WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

41 - 54 of 54 Posts

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
54,392 Posts
I think it is hard to argue against "generally less accurate" by posting one specific example...
Ok, l could mention a lot of other examples, i.e.

+ the Rolex ladies oyster movement is a small one and by no means less accurate than any larger ETA
+ a Unitas 6498-1 is most likely less accurate than a smaller ETA 2801 since originally a PW movement
+ the Damasko H 35 is more accurate than the elabore Unitas 6497 but smaller
+ the CO 313 is annother example to show that it isn't about small or big but about high quality parts
There are more examples out there showing that an urban myth does not necessarly needs to be right.

Tell me I am wrong. thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
578 Posts
I know you said "where" but I assume you also meant "when". Wrong question - historically most watches were dress watches - manufacturers were out to make the thinnest pieces they could - maybe since the move from pocket watches and a desire for miniaturization. Rather like when quartz first came in - it was massive - and they raced to make them smaller. They didn't have chunky dive watches in the days of yore. The question should be where/when did the chunky dive watch convention start and "when will the trend end"* ;-)




*this is a little poke at the numerous unanswerable threads on this topic.
^this
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,484 Posts
Ok, l could mention a lot of other examples, i.e.

+ the Rolex ladies oyster movement is a small one and by no means less accurate than any larger ETA
+ a Unitas 6498-1 is most likely less accurate than a smaller ETA 2801 since originally a PW movement
+ the Damasko H 35 is more accurate than the elabore Unitas 6497 but smaller
+ the CO 313 is annother example to show that it isn't about small or big but about high quality parts
There are more examples out there showing that an urban myth does not necessarly needs to be right.

Tell me I am wrong. thank you.
I think he's simply stating that it's more difficult to achieve the same accuracy in a smaller calibre from a technical perspective, and that in movements produced with the same tolerances and care, a larger calibre will generally achieve higher accuracy. The fact that there exists specific examples of smaller calibres that are more accurate than larger calibres does nothing to invalidate the statement that all else being equal, a larger calibre movement tends to be more accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
Ok, l could mention a lot of other examples, i.e.

+ the Rolex ladies oyster movement is a small one and by no means less accurate than any larger ETA
+ a Unitas 6498-1 is most likely less accurate than a smaller ETA 2801 since originally a PW movement
+ the Damasko H 35 is more accurate than the elabore Unitas 6497 but smaller
+ the CO 313 is annother example to show that it isn't about small or big but about high quality parts
There are more examples out there showing that an urban myth does not necessarly needs to be right.

Tell me I am wrong. thank you.
You are likely wrong in several examples, especially comparing 6497/8 to smaller movements. Provided that both are Chronometre certified, the larger movements will be more accurate, as they have tighter tolerances set by COSC than their smaller counterparts.

How did you get mod status with an attitude like yours? I may have only a dozen posts against your dozen thousand, but I'm not stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,016 Posts
A dress watch implies that you are above keeping track of the date. That you have minions responsible for such mundane tasks as keeping track of the date.

Keeping track of the date is decidedly proletarian.

(tongue firmly in cheek) ;-)
 

·
Moderator Public Forum
Joined
·
23,244 Posts
In general, yes. How many COSC certified ladies mechanical watches have you seen? It is easier to manufacture a large movement with greater precision than a small movement with equal precision; as the parts get smaller, so does the margin for error. Also, read this excerpt from an article on TimeZone regarding COSC testing:

"At less than 20mm, the Rolex 2235 falls into the smallest category where the tolerances are at their widest."

Thus it appears that even COSC has larger accuracy tolerances for smaller calibres.
The lack of ladies watches certified by the COSC has more to do with lack of demand by consumers than technical limitations. Maybe the ladies know something the guys don't? For an exceptionally accurate and very small movement look at the one used in a Pulsar PSR 10.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
I saw how disgustingly thick, gaudy, and big watches have become. So, I built a time machine. Travelled back to the early 1920s, became wealthy by investing in businesses I knew would be successful, and then introduced the dress watch concept when wrist-watches first became popular. Thin, minimalist, and small.

No date feature. You don't need one when going to a specific event on a specific day or night. I actually like 3-handers, but a small seconds sub-dial at Six looks better.

Just for fun, I also traveled even further back in time and introduced the concept of neck-ties. Wanted to see if that silly gag would actually continue. Came back to 2013, and my great novelty attire is still around. It's hilarious! Think about it for a moment ... Wrapping a length of cloth noose around your own neck, then letting the excess length hang down culminating in a triangle pointing down to one's crotch. (Make sure no one grabs the excess and chokes you out with it.) Someone else down through the years apparently invented the tie-tack to make sure the tie continues to point straight down even when one moves around. LOL ... Oh that's the best part. Wear a thin noose around your own neck as a symbol of formal attire and sophistication.

Okay, it never caught on with Texans or women. But still a great joke that has survived for generations upon generations.

Alright, I'm sorry for that. I promise no more gag-gift pieces of clothing attire. ;-)
Now go back and erase Invicta even when they made legitimate pieces, just to be sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
I went to that convention and if memory serves me right, I believe it was in Tulsa... no one else showed up... I was pissed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,861 Posts
Now go back and erase Invicta even when they made legitimate pieces, just to be sure.
My time machine needs another week to fully recharge.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,075 Posts
Im talking about the one that says a formal dress watch can only have hours and minutes....I forget is a seconds hand is allowed, but no date is either. What's the origin of that silliness?
The Short of It:
The basic idea comes from the concept of elegance through simplicity and understatement, there being accommodations for taste -- traditional, contemporary, etc. I wouldn't say there is a hard and fast rule. Yes, of course, a formal watch can have a second hand, but as one adds more hands, the simplicity factor goes down, and once one has more than a second had, it starts to not seem so "simply elegant" at all, even though the watch may well be quite beautiful. That's the general gist of it. For women, the theme -- elegantly simple -- is the same but the bling factor has no limit. The more bling the better, so long as the design itself isn't cluttered. Obviously there are "interpretations" of what is simple and elegant, but I think the general consensus would be that multiple buttons/pushers and dials/hands wouldn't fit the description of simple. The same can be said for skeletons.

The Long of What Works for Formal and What Doesn't
Two aspects wherein absolute simplicity can be flexed is that of gems and to a lesser extent designs on the watch face. Aside from formal events, there aren't many places where gem encrusted watches are appropriate (for men), unless one is just that blingy, a la Liberace, Elton John, any number of hip-hop performers, and even perhaps Bowie. The only reason it's acceptable for the entertainment types is because all that bling is part of the entertainment; it's what they do for a living and maintaining the persona off stage helps maintain their appeal/mystique/image on stage. How impressive and intimidating would Batman be in a Brooks Brothers suit? How much of an authority figure would a cop appear to be in a white button down shirt and khakis?

When it comes to designs on the face of a watch, it's much tougher to balance simplicity and elegance and yet exhibit non-traditional flair, is in figuring out whether a design on the face of the watch is indeed elegant, despite the fact that it's not exactly simple. The traditional and tried and true approaches to formal style are often what folks go with quite simply because they aren't in a position and/or of a mind to take the risk of going outside the box. Why they feel that way is irrelevant but some suggestions as to why might include:
  • They just genuinely prefer the traditional look
  • Traditional looking options are all that's available to them without buying something new
  • They haven't the time/energy to enjoin the hunt for something else
  • They don't care to fix what's not broken
  • They haven't the confidence to put their own sense of style out there for all to see, and maybe chide
The thing is that traditional looks/designs are called that because they've been around for years and years. They are the designs that the advantaged classes wore in those ages long gone. What folks don't realize is that the people who defined what is for us today, "traditional" were just as much prisoners of their time as we are of ours. There's a lot about design that is merely the result of the resources and skills available at the time. Yet, the things that make something -- anything -- appealing to the human eye haven't changed for thousands of years.

Step away from watches to consider buildings. It doesn't matter if a building's design mirrors the detailed design themes of The Colleseum, The Parthenon, Burj al Arab, The Great Pyramid, The Barcelona Pavilion, or the Sydney Opera House. If the proportions are right, it will be pleasing to the eye. Individuals may or may not "like" it, but practically none will fail to see the elegance in the design.

To illustrate, below are several dragon motif watches. Some are good for formal wear, some aren't. Some are well executed, some aren't. I would bet your eyes alone will tell you which designs are well executed and which aren't. Some are expensive, some aren't. I can assure you that the apparent price has nothing to do with the quality of design execution.

Forget about whether you like the design -- that won't necessarily have anything to do with whether they are well executed -- just look at scale and proportion. Next, ask yourself if the image on the watch face fits the character of the rest of the watch. Then ask yourself which would you were -- as a man -- to a formal event, assuming you had to pick one and not choosing one isn't an option. For formal wear, if one is going with a non-traditional option, every one of the key elements of design much be very well executed. Balance, scale, detail, proportion, and so on must all be well executed, and in balance with each other in terms of the design/pattern itself, and with regard to the design, and the overall watch and major watch elements (case, bezel, strap/bracelet). That's not particularly easy to pull off.




My opinions:
  • Ulyssee Nardin: Not terrible by any means, but the dragon's scales aren't as elegant and refined as is the watch case design.
  • Invicta: On the watch strap, the dragons are potentially alright (hard to say for sure as they aren't that clear). On the dial, the motif is more refined than the rest of the watch face. The purposeful functionality of the watch's face is incongruous with the refinement of the motif theme, even though Invicta were directionally correct by keeping the dragon image itself simple and in silhouette. Lastly, the arrow style dragon tail pointing at four o'clock is culturally the wrong message. I wouldn't take issue but for the arrow aspect forcing one's eye to four, but even so it's a minor detail. As a casual and well priced piece, it's certainly not bad at all and I could see wearing it.
  • Yellow Dial watch: Wrong frame for the picture. Nothing inherently bad about the dragon. It just doesn't belong with that watch. It's a caricature style dragon associated with a watch case that's got no whimsy or comedy at all. The case style is refined, but the dragon image isn't. Both are well done though. Wearable for it's whimsy, but that's about it. It's a pricey piece and at that price, it should be better thought out as a total package.
  • Watch just after the yellow one: Not bad. The image is a bit feminine, "cutsie" and dainty for a man's watch. It'd be just fine on a ladies watch.
  • Piaget Line Drawn Dragon: Could have worked on a watch without the diamonds. The contrast between the character of the drawing and that of the watch casing just don't work. Diamonds scream grandeur and there's noting grand about that drawing. Indeed, it's the dragon's face is close to being a cariacature, cartoon like, and yet, it's not a bad drawing at all. This would be an embarrassment to wear at any price.
  • Oyster Case watch: This was the hardest one for me to assess because the profiled dragon is wonderful. It's bold, masculine and due to the sillohuette presentation, elegant. It's a happy balance between detail and simplicity, as befits the Oyster case. It's well placed on the dial too. I finally figured out that the problem I find with it is that the dragon is gold, presumably to work with the watch's overall accent color, yet the dragon is too much to ignore on the face of the watch. As such, it's balance that's wrong, but it's visual balance not size and shape balance. If you compare it with the pink and silver watch, I think you'll see what I mean. I think it would have worked better with any of serveral changes:
    • smooth bezel
    • silver or white dial - oddly enough, I would be fine with the whole package were the face silver, thus correlating to the 2-tone theme of the watch case and bracelet.
    • single color watch case, bezel and band
    • Less fussy bracelet or a black strap to help balance the visual weight of the black dial.
  • Remaining watches: The rest are fine. A few of them would work with formal wear. This is now where "likiing" something comes in. All the watches identified below are suitable for black tie, but I would pick the first one were I buying any of them. On all the watches shown, I'd swap the alligator strap for a lizard one, partly because I prefer lizard to alligator/croc, but also because I think the scale of a lizard's scale pattern more fittingly echos that of the dragon's scales.They are:
    • Piaget rectange with figure eight dragon -- I like this one best not only for the watch and the dragon, but also becasue the dragon, an Eastern style one -- is depicted in the complementing pattern of a eight, the numerical symbol in Chinese culture for wealth and fortune. Fortune/prosperity is something akin to luck, or perhaps as a result of it, which is one thing the dragon symbolizes.
    • Piaget platinum with diamonds (I have no idea of how to tell time with this watch, but as a design it works for formal)
    • Arnold and Son - This would be my second choice to wear with formal attire.
    • Audemars Piguet (all three versions) - I would have to choose the red one. I would love to choose either of the other two watches, but I would have preferred the elements of the tourbillon plated to match the dragon or the dial (don't care which). The red one is best in this regard.
    • Angular Momentum (last watch) -- I was on the fence with this one. I finally decided the imagery itself and the case design were enough to carry it into the formal realm. I'd have had an easier time had the time aperture been colored to blend more so that not blend in at all, but that only becasue the imagery is just so very beautiful I wished it weren't interrupted.
The last thing I'll discuss is bulk. I suppose it's possible to make a bulky, formal watch, but I can't imagine how or what it would look like. The reason is that at a certain point, the bulk of the watch makes the person become ostentatious rather than just the watch being so. It's very had to imagine how a great looking watch that's too large to fit underneath a shirt cuff can be elegant.

All the best.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,075 Posts
You know, I just realized on those dragons I posted above (p6), they are all five -toed creatures.

I guess it's a good thing there is no Chinese emperor, and that we aren't ruled by one seeing as nobody else would be permitted to wear a watch sporting such a beast. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
I like pie... especially at a convention.
 
41 - 54 of 54 Posts
Top