[ctilly]

Just curious since there is often discussion about whether this watch or that is a "tool" watch and it often involves a watch with a mechanical movement (high-end divers, for instance). Is there a situation when a mechanical movement is really more practical as a tool? Seems like the few (not having to replace the battery?) are far outweighed by the many (cost, durability, accuracy). A $20 Casio seems like the ultimate basic "tool" watch.

 

[ljb187]

It's a worthy topic for discussion, but let me ask if you're able to imagine a more complete answer to the question than just "battery replacement" (which isn't necessarily wrong even if it's your only one). Why do you think people would feel that mechanical watches make better "tools" than quartz watches?

 

[ed21x]

i believe they use mechanical watches in space because it is less susceptible to be affected by radiation and extreme temperatures.

It's a worthy topic for discussion, but let me ask if you're able to imagine a more complete answer to the question than just "battery replacement" (which isn't necessarily wrong even if it's your only one). Why do you think people would feel that mechanical watches make better "tools" than quartz watches?

 

[niles316]

Maybe it's just a case of wanting the best of both worlds, not that there's anything wrong with quartz. What's the use of spending more on a mechanical piece n yet can't wear it for this n that?

 

[Haf]

I am fairly sure the only reason is marketing.

 

[Stensbjerg]

That's easy it will never run out of battery,
no matter where you are.

 

[CitizenM]

It's a worthy topic for discussion, but let me ask if you're able to imagine a more complete answer to the question than just "battery replacement" (which isn't necessarily wrong even if it's your only one). Why do you think people would feel that mechanical watches make better "tools" than quartz watches?

If you buy a good quartz movement, it won't need battery replacements for a good 20 years or so. Most mechanicals will break down if not serviced given long enough, or just perform poorly otherwise (accuracy and power reserve wise), and service can often take a month, as opposed to a day for a lot of battery replacements anyway. Even if you're using an antiquated non-Citizen/Seiko quartz movement, you can get 10 year batteries.

I'm not sure people affirmatively believe that mechanicals are better​ tool watches, but you see a lot of WUSers referring to a good tool watch, which is often a mechanical.

 

[GlennO]

Some people prefer mechanicals, so the short answer is because there is a market for them.

 

[bigvatch]

From WUS and other archives, apparently batteries can seize up in extreme temperatures.

But 901L is more resistive to corrosion in highly acidic environments..

So yeah....all about marketing.

The most practical , tactical, tool watch is probably like a digital quartz in a low-impact rubber case, with a high-impact plastic crystal, on a nato :-x

 

[CitizenM]

i believe they use mechanical watches in space because it is less susceptible to be affected by radiation and extreme temperatures.

I'd like to hear more about this. I'm by no means an authority on how radiation will affect a quartz movement. What I can tell you is that a MM of steel (or gold if you're willing to go hardcore) will block virtually all high-frequency radiation that one would experience even in space. If you take an ordinary lead lined jacket you can find at any hospital, throw it on an x-ray table and turn the dial up to 11, you'll barely penetrate it. And that's a refined, targeted, high frequency beam. Portable x-ray machines have serious trouble making it through both sides of a fat patient even without lead lining.

So, while this may very well be a real advantage (I can't say), I just would think that any "tool" watch would be so thick and protected that I can't imagine it being an issue. If it becomes an issue in those circumstances, you will be well on your way to death, so I don't think the watch's toughness will be very practical.

The temperature argument might be the better way to go. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'd think that the heat that would damage a quartz watch would be so unbearable to humans that humans just wouldn't go there or be in it for more than a few minutes. Cold temperatures probably pose a bigger problem in that humans can dress quite warmly and chemical batteries don't perform well there. But I'm not sure what temperature that would be--if it's sufficiently low that it would just kill a human to be exposed to it for a little while, it's probably irrelevant, but I just don't know what temperature it is that would have the relevant effect on the battery.

I'm glad you mentioned those things. I'm pretty confident that radiation is a non-issue in a well designed watch, but I'd like to hear more about temperatures and their effects on quartz.

 

[ErikS]

Just curious since there is often discussion about whether this watch or that is a "tool" watch and it often involves a watch with a mechanical movement (high-end divers, for instance). Is there a situation when a mechanical movement is really more practical as a tool? Seems like the few (not having to replace the battery?) are far outweighed by the many (cost, durability, accuracy). A $20 Casio seems like the ultimate basic "tool" watch.

Define "tool"?
Tool = a device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

Both would seem to meet that requirement. Going everywhere, doing most everything & surviving = both again. Though I will throw out if the it can't do it & still be "okay" (i.e. crystal gets scratched = fail). Discussions of environments where humans can barely survive are assinine - doesn't apply to enough people. For instance "oh yeah, it's been on the moon"...............sure, population of 6 billion 12 have been on the moon = assinine.

I do get quite a laugh from various attitudes -

- wear a moderate/high end "tool" watches...."I don't where it xxxxxx, I'm afraid to damage it" wow, sure glad you paid all that money for a "rugged" watch

- often touted cheap dive watch as being "rugged"............um. ah, given the scratchlex crystal pretty well eliminates if from both "rugged" and "beater" there Forrest

$20 Casio do the job for ya? Yep, then go for it. Me? I call a "tool" watch one that I never have to take off except for sleep & showers. Have one, been ten years & the only affects thus far are the dial has faded a bit & the second hand no longer has any paint on the tip = the sun has taken a toll. In ten years it's been "down" about 3 weeks. Three services of a week(ish) each............................far less than my wife's comparable quartz, that goes in every year - less time but probably adds up to more time overall. But it works for her & that's the key.

 

[Scottish Steve]

Sounds like you've got a real tool watch, EricS- I hear "the shower" is secretly whispered about in Geneva as "the boxoid of doom". :-d:-d
Take it from the experts. NASA have authorised both technologies for use in space.
Is there anyone on this forum more qualified?

 

[Chronopolis]

But, just as some clothes (combination thereof) are more "formal" than others, some watches are clearly more "toolish" than others, and are required to perform as such.

Unless most people who "opt" for a "tool" watch are in fact working in harsh conditions on a near daily basis, let's face it: how we brag that our "tool" watches are all about "ruggedness", are "built like a tank" etc, it's all just talk, to convince ourselves that we were right to spend so much for a watch we would take promptly off if we ever had to do anything seriously strenuous.

Its "toughness" is about relevant as a "diver" watch having a 10mm thick crystal and a WR of 50,000 meters. Oh, and weighing 12 lbs. Yeah, right. Totally "pro" diver.

 

[Triton9]

True! Mechanical watch is more of a collectors item.. Quartz practical uses far out weigh mech..

With 10years battery life or Eco-drive or kentic are far far superior from what mech can offer.

 

[geoffbot]

You get pretty, delicate-looking mechanical watches, and industrial, tough-looking (and actually tough) ones. And combinations of them. Variety being the spice of life and all.

 

[John MS]

Just curious since there is often discussion about whether this watch or that is a "tool" watch and it often involves a watch with a mechanical movement (high-end divers, for instance). Is there a situation when a mechanical movement is really more practical as a tool? Seems like the few (not having to replace the battery?) are far outweighed by the many (cost, durability, accuracy). A $20 Casio seems like the ultimate basic "tool" watch.

There are tool watches designed to look functional that collectors enjoy and tool watches that are designed to do a specific job. An example of the former would be a Rolex Submariner while the latter might be an Oceanic OC1. The Rolex is marketed as a desk diver while the Oceanic is marketed as a dive computer. The Rolex has limited functionality with a mechanical movement and uses an outdated dive scale while the Oceanic uses a quartz movement to provide the diver with a lot of meaningful information about the dive. The Rolex looks a lot nicer on the wrist and can be worn a lot more places than the Oceanic.

 

[AAWATCHES]

Just a thought, think about a military watch, not a vintage, but a real issue current day, aren't they quartz.
I know mine was.

 

[Scottish Steve]

I lusted after a Muhle Glasshute search and rescue model for a long time until someone who onwed one told me it wasn't nearly as tough as a G-Shock. That kind of settled the argument for me really.

 

[ErikS]

Sounds like you've got a real tool watch, EricS- I hear "the shower" is secretly whispered about in Geneva as "the boxoid of doom".

Or maybe I'm just a tool If we were to ask SWMBO I'd wager the answer would be "depends on the day" :-d

I will admit given soap's affect on the surface tension of water & the fact the seals weren't designed to cope with it I do draw the line there.

One of my favorite WIS type stories was @ a craft fair. Man has a booth selling dive photos, I looked at his wrist & saw an old acrylic crystal Sub. The crystal was scratched to the point the watch was hard to read, case was a little beat. I asked him about it - watch had been on every dive with him for 20 years. He said while he had moved on to dive computers the sub still went with him everytime - why? His answer was every electronic device he'd ever owned had failed or had an error - the sub had never failed & it would continue to be his backup until he stopped diving.

To me that was one great watch - that's what it was built for & that's what he used it for.

Scratched crystal wouldn't work for me - personal "issues" :-d (of note he did mention currents had whacked him into stuff & broken everything @ one time or another except the acrylic) but that's why my watch doesn't get a new dial, bezel, and second hands - it looks more "been there, done that".

 

[ErikS]

..............Unless most people who "opt" for a "tool" watch are in fact working in harsh conditions on a near daily basis, let's face it: how we brag that our "tool" watches are all about "ruggedness", are "built like a tank" etc, it's all just talk, to convince ourselves that we were right to spend so much for a watch we would take promptly off if we ever had to do anything seriously strenuous......................

Now I'll not claim to do anything all that strenuous :-d but to me that's the whole point - I spend that much on a watch & it damn well better be able to take whatever I do.