allenC said:
I think some folks have a misconception of how quartz watches are created.
They seem to think that quartz watches just pop out of a giant robotic machine with no human interaction whatsoever.
I wonder what all of those Seiko and Citizen employees do all day?
Allen.
Heh, indeed. And on the other side we have companies like Omega and Rolex producing over a thousand mechanical watches per day - in other words, assembly line products. At these numbers I doubt there is a big difference in the ratio of manual to machine labour between mechanical and quartz watches.
I have the feeling that the mechanical watch industry (not just the producers, but also the retailers and to a degree the consumers) foster some sort of myth/hype surrounding mechanical watches. As far as I know this began in the seventies, when quartz technology allowed large Asian manufacturers to build extremely accurate watches in large quantities for low prices. Suddenly the comparably small Western companies needed to convince the consumers that their mechanical products were not crude, obsolete and over-priced, but rather traditional, luxurious, classic, somewhat elitist, filled with soul; emotional attributes that cannot be properly quantified or even described, but the point is: quartz is for the uneducated masses, the distinguished person wears mechanical. And the Western companies seem to have been successful with this, at least in the Western countries. I know that Citizen and Seiko do produce high-end quartz watches solely for the Japanese market, with prices rivalling top mechanical watches. Maybe the consumers´ perceptions are different there, I do not know how well Western watchmakers do in Japan.
Some of the pro-mechanical arguments leave me a bit puzzled. For example, I often read about "soul-less" quartz watches. The circuitry of a quartz watch is certainly closer to a human brain than the gears of a mechanical watch. If I hoped to find anything soul-like in a watch (which I don´t), I would look for it in a quartz.
And there is so much science behind the development of the quartz. The process may not have been as focussed as the development of the mechanical watch, where it was mostly watchmakers thinking about improvements for watches, whereas the quartz watch is the result of many scientific fields and discoveries converging. But to me there is much more human ingenuity in a quartz watch than in a mechanical one.
The COSC and its "chronometer"-classification seems to be another case of the mechanical watch industry marketing myths. I found
this article on Timezone to be an interesting read. The gist of it: COSC specifications are from more than a century ago, and about 95 % of the watches sent for testing will pass the test. Many watchmakers don´t even bother with the COSC, rather they apply their own, stricter standards, and thus the chronometer rating does not really mean much. But Switzerland cannot afford trying to change the specifications to something stricter, as the responsible ISO-committee no longer consists of mostly European countries. The current Asian majority would vote for specifications so strict that mechanical watches could no longer pass the tests. This would be bad for Rolex and Omega, who both want the "chronometer"-label on their watches, and as these companies provide most of the COSC´s income, the COSC itself could go out of business.
Now, I realize that to a degree I am insinuating that buyers of mechanical watches are a bit gullible for accepting the marketing hype. But keep in mind that I myself wear a Sinn 244Ti - not exactly the most expensive watch, but still a COSC-certified mechanical chronometer - and I have a mechanical Omega DeVille for more formal occasions, so I am insulting myself just as much. I certainly "get" the joy of owning mechanical watches, I just think one should also remain a bit realistic about it.
Kristofer
