours mean time to failure. Probably the most common cause for failure is corrosion because owners don't replace the case seal. Well-maintained, a decent quartz watch (Seiko, Citizen, and other reputable brands) will last you decades.

Similar story with mechanical movements. Can last a VERY long time if serviced and maintained properly. BUT - that servicing more than likely will require replacing parts that are known to wear out (e.g. mainsprings). Just like the quartz movements, mechanical movements are susceptible to corrosion, increased wear on gears and rotating components, etc. if not maintained.

If you want accuracy and don't mind the "ticking" of the second hand, go with a quartz watch. If you want the "soul" of a mechanical movement and want to see a sweeping second hand, go with a mechanical watch.

 

Thanks for the great info! Really is solid knowledge/experience to stand on. None of my quartz, digital or analog, have ever quit on me. And your post pretty much explains why.

 

It sounds a bit selfish but given my age I’ll be long gone when the supply of spares becomes an issue so I just buy what I like and pay no heed to the long term viability of a watch.

 

I buy watches because I like them. Availability of spare parts never enters the equation. Of my dozen watches, only one is a quartz, a Citizen EcoDrive Skyhawk. After 14 yrs, it's still accurate AF. I hardly ever wear it.

 

Casio Marlin.
I bought this in 1979, still going strong.
The only Quartz Watch I have ever owned.

 

Casio Marlin.
I bought this in 1979, still going strong.
The only Quartz Watch I have ever owned.
View attachment 16608899

Oh man, what a horrendous mistake; you know these are hard to maintain. I hope it works out for you...

 

I don't think there is a clear / general winner or loser in this discussion. It depends on part availability decades from the time of purchase.

 

Also personal preferences. But generally speaking non lubricated mechanical watch will las less than quartz based on amount of "ticks" it makes. Mechanical do ticks as much as quartz just smaller ones. You can see it with any phone offering low motion video capture (60 fps or more video capture).

 

My watches are split roughly 50-50 between automatics and quartz, including solar quartz. None of the movements cost much, so if they fail (they rarely do), replacement is fine. I have only had three movements fail in about 20 years, two due to lack of service, one a solar quartz that I bought used & probably had a damaged capacitor.