This thread is about the appreciation of horology, as well as the micro-engineering and materials engineering that are required to make a fine watch, Casio aq230, clock, or other timepiece.
>Required viewing for new people (unironically):
youtube.com
>Thread theme (also unironically):
youtube.com
>Used watch guide:
pastebin.com
>Strap guide:
pastebin.com
>Watch essentials 102:
pastebin.com
previous thread:
Other urls found in this thread:
Post collections.
If you want slightly cheaper MN straps.
I bought a King Quartz for $16 the other day and after searching for another one that cheap I’m beginning to appreciate how much of a steal that was.
>50gbp
That's actually more expensive.
new day same fuckin OP pic that makes the rest of Jow Forums hate us
Why the fuck are you posting my collection?
4 turds and an omega isnt a collection
Not him but you like posting it anyway so what's the problem?
4 turds and an polished nard isnt a collection
FTFY
Thanks guys.
I should stick to Casios and Seikos to fit in here.
Why the fuck would you admit to even owning those?
*5 turds isn’t a collection
What’s wrong with it? Its a well rounded collection.
do the J skx all come with moonrune days?
The Omega is fine, the rest are Happy Meal toys.
t. Archie
Basedko 5 is ok, it was probably his first mechanical too. I keep mine just because of that.
Post Christopher Ward watches.
man they consistently get everything right except their fucking logos
Why do almost very single one of CoWard's and their faux Swiss equivalent Frederique Constant's designs have this strange, not quite right, uncanny valley quality to them? It's so strange.
Possibly because some of the images are PC renders and not photos of the real watch. Also their finishing is simply weird with some of the worst dial hands I've ever seen.
I'm all for appreciating the history and intricacy of the inner workings of mechanical watches, but essentially the mechanical watch has been a stylistic and technological zombie (or "tradition") since the quartz crisis of the late 60s.
So I'm torn between two views:
>1) mechanical watches are the ultimate Boomer nostalgia fetish
vs.
>2) mechanical watches are a masterpiece of the Greatest Generation
(embodying the ideals of technological pursuit and diligence of the Western world before Boomer post-modernism started destroying it from the inside)
So which is it?
Watches are fucking watches, Jesus fucking Christ. Take your pol memes out.
> but essentially the mechanical watch has been a stylistic and technological zombie (or "tradition") since the quartz crisis of the late 60s.
I don't think that's true at all. There's been more innovation in mechanical watches - materials, movements, shock proofing and so on than quartz. Quartz has basically stagnated and simply raced to the minimum possible price.
>not carrying around a stick to make impromptu sun dials
thread is full of plebs
Mechanical movements have been mass produced to fuck and are basically quartz now.
There’s nothing inherently horologically significant about and automatic movement.
Probably a bit of both, and it's up to you to choose.
Some of the most iconic models (Submariner, Navitimer, ...) and even entire categories (dive watches, aviator watches, ...) were definitely created by the Greatest Generation or earlier; boomers weren't around yet or were too young to be involved in the creation of those.
Good looking watch and 38mm! Can’t really fault this.
In fact, even early boomers were only in their 20s when quartz hit, meaning that realistically not many of them would've had the means to buy a Rolex or Omega before quartz.
So really their nostalgia is from seeing GGers wear them.
I'm talking about the designs themselves rather than the photos or the external finishing. The designs just look 'not right' in a way that's hard to explain.
I don’t see this at all. I actually really like the look of their vintage ones.
Wavy dial can fuck off though
this beauty.
A158WE
does anyone know if i can use this watch under water?
>but essentially the mechanical watch has been a stylistic and technological zombie (or "tradition") since the quartz crisis of the late 60s.
Actually there's been far more R&D spent on, and technological advancements in, the design and manufacture of mechanical movements than quartz movements since the late 1970s.
Also the quartz revolution should really be set in the 1970s, not the 1960s.
>There’s nothing inherently horologically significant about and automatic movement.
Aside from the much greater effort and cost of getting a bunch of springs and gears to tell time with 99.95%+ accuracy, and how they can effort and cost of the movements incentivizes the making the rest of the watch not shit, while cheap quartz movements incentivize fashion brand mall shitters made with zero thought or effort.
Don't push buttons though.
*And how the effort and cost
If that were true we'd all be wearing $20 quartzes.
I get what you're saying, but the development of mechanical watches is basically like fucking a dead corpse. This is not a knock on mech watches, I love them to death and actually have a slight aversion to quartz.
But if you actually wanted to improve timekeeping, you'd be developing quartz or some similar tech.
it says water resist, go for it dude
another one of mine
>Also the quartz revolution should really be set in the 1970s, not the 1960s.
1968 was the point of no return. As soon as that Seiko hit the market (even if it was very expensive), all mechanical watches were made obsolete in the blink of an eye.
i use this watch as a desk clock, so I look at it like 5 hours a day and still love it and wear it in the pool sometimes
im sorry but that just does not look good
>I get what you're saying, but the development of mechanical watches is basically like fucking a dead corpse.
This is actually incorrect. The problem with quartz movements is that they are too cheap to make, and so they heavily making the rest of the watch as cheaply as possible. Mechanical movements are less accurate, but the additional labour they require means they still demand some basic standard of external finishing for people to buy them, and since there continues to be a large market for mechanical movements, the continuing technological development of them is not beating a dear horse.
Besides, with engineered silicon oscillator MEMS movements, mechanical watches are likely to surpass non-thermocompensated quartz watches in accuracy in the next 10-20 years.
Quartz watch production was not scaled up to the point of representing a threat to the mechanical industry until the 1970s. I've literally never once heard anyone try and date the quartz revolution/crisis to the 1960s until you did.
On the subject of inexpensive quartz, at least Casio makes highly functional designs. This thing is definitely mey new favorite cheap Casio. I like it better than the resin band AE1200.
Wear it in good health.
That's why I don't wear it anymore^^ It was a present for me when I was 10 years old.
This is almost like a rail master but smaller and cheaper.
>The problem with quartz movements is that they are too cheap to make, and so they heavily making the rest of the watch as cheaply as possible.
>Mechanical movements are less accurate, but the additional labour they require means they still demand some basic standard of external finishing for people to buy them
I agree with all of this, but my point is about the actual timekeeping. You know, the actual function of the wristwatch.
>Besides, with engineered silicon oscillator MEMS movements, mechanical watches are likely to surpass non-thermocompensated quartz watches in accuracy in the next 10-20 years.
Yes I know, but I was talking about traditional mechanicals with escapements and everything.
By the way, pretty soon silicon oscillator watches are going to be even cheaper to make than quartzes, so the external finishing argument you brought up is going to take the next leap.
>I've literally never once heard anyone try and date the quartz revolution/crisis to the 1960s until you did.
That's entirely on you.
The unveiling of the Astron was the "shot heard around the world" for watches. Everyone will tell you this.
My dad wore an automatic Omega when he was in his early 20s during the 70s until someone brought him a Seiko penisquartz as an exotic gift from Japan. I can tell from the cosmetic condition of the two watches that he ended up wearing the quartz way more.
Quartz watches were still more expensive that mechanicals for several years. You can see it even just in Seiko's own annual catalogs if you compare the first couple of years of cheaper Grand Seikos vs more expensive Grand Quartz. Then look at later years when almost all the mechanical models are gone and quartz now covers the whole price range from low end to high end.
The crisis really didn't hit until later in the 70s when quartz first became competitive with mechanical on price, and then when the bottom really fell out on prices and quartz became both vastly cheaper and better than mechanical.
There's no reason for semantics.
The late 60s was when that quartz bell was rung that cannot be unrung.
It's not semantics. You are just incorrect. The early quartz movements cost a fortune to make and the watches they were in were priced well above most mechanicals. It was not until the mid 1970s that quartz began to become inexpensive enough to manufacture that it swept mechanicals from the field.
Literally everyone but you dates the quartz crisis to the 1970s for that reason.
>You are just incorrect.
Lel, way to make this personal.
Quartz hit the watch world when Seiko dropped the Astron. Period.
Sorry, I just saved it because your collection is kinda well rounded for a 5 piece collection.
I like the fact that it contains both a decent Omega and a couple of quirky Casios.
I thought it was 45?
Have you thought about the a500?
Could be your new fav Casio.
>By the way, pretty soon silicon oscillator watches are going to be even cheaper to make than quartzes, so the external finishing argument you brought up is going to take the next leap.
It's not likely that silicon oscillator movements will ever become as cheap to manufacture as low end quartz movements. They still require photo lithography and more and more precise assembly than 95% of quartz movements. I think the real danger is that they'll cost as much as a 6R15/2824-2 Standard Grade to make, while offering +/- 15 SPM or better timekeeping, which is likely to totally disrupt the $750 - $3,500 market.
Yeah, sorry. That's still more than 50 euros.
It's not personal at all. I'm just telling you that everyone else understands that the quartz crisis was in the 1970s, once quartz became cheap to mass produce. This is just as Zenith's limited edition silicon oscillator models are not a systemic threat to the Swiss industry today, but they will be when they can be put in $1,500 TAG HUEHUEs by the tens of thousands.
MEMS involves a machine spitting out parts.
It won't take very long for tons of these machines to be made and for economy of scale to kick in.
Remember that quartz movements were also difficult and expensive to make in the early days. Those oscillator movements are inherently simpler to make than modern quartz movements. A single MEMS part replaces 90% of all quartz movement components.
>everyone else understands that the quartz crisis was in the 1970s
... and that it began in the late 1960s.
Ok so I haven't the faintest about watches, I usually just pick the cheapest one and be done with it
But this was given to me by a good friend, and after a while the strap is starting to become all wrinkled and flappy. Is there a way to restore this or is it time to swap straps?
Photo lithography doesn't realize economies of scale to the extent that stamping/machining/etc can. It's more like a CNC in that the economies of scale are mostly in spreading the fixed costs over a larger volume, but the variable costs aren't going to dip much because the volume goes up.
Plus, quartz watches use cheap stepper motors, while MEMS movements have conventional drive-trains past the escapement. They share more in common with spring drive in that sense than they do with stepper motor quartz movements.
This one looks too much like Leelas wrist computer from futurama
Wow. That totally proves that the Seiko Astron wasn't unveiled in the late 1960s.
>Photo lithography doesn't realize economies of scale to the extent that stamping/machining/etc can.
Pretty sure quartz crystals, batteries, coils, circuitry, ... aren't "stamped" or "machined".
>quartz watches use cheap stepper motors, while MEMS movements have conventional drive-trains past the escapement
Stepper motors are far more intricate to make than a few gears, which are simply stamped and/or machined.
See I never said the quartz crisis was entirely contained within the 1960s. Just that it was sparked in the late 1960s.
Thanks bro.
>Swiss mountain Jews finally get some competition in affordable and accurate watches
>labeled a crisis
The Seiko Astron was unveiled in 1969, and it sparked the crisis. Period.
Rate my collection
babbys first watches, some money edition.
>grandpa watch
>memesplorer off the bracelet
What wold you suggest instead of these for two daily wearers?
fuck is that seiko 32mm?
Bracelet for the Rolex as a daily wear and then a dedicated dress watch.
So the Astron wasn't unveiled in the late 1960s?
What wold you suggest instead of these for two daily wearers?
Is this bait? Or do you not understand fixed costs, variable costs, and the difference in the cost structures of manufacturing where economies of scale affect only one and not both?
Also, do understand how much photo lithographic production facilities cost?
Since you already know stepper motors can be and are made for less than a dollar, while no mechanical style drive train can be manufactured and assembled for anything close to that cost, I'm forced to assume that this is bait. I can't think that anyone would seriously suggest that the gear train used in a mechanical or spring drive would be cheaper to manufacture and assemble than a cheap stepper motor.
Someone got triggered hard.
34
I think you forgot to take some kind of brain medicine.
With quartz movements, you have to grow and cut quartz crystals, fabricate all the components that go in stepper motors, fabricate and wind the coils, print the circuits, connect everything, etc.
And they still manage to make them for literal cents on the dollar simply because of the production capacity.
Now imagine the same production capacity, but all you have to make is a MEMS oscillator and a few gears.
The Seiko Astron sparked the quartz revolution, and it was unveiled in the late 1960s.
I never said the quartz crisis was entirely contained within the 1960s.
Keep sperging though.
Ah, I see you've decided to stop even pretending to engage the arguments and to just spout self evident nonsense then. I guess that answers the question: It was definitely bait.
Are you having some kind of dissociative fugue?
An oscillator movement is inherently simpler than a quartz movement, so with the same economies of scale; the former will be cheaper to make.
Does not change the fact that the Astron (and competitive Swiss quartz prototype) was developed and unveiled in the late 1960s.
And I never said the quartz crisis was limited to the 1960s.
I don't know what you're talking about. The astron hit the market in super limited numbers and with poor reliability in December 1969.
The quartz crisis began in the late 1960s. That is all I ever said.