Automatic.

I’ll try not to put you to sleep explaining why.

In the Autumn of 1985, shortly after turning 19 years old, I accidentally found books about watches at the library while I was looking for something else. I had this

and knew nothing about it.

Those books unraveled the mystery, and hooked me with fascinating information. I fell in love with mechanical watches, especially American railroad watches.

I gave up on quartz watches when I “found” a chronograph hanging on my watchmaker’s peg board. His customer never picked it up and he sold it to me for the cost of repairs: $125. Even in November 1986, I knew that was a steal for an early 60s LeCoultre Master Mariner E335 chronograph.

I started wearing it every day, using the chronograph frequently, and developing an appreciation for the complication that remains my favorite type of wristwatch today.

Though I have worn quartz watches occasionally since, they have left bumps and a rash on my wrist every time. Okay, not really, but I haven’t liked quartz watches for nearly 40 years now.

Edit: Point 3-if the mechanical is identical to the quartz INCLUDING PERFORMANCE, that’s a hella accurate mechanical!

 

Interesting question. After thinking it through my answer would depend on if the quartz watch is solar powered. If so, I'd take the quartz. If not, I'd take the mechanical. I've decided that I'm just not going to get any more watches that require battery changes. As much as I love mechanical watches, since we're looking at exactly the same watch other than the movement, I'll take the 10x saving if the quartz is solar powered.

 

If it's solar quartz, I'll choose the solar option, even if there is not that much of a difference.

Darn it, I want a solar powered Sinn 857s 🤣

 

I've actually been facing this dilemma recently. I know I want a specific Junghans Max Bill, and the auto version is basically identical to the quartz in appearance. (At retail) the auto costs $2750.00 while the quartz is $1650.00. As much as I'd prefer the auto all things being equal, I don't think I can justify such a large percentage difference in price. I'd say an extra 25% is the most I'd be willing to go for the auto in this case.. not an extra 66%

 

I’d have the mechanical over the quartz any day. But if the price of the mechanical exceeds the maximum I’m currently prepared to fork out for any watch then I’ll have neither.

During these times when anything is possible using electronics I prefer to support those still producing the more traditional movements.

Though I’ve owned many quartz watches previously I haven‘t bought one since 1992.

 

I’d have the mechanical over the quartz any day. But if the price of the mechanical exceeds the maximum I’m currently prepared to fork out for any watch then I’ll have neither.

Same answer for me

 

Auto. I’ve just decided that I don’t care on an emotional level about quartz. Especially so if it’s just a ubiquitous quartz like a vk or similar that powers a lot of very pretty quartz’s.

it’s not that I think the auto is worth that much more, it’s really more that I just don’t personally see the quartz as being even worth, for me, the much lower price. I just don’t want it. It feels like a fascimile of what I want, made for cost reasons above any others, and fails entirely to set my heart ablaze.

What I think this gets at for me is not so much auto vs quartz, but the reason one buys a watch over $100. It’s not the look I’m after. Or the name. It’s some extremely opaque and ethereal idea of “special” that my mind imbues onto certain objects, and not others. This is way, way more easy to understand and accept when it comes to jewelry, as no one questions why the wearer prefers natural diamonds and high karat gold, but applies just as much, for me, to watches. Which I guess makes them also jewelry, just in a very slightly different way.

 

Auto. I’ve just decided that I don’t care on an emotional level about quartz. Especially so if it’s just a ubiquitous quartz like a vk or similar that powers a lot of very pretty quartz’s.

it’s not that I think the auto is worth that much more, it’s really more that I just don’t personally see the quartz as being even worth, for me, the much lower price. I just don’t want it. It feels like a fascimile of what I want, made for cost reasons above any others, and fails entirely to set my heart ablaze.

What I think this gets at for me is not so much auto vs quartz, but the reason one buys a watch over $100. It’s not the look I’m after. Or the name. It’s some extremely opaque and ethereal idea of “special” that my mind imbues onto certain objects, and not others.

This direction of response is what I am looking for, the emotional aspect, if any

 

I don’t buy expensive quartz watches.

Affordables, I’ll take a solar Quartz please.

 

Easy quartz bores me, have all I need of them won’t be buying anymore. I’ll take the auto please.

 

Is there something like this IRL (as my kids would put it)?

I can think of Seiko and GS. Maybe Cartier. Even some ladies Patek/AP. But not at that price ratio.

 

Your premise is flawed as I don't believe that choice exists. I will pay more for a mechanical version, but not 10 times more, and I don't think there is an example of a mechanical watch that is 10 x the price of its quartz version. If it was then there would be more differences than the movement. 10% more? I'll buy the mechanical every time. 50% more? I'll have to think about it.

 

I think he may be asking you to suspend disbelief for a moment and ponder the philosophical question about why you prefer what you prefer rather than proposing an actual example of two watches. It’s hypothetical.

 

Quarz watches just don't thrill me (Spring Drive excluded). If I feel the mechanical version is too expensive for me, I just don't buy and move on. The cheaper quartz alternative just isn't an option.

 

I saw that Porsche revived 70's chrono on another thread.
Gorgeous. But way too $$$ at 12K.

And I thought : Supposing they offered that in quartz for, say, $1,200.
Would I'd get it?
I can't say. So, I started this thread.

PS: I am in this (mainly) for the look. I'm totally superficial, hate everything official.

 

I faced a softer version of this in late 2023, when I bought a CWC Royal Navy Diver Mk 2 as a long-term tool watch. It's an overpriced watch to begin with, and the automatic is over twice the price of the quartz (currently £1,250 versus £583). They look near identical. I tend to prefer quartz in tool watches, for practical reasons. I bought the quartz, and I'm happy, with no regrets whatsoever.

So I think in this hypothetical, with a massive price disparity - yeah, I'd go with quartz.

 

How about I throw you a curve ball? This titanium Tag solar quartz AR (being limited and special and blah blah blah) was about $200 more than the equivalent steel Cal 5 AR. Would anyone pay more for solar quartz over mechanical?

 

The quartz because I don't like getting ripped-off.

 

Maybe we should rename this forum to RipOffUSeek.com then, considering how many of us here get ripped off with most watches we buy, according to you..

 

Quartz, well Digital for me. When you have amassed a large collection of mechanical watches as I have you realise a mechanical watch is a long term liability as it will need servicing at some point.

 

I agree. It's getting really expensive servicing my collection. Changing batteries is cheap and easy at my skill level.

 

Well, I will be interested in a watch firstly because I like how it looks.

Then I check the price, then I check the size and if it fits, only then I check the movement.
If it's an automatic it's OK, if it's an solar quartz it's even better.

I actually would like more (Solar) quartz watches, as I enjoy the grab and go ability as well as the accuracy.

The RZE is one of my favourite watches (designwise) - If there was a black solar quartz version, I'd pay more for it than the NH38 it comes with.

 

If the difference is a factor of 10 I'd choose the quartz version every time unless the mechanical has some sort of gorgeous hand-finished movement with Chronometer certification and Geneva Seal or equivalent value-add proposition. If the factor is 2x or 2.5x it would be a harder choice.

 

I didn't understand **** but I still voted. Hehehehe call me American.

Look at me, I eat burgers and I don't know the difference better "they're" and "their" even though this is my native language. Heheheheheheh.

(Don't ban me, American mods, it's just a joke)

 

Quartz PRX is $395, Automatic is $725, but the reality is i wouldnt buy either. On the other hand, I can see myself buying the new Tag Heuer Formula 1 (Solar quartz) at roughly $2k but unsure how much more id pay more for the same watch in automatic.

In the case of a speedmaster at $7-8k vs a moonswatch at ~$400, I'm perfectly OK paying 20x.

Tissot makes the PRS 516 chronograph in both quartz ($495) and automatic ($1,850) as well. I used to own the quartz version.

Edit: as an extended thought, I don't have a preset max price for either quartz or mechanical. Each watch will be judged on its own merits.

 

under the conditions of the initial question, I would take the quartz watch 10x cheaper.

 

For me, I can only think of 3 types of watches where I'm fine with quartz.
1. Digital watches (Casio)
2. Cheap, fun watches (Moonswatch, gimmick watches)
3. Cartier watches without seconds hands.

For any watch that doesn't fit in one of these categories, I'll take the mechanical version each time, regardless of the cost.

 

Omega Seamaster quartz had this issue, so they stopped making it and should start again

 

I totally understand the passion for automatics. Have many and it does “feel” different wearing one and knowing that inside are all those tiny gears and springs, perfectly aligned and moving in harmony to almost perfect accuracy.

Still, I appreciate the grab and go dependability and ease of a quartz, particularly good ones with useful features like low battery indicators, solar charging, etc.

Back to the original question, for me it really depends on the watch and frequency of wear. For a formal dress I think auto all the way. If a diver, field or other, I think quartz has a pretty good shot at that size price discrepancy.

 

It's funny because to me this question is impossible to decide. I choose watches based on emotion that comes from different aspects (looks included), but the most important contributor to emotion is knowing the inner workings.
Some quartz watches and modules are extremely complex, engineered cleverly and much more interesting than a generic 3-hand mechanical movement even from respected luxury brands. But at the same time, if it's a simple quartz and the mechanical movement is quite special (manual or automatic), it also changes completely my view of the watch.

And my only quartz watch is a 4k one (MR-G), same price as my cheapest automatic. (I just wish there were mr-g squares with a thermocompensated superquartz module).

 

I didn't vote because I don't consider quartz when making a purchase, even though I have a couple bought specifically as beaters. For me it's not just about appearance, but about the IDEA of things. I like the IDEA that the mechanical movement can achieve accurate timekeeping, and the IDEA that the movement has this or that cool silicone and free sprung balance, and certain anti-magnetic properties, blah, blah etc. While I am a stickler for accuracy, I like that it can be achieved through a carefully engineered and well-regulated movement. The smooth sweep of the hands also brings its own enjoyment. The quartz watch may look identical, but differs in many ways that are important to me, that make it uninteresting.

Incidentally, I just bought a GS spring drive and love it, but that's a whole other thread.