What time is it please?
Discussion
"Sorry, I don't know"!!
http://tinyurl.com/6mxpxr
"He added that anyone can buy a watch that tells time — only a truly discerning customer can buy one that doesn’t."
And here’s the best part "............"
http://tinyurl.com/6mxpxr
"He added that anyone can buy a watch that tells time — only a truly discerning customer can buy one that doesn’t."
And here’s the best part "............"
Even a stopped clock tells the right time, twice a day....
You don't need two tourbillons to do that.
Honestly, this item just takes the utter piss out of haute horlogerie. It's odd for someone in the industry to be making a piece that is quite clearly stating that purchasers of the top-end grand complications and unique atelier-made specials are idiots - that the continuation of the tradition of ever refining mechanical ingenuity and metallurgy in order to measure time better is futile idiocy, and such trinkets are no more than jewellery, functional or not.
I strongly disagree with this. Yes, an atomic-clock-regulated, temperature-compensated quartz will outperform any mechanical wristwatch at telling the time. And tourbillons on wristwatches, whilst enjoying a flush of fashionability a few years back (with specials being shown with 3 tourbillons on one watch, for example, and of course JLC's 3-dimensional-axis gyrotourbillon), don't really do what Abraham-Louis Breguet invented the things for. They're to compensate for watches held in one position against gravity (e.g. a pocket watch, held vertically upright most of the time) - wristwatches move around a hell of a lot more, therefore tourbillons don't add much to the accuracy.
But watchmaking is one of those very rare skills where engineering merges with art. Mechanical watches have already been outperformed by quartz (assuming you can get a battery, and solar powered faces and Seiko's Kinetic hybrid of an automatic mechanical movement running a battery charger sort of beat this limitation as well) - therefore getting accuracy anywhere near 'adequate' for modern use is an achievement in itself. Also, with most modern functionality being automatically specced out for programmers to achieve in software, it takes a real artisan to build a mechanical system that will correctly jump days to give the correct date, given that our months have different numbers of days, and the leap year system is complex. The confidence of the top watchmakers to design perpetual calendars that can cope with the 100 and 400 year rules (when your battery-powered quartz will have long failed) shows that quality, not quantity, is what the *old* tradition was about.
Of course, the old tradition continues only because not only do unnecessarily expensive watches make fine jewellery (if they're made out of fine metals and look great, and there's no accounting for taste) but also catch two other sections of the market - the people who appreciate the level of engineering and sheer genius that was required (and still is - there is still innovation in mechanical watches), almost like wearing a little engine on your wrist (it is not by random chance that there are a statistically significant number of car enthusiasts who also like mechanical watches) - but also the market that appreciates the continuation of a tradition, however outdated and overtaken by technology that tradition may have become.
And from the other side, there are people who are gifted with the art, and put in the vast number of hours required to learn how to make fine watch movements, and even to innovate themselves. Of course the whole market will slowly reduce in size, since all you need is access to CAD/CAM gear, knowledge of Solidworks and an example of a real watch and you can make very accurate replicas these days. The counterfeiters have caught up with the mid-market and is taking away large amounts of its value (particularly bold, simple designs like Rolex's sports models, which are counterfeited to hell - some of which are probably just as good as the real thing). The top end will continue because you won't kill a tradition, and there will always be demand for something functionally special that only a very select few can acquire (even if supply is limited, not demand - look at Rolex and the joke Daytona prices).
But for a 'proper' watchmaker to make a piece that essentially admits that his whole industry is taking the piss out of its customers, and that all the effort put in to design additional complications, etc. is just b
ks and pointless bling, is poor form IMO. And to case it in metal from the Titanic, the symbolism doesn't need a fking poet to decipher. Romaine Jerome can go fk himself IMO. The hypocrisy of cashing in on an industry you are ridiculing - tosser.
Have I just been trolled here? Is this watch not for real? If so, someone break out the 'hook line and sinker' GIF for me, because I've bitten hard
You don't need two tourbillons to do that.
Honestly, this item just takes the utter piss out of haute horlogerie. It's odd for someone in the industry to be making a piece that is quite clearly stating that purchasers of the top-end grand complications and unique atelier-made specials are idiots - that the continuation of the tradition of ever refining mechanical ingenuity and metallurgy in order to measure time better is futile idiocy, and such trinkets are no more than jewellery, functional or not.
I strongly disagree with this. Yes, an atomic-clock-regulated, temperature-compensated quartz will outperform any mechanical wristwatch at telling the time. And tourbillons on wristwatches, whilst enjoying a flush of fashionability a few years back (with specials being shown with 3 tourbillons on one watch, for example, and of course JLC's 3-dimensional-axis gyrotourbillon), don't really do what Abraham-Louis Breguet invented the things for. They're to compensate for watches held in one position against gravity (e.g. a pocket watch, held vertically upright most of the time) - wristwatches move around a hell of a lot more, therefore tourbillons don't add much to the accuracy.
But watchmaking is one of those very rare skills where engineering merges with art. Mechanical watches have already been outperformed by quartz (assuming you can get a battery, and solar powered faces and Seiko's Kinetic hybrid of an automatic mechanical movement running a battery charger sort of beat this limitation as well) - therefore getting accuracy anywhere near 'adequate' for modern use is an achievement in itself. Also, with most modern functionality being automatically specced out for programmers to achieve in software, it takes a real artisan to build a mechanical system that will correctly jump days to give the correct date, given that our months have different numbers of days, and the leap year system is complex. The confidence of the top watchmakers to design perpetual calendars that can cope with the 100 and 400 year rules (when your battery-powered quartz will have long failed) shows that quality, not quantity, is what the *old* tradition was about.
Of course, the old tradition continues only because not only do unnecessarily expensive watches make fine jewellery (if they're made out of fine metals and look great, and there's no accounting for taste) but also catch two other sections of the market - the people who appreciate the level of engineering and sheer genius that was required (and still is - there is still innovation in mechanical watches), almost like wearing a little engine on your wrist (it is not by random chance that there are a statistically significant number of car enthusiasts who also like mechanical watches) - but also the market that appreciates the continuation of a tradition, however outdated and overtaken by technology that tradition may have become.
And from the other side, there are people who are gifted with the art, and put in the vast number of hours required to learn how to make fine watch movements, and even to innovate themselves. Of course the whole market will slowly reduce in size, since all you need is access to CAD/CAM gear, knowledge of Solidworks and an example of a real watch and you can make very accurate replicas these days. The counterfeiters have caught up with the mid-market and is taking away large amounts of its value (particularly bold, simple designs like Rolex's sports models, which are counterfeited to hell - some of which are probably just as good as the real thing). The top end will continue because you won't kill a tradition, and there will always be demand for something functionally special that only a very select few can acquire (even if supply is limited, not demand - look at Rolex and the joke Daytona prices).
But for a 'proper' watchmaker to make a piece that essentially admits that his whole industry is taking the piss out of its customers, and that all the effort put in to design additional complications, etc. is just b
ks and pointless bling, is poor form IMO. And to case it in metal from the Titanic, the symbolism doesn't need a fking poet to decipher. Romaine Jerome can go fk himself IMO. The hypocrisy of cashing in on an industry you are ridiculing - tosser.Have I just been trolled here? Is this watch not for real? If so, someone break out the 'hook line and sinker' GIF for me, because I've bitten hard
cyberface said:
Nah, not for me.
Seriously though. I enjoy reading what you have to say on this forum, Cyberface , along with everyone else who contributes. I'm a bit of a 'time-wasting' lurker on here I have to admit. There's something about nice watches which is just sooo cool. I must get one! ( Not just a nice one but a watch! It's amazing how you'll find that you don't actually need a watch if you haven't got one....)
Anyway, back to the comments after the item:
There’s a sucker born every minute… not by that watch.
Comment by MT Chair - April 27, 2008 at 10:38 am
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff