The Breitling Watch Source Forums
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/

The evolution of watches
https://www.breitlingsource.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7880		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  joma [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  The evolution of watches
I think it safe to say that evolution of watches is not purely technical. If it was, the watch on your arm would be 0,01mm thick with an area limited to what you're eyes can match. Weight would be just a few gram and it would have more processing power than the on-board computer that put Armstrong on the moon (for sure an underestimation) and would not lose more than a second in the expected lifetime of the solar system..

Looking at popular high-end watches today, they are far from what's described above. They are in fact having more in common with Big Ben or something standing in your grand folks livingroom

One of the reason is of course that the watch is one of the few "jeweleries" for men and one could argue that the main purpose is that it is for pure display (or eye-candy as a male writer on this forum would put it).

So what happened to the high-tech driven evolution? Why is it "cooler" to have a watch that is from not only the last century, but even from the one preceding it? Sure, if the watch was manufactured in the 19:th century, but this is not the case. These watches was produced today and even though marketed as high-tech. To put it bluntly (and somewhat incorrect), not much has happened over the last 150 years.

Why is not specs driving the high end watch industry, and what is the fuss with watches that wouldn't impress grandpa fro m a specs perspective? I can't be money show-offs, most people can't tell a high end watch from a low end and when it comes to fakes it's even worse. So what is it?

PS Yes, I'm aware of the Professional line, but as far as I know, Breitling is almost alone on this (save the Swedish brand Sjöö Sandström who even took it one step further). DS
Author:  Roffensian [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
The renaissance period for mechanical watches started about 25 or so years ago after the Swiss watch industry was damn near killed off by Japanese quartz pieces. The main reason for the growth in popularity was undoubtedly the 'soul' of the mechanical movement - the triumph of man over machine almost. I know that sounds cliched but 25 years ago the computer age wasn't what it is today.

Today, the popularity continues for similar reasons, the fact that even a simple mechanical watch has 200+ pieces in a relatively small case all working together to perform the smae function near perfectly day in and day out. The concepts haven't changed dramatically in the last 100 years or so, although there are a lot of innovations, and I think people from that age woud be astounded by the accuracy of modern pieces.

If you want high tech, well there are now watch phones and watch mp3 players - it's just a different market - and when those pieces are consigned to the garbage, well my watches will still be ticking :lol:
Author:  joma [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Roffensian wrote:
If you want high tech, well there are now watch phones and watch mp3 players - it's just a different market - and when those pieces are consigned to the garbage, well my watches will still be ticking :lol:


Yeah, sure. But can your watch land a probe on Ganymede, can it tell you the optimal consumption rate of 17yo Caol Ila or tell you that your doctor is wrong is his diagnose ;-)

Just curios, what happened to pushing the limits as we see in all other consumer areas? Why do you go for Bluray with 5,1 THX and not an 8mm with no sound?

Or to put it in right perspective, why isn't there a race for accuracy, functions, smallness, thinness (this is my major wonder why) etc even if it is mechanical watches?
Author:  Roffensian [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
joma wrote:
Or to put it in right perspective, why isn't there a race for accuracy, functions, smallness, thinness (this is my major wonder why) etc even if it is mechanical watches?


There are watches that synch with the atomic clock - they don't dominate the market so the public has said that it's not that important, so why build them?

There are extremely thin watches, there are extremely small watches - people buy the Super Avenger

History has shown that non time related complex gimmicky functions are not long term big sellers - the Casio calculator watch being a case in point - big seller for a short period then people figured out that it wasn't the best way to use a calculator. Even the circular slide rule is more tradition than function these days.

The market will always drive the industry - just like every other industry.
Author:  joma [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Roffensian wrote:
joma wrote:
Or to put it in right perspective, why isn't there a race for accuracy, functions, smallness, thinness (this is my major wonder why) etc even if it is mechanical watches?


There are watches that synch with the atomic clock - they don't dominate the market so the public has said that it's not that important, so why build them?

There are extremely thin watches, there are extremely small watches - people buy the Super Avenger

History has shown that non time related complex gimmicky functions are not long term big sellers - the Casio calculator watch being a case in point - big seller for a short period then people figured out that it wasn't the best way to use a calculator. Even the circular slide rule is more tradition than function these days.

The market will always drive the industry - just like every other industry.


So then again; why do you upgrade your car, DVD, cell phone, TV, golf equipment etc but not your watch? Why isn't the market demanding progress in specs for watches. Why isn't Breitling launching av 1mm thin, 82mm wide mechanical watch that never has to be set (because it is so accurate)? Imagine the R&D and manufacturing costs and the end user price tag they could put on it. Yes, Junghans has watches that can sync, but they are too big and hideous (my opinion) compared to Breitlings and they wont work at 300m below sea level, in orbit around Jupiter or in case of a third world war. Why are watches more similar to the market of cigars and whisky (where vintage is the key, and yes it is whisky, not whiskey).

Is it purely because the watch is a men jewelery for display? Then why even bother to have it moving at all, why not put all the effort in the design and expensive materials (and perhaps call it a bracelet)?

I'm not trying to diminish the swiss mechanical watch industry in any way, really! Just curious about cause and effects that are in work here.
Author:  bnewbie [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Roffensian wrote:
If you want high tech, well there are now watch phones and watch mp3 players - it's just a different market - and when those pieces are consigned to the garbage, well my watches will still be ticking :lol:

:yeahthat :mrgreen:
Author:  Roffensian [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
This is getting silly - I'm bailing with a question and a comment.....

Why is my DVD player bigger than a DVD if everything except watches is so advanced?

Fortunately the watch world defines advances in different terms to you Joma - pieces advance every year, just not in a way that you can relate to.
Author:  BroncoSport [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
I, for one, do not buy my watches exclusively for the fuctionality. I but them for several reasons:

1) Athestics. I like the way they look on my wrist. Call it my jewelry or what ever
2) I do not like digital displays for wrist watches. I just prefer the analog look, even what I used to wear quartz watches
3) Long after my Timex quits ticking my mechanical watch (with care and regular servicing) will still be running and telling acurate time
4) I do not want a watch that does strange things like calculator, cell phone, mp3 player, camera, missle launcher, ect. I want a WATCH


and the most important reason that I, and the rest of the members of the watch lovers, buy theses luxury watches ...

5) They are a micro scale, machine for the wrist that took days to construct, by hand and by man.

quartz crapola watch = 45 seconds to build in an assembly line by a machine
luxury time piece = 80+ hours to assemble, decorate, and adjust... by a human being
Author:  drax [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Well put, Roff, well put. :) But the truth is, some people (and we've all
met them) will never be able to comprehend the true complexity and beauty
of the mechanical watch. You did your best trying to make Joma understand;
if he chooses not to...well, there's not much you can do about it. But keep spreading
the word, Brother. :wink:

Steve
Author:  drax [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Hey, Bronco,

There was a time when Timexes "took a lickin' and kept on tickin'. :) I know
because I used to wear them ($15 apiece -- what a deal!) They weren't very
accurate, but boy, did they run. Probably before your time, young man. Anyway,
I agree with your feelings. :D

Steve
Author:  Altair [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 9:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
joma wrote:
Roffensian wrote:
joma wrote:
Or to put it in right perspective, why isn't there a race for accuracy, functions, smallness, thinness (this is my major wonder why) etc even if it is mechanical watches?


There are watches that synch with the atomic clock - they don't dominate the market so the public has said that it's not that important, so why build them?

There are extremely thin watches, there are extremely small watches - people buy the Super Avenger

History has shown that non time related complex gimmicky functions are not long term big sellers - the Casio calculator watch being a case in point - big seller for a short period then people figured out that it wasn't the best way to use a calculator. Even the circular slide rule is more tradition than function these days.

The market will always drive the industry - just like every other industry.


So then again; why do you upgrade your car, DVD, cell phone, TV, golf equipment etc but not your watch? Why isn't the market demanding progress in specs for watches. .


I can’t speak for the market as a whole or anyone else for that matter. But to me as Roff said there is a certain appeal and magic to mechanical watches that keeps me fascinated, I always wondered what great minds sat at their desks coming up with these amazingly complex little pieces. The inclusion of advanced electronics might improve on the functionality but it certainly takes away the appeal, a Quartz is half way cheating to me! To me that would be akin to asking why someone would adopt a puppy rather than buy a Sony Robo dog. It's not alive!

If that doesn’t make any sense, I completely understand. I don’t get people who collect stamps or coins or climb mountains or what have you either. It’s just the way we all are wired, we find passion and beuty in different places.

I guess some one has to say it, you either get it or you don't, if you have to ask you don't.
Author:  BoneDoc [ Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
:yeahthat Well stated Altair. You either get it or you don't.
Author:  joma [ Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Please mind, my questions was regading mechanical watches. I'm perfectly aware that you can buy hi-tech stuff from Japan, Germany or even Breitling. But what's the fun in that if you want a mechanical watch with all the benefits it has?

As Bronco so well put it: the knowledge of that the clockwork runs purely on mechanics and the craftsmanship it took to put it toghether IS important. But this really boils it down to; why don't we see more complicated mechanical clockworks then? How come no one put a second spring in a watch and made it drive an off-balanced weight creating a vibration that could act as an alarm triggered at a certain time. And why can't you order a mechanical clockwork to skip hours ahead without having to reset it when travelling between timezones?

Really, I'm just curious (not trying to be silly Roff). Mechanical engineering in other areas are advancing (they even built Babbage's Difference Engine back in -91, though the specs was actually from his time). And we all look at that Discovery show that rebuilds old mechanical engines to find out how good they relly was (I just love that one with the trebuchet).

As for the Quartz debate, that industri is now struggling since most people has a mobile device that actually can do everything a Quartz can do plus all that fantasy stuff I dreamt up in the beginning.

Or maybe it is as someone suggested, I'm just not getting it?
Author:  Driver8 [ Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
joma wrote:
But this really boils it down to; why don't we see more complicated mechanical clockworks then? How come no one put a second spring in a watch and made it drive an off-balanced weight creating a vibration that could act as an alarm triggered at a certain time. And why can't you order a mechanical clockwork to skip hours ahead without having to reset it when travelling between timezones?

Really, I'm just curious (not trying to be silly Roff). Mechanical engineering in other areas are advancing (they even built Babbage's Difference Engine back in -91, though the specs was actually from his time). And we all look at that Discovery show that rebuilds old mechanical engines to find out how good they relly was (I just love that one with the trebuchet).

As for the Quartz debate, that industri is now struggling since most people has a mobile device that actually can do everything a Quartz can do plus all that fantasy stuff I dreamt up in the beginning.

Or maybe it is as someone suggested, I'm just not getting it?

This is a curious thread!

In terms of complexity, a lot of high end watch manufacturers REGULARLY push the boundaries of what mechanics can achieve. Check out the minute repeaters by Zenith and JLC ; any number of other watches offering mechanical alarms ; the IWC perpectual calendar that doesn't need adjusting for several hundred years ; mechanical depth gauges ; ultra thin movements by JLC and Blancpain...... the list of advancement and innovation is endless.

However I'm not sure why the concept of people liking something that isn't at the forefront of technology should seem so odd. You used an example of "why upgrade your car?" - well, I'd answer that by saying take a look at classic car enthusiasts - they undoubtedly know their cars are not exactly at the forefront of technology, but there is something about these cars that they relate to and enjoy. You'll often here the words "soul", "character" and "passion" used a lot.

You also spoke about Blu ray and CD's - well, there are people who still prefer the sound of LP's, often citing "warmth" of the music over the anything that CD's can produce. Some people "get this", while others don't.

Look at house construction - while there are plenty of innovative and high-tech building materials out there used in modern apartments, you'll still find plenty of people (especially here in the UK) who's dream house would be a timber-framed house in the country made of green oak, made using methods that are 600 years old. Again the words, "soul" and "warmth of the material" will be used a lot in descriptions. Why do people like thatched roofs on their cottages? Expensive and difficult to maintain, and yet people like the "look", the "heritage", the "character" etc, etc.

In fact, why do some people want to live in the country and not in big cities? The cities are more technologically advanced after all! You see - we can take this conversation to daft extremes.

The fact is, one branch of watch making has concentrated on the cold, hard, (and some might say) souless branch of pure function and technology. i.e. quartz with it's multitude of functions and abilities, while another branch has evolved the traditional branch of mechanics, pushing the boundaries where it can. The two are very different in what they offer, but neither is mutually exclusive.

It really is a case of "getting it" or "not getting it" I'm afraid.
Author:  hnb [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The evolution of watches
Let me put it a bit blunt; to me it is first jewellery - I like the way it looks and wears. Secondly I like that it is an automatic movement, that it has a "soul". Why complicate it more? Who cares if it isn´t the most evolved high tech thing?
It´s all about the feeling.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/