What makes a 'top end' watch?

[Don1]

A natural progression of the 'best watch' thread.

So, gentlemen. As it says on the tin.

[grumbledoak]

Oh, where to draw the line(s) ?

Between using rare materials for their properties, or for the look/cost ?
Between a real complication, and a gimmick ?
Between making your own movement, or using a quality external one ?
Between the purists, and the posers ?

I suspect we'll each draw different lines...

[tertius]

Depends what you mean by "top end" of course. The Richard Milles of this world are produced in fantastically limited numbers by a single craftwman.

But I would suggest the following are characteristics of relevance:

In-house movement.

Elegance and integrity of design.

History.

Limited production.

[uktrailmonster]

Engineering is the number 1 criteria for me. The rest is all Bullshit.

[GreenV8S]

uktrailmonster said:

Engineering is the number 1 criteria for me. The rest is all Bullshit.

It's a piece of jewellery, how much do you really think engineering comes into it? Seems to me it's more about looks/style than anything else.

[uktrailmonster]

GreenV8S said:

It's a piece of jewellery

Might be for you. But watches also have their uses and some are better suited than others. If you're diving for example, you need certain functionality. I'm not really interested in dress watches or jewellery as you put it.

[GreenV8S]

uktrailmonster said:

GreenV8S said:

It's a piece of jewellery

Might be for you. But watches also have their uses and some are better suited than others. If you're diving for example, you need certain functionality. I'm not really interested in dress watches or jewellery as you put it.

Good for you, I take the same view. I find it utterly baffling that people spend hundreds (or even thousands) of pounds on something that at the end of the day does the same as a £5 Casio. I suppose the people who do that will find it equally baffling that I choose to spend my time and money fiddling with cars, or driving across the country just to drive round in circles and then drive home again - utterly pointless. I think there are very few cases though, where the money spent on these watches is actually justified as the most appropriate way to solve the problem. How many of these expensive watches which are water proof to umpteen thousand feet and have diving timers and so on, will actually be used by a diver? Precious few, I suspect. The vast majority will be worn because their owner likes the look and feel of a complicated expensive watch - i.e. it's basically a piece of jewellery that also happens to serve a useful purpose (telling you the time).

Edited by GreenV8S on Saturday 1st December 14:46

[uktrailmonster]

It's true, most people today don't technically need to wear an expensive watch at all and a cheap Casio would be more than enough. But then you can use a similar argument for cars, as most people only need a Ford Mondeo. Basically, watches have become a status symbol or a reflection of your lifestyle. Again, a bit like cars really.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I like nice watches, providing they're engineered for a purpose and not just blinged up with precious metals, exotic reptile skins, diamonds etc. 95% of the time I don't need them, but there are times when I do find them very useful all the same. I also appreciate the fine quality engineering just for the hell of it!

[Stuart]

GreenV8S said:

uktrailmonster said:

GreenV8S said:

It's a piece of jewellery

Might be for you. But watches also have their uses and some are better suited than others. If you're diving for example, you need certain functionality. I'm not really interested in dress watches or jewellery as you put it.

Good for you, I take the same view. I find it utterly baffling that people spend hundreds (or even thousands) of pounds on something that at the end of the day does the same as a £5 Casio. I suppose the people who do that will find it equally baffling that I choose to spend my time and money fiddling with cars, or driving across the country just to drive round in circles and then drive home again - utterly pointless. I think there are very few cases though, where the money spent on these watches is actually justified as the most appropriate way to solve the problem. How many of these expensive watches which are water proof to umpteen thousand feet and have diving timers and so on, will actually be used by a diver? Precious few, I suspect. The vast majority will be worn because their owner likes the look and feel of a complicated expensive watch - i.e. it's basically a piece of jewellery that also happens to serve a useful purpose (telling you the time).

Edited by GreenV8S on Saturday 1st December 14:46

I think that you could substitute the word "car" for "watch" or "jewellery" all the way through your post and you'd be considerably less baffled. Just as with cars, watch enthusiasts are attracted by aesthetics, brand, look and feel, engineering/technical ability and the "what it says about me" factor.

Frankly, long may it continue on both counts. Without either we'd all be driving around in boring tin boxes and wearing basic digital plastic watches. We'd still get to where we'd need to be, and at the time we'd need to be there, but the world would be a lot less interesting.

[tempus]

For me it is the movement,and yes i would call that engineering,it`s ability to tell the time is unimportant to me,i have movements which have no cases but the fascination is with the ability of a man, who signed the movement,to produce a thing of such form hundreds of years ago that when you take it to pieces today with all our modern technology you are still in awe of the man that created it.Tempus

[Don1]

For my uneducated eyes, a 'tp end' watch used to be a Breitling, or a Rolex.... Now I'm getting more into watches, I realise that a JLC or something of that ilk has a lot more going on with it than I previously took for granted....

In other words, my definition has changed. I personally would look at design, craftmanship and materials before I started looking at anything else.

[Ranger 6]

Having had to rely on consistent timing (think - coordinating artillery fire) I'm amazed that on a thread like this accuracy is not mentioned.....?

I appreciate the skill in building a mechanism, crafting it into a thing of worth, but where's the link to it's primary function - telling the time?

It's a bit like reading about a Spyker recently, fabulous craftsmanship, beautifully built but doesn't stack up against it's competitors in the handling stakes.

Thoughts?

[FunkyGibbon]

If accuracy is important then the Omega Marine Chronometer, 1974 wins:

http://www.omegawatches.com/index.php?id=497

[uktrailmonster]

Ranger 6 said:

Having had to rely on consistent timing (think - coordinating artillery fire) I'm amazed that on a thread like this accuracy is not mentioned.....?

I appreciate the skill in building a mechanism, crafting it into a thing of worth, but where's the link to it's primary function - telling the time?

It's a bit like reading about a Spyker recently, fabulous craftsmanship, beautifully built but doesn't stack up against it's competitors in the handling stakes.

Thoughts?

For many people (including myself) ultimate accuracy is really not that important. Otherwise we'd all be choosing quartz over mechanical movements. Reliability, shock resistance, water resistance, ability to operate in extreme hot or cold temperatures and additional functionality eg chronograph are usually more important than whether it gains or loses a few seconds every day. How accurate does your watch really need to be to co-ordinate artillery fire? I'm guessing that it wouldn't be a major problem if it was a few seconds out. In which case, most watches would be fine, providing they were regularly synchronised.

Even when timing relatively short events to a high resolution (eg. laptimes for a racing car), an average watch will be accurate enough over the time period measured. So in this case, resolution and consistency will be more important than ultimate long term timing accuracy.

[Ranger 6]

If it helps, coordinating artillery fire relies more on consistency - the ability to have watches in many different locations all showing the same time is very important - you've got the guy at the front giving the orders to the guns, the infantry that are waiting for a time to move (if they go too soon they get one of our own on their head which isn't healthy) and the gun bunnies at the back throwing the HE forward.

So long as they're all showing the same time you're right a couple of seconds doesn't make a huge difference. Time of flight for some rounds at a distance can be 20secs+.

On a similar vein sometimes I also work on rally timekeeping - similar consistency is required on that - accuracy to the 100th of a second across varied and often wet terrain.

Interesting that the quartz is better on those requirements.

ETA; on the artillery side the time would be set daily - a regular radio call would enable all operators to set their watches.

Edited by Ranger 6 on Monday 3rd December 15:26

[Don1]

Or the watches use 'wave' technology to make sure all are syncronised?

[uktrailmonster]

Ranger 6 said:

If it helps, coordinating artillery fire relies more on consistency - the ability to have watches in many different locations all showing the same time is very important - you've got the guy at the front giving the orders to the guns, the infantry that are waiting for a time to move (if they go too soon they get one of our own on their head which isn't healthy) and the gun bunnies at the back throwing the HE forward.

So long as they're all showing the same time you're right a couple of seconds doesn't make a huge difference. Time of flight for some rounds at a distance can be 20secs+.

On a similar vein sometimes I also work on rally timekeeping - similar consistency is required on that - accuracy to the 100th of a second across varied and often wet terrain.

Interesting that the quartz is better on those requirements.

ETA; on the artillery side the time would be set daily - a regular radio call would enable all operators to set their watches.

Edited by Ranger 6 on Monday 3rd December 15:26

That all makes sense thanks.

On your point about accuracy to within a 100th of a second. All you really need is a resolution of a 100th of a second, measured with a consistent timer. Whether that timer is running consistently slow or fast is not very important. Any bog standard quartz movement should be accurate and consistent enough for rally timing.

[25 JET]

Quoted from a Senior Sales Manager from Ferrari a few weeks ago.

Me: How do you tell if someone is a genuine buyer for one of these cars?

Ferrari Guy: By the watch he wears........

I like my watches, cars and Shoes for my sins but how can this guy tell if someone is series about buying a Ferrari by the type of watch he wears?????

[uktrailmonster]

It's probably true that most (but not all) wealthy people will wear an expensive watch even if they're not particularly interested in watches. So if someone turns up in jeans, T-shirt and a £10K watch, there's a fair chance they will be a serious buyer. Could be a fake watch though