4 ms·

As an computing professional, I find mechanical watches to be inelegant and ugly. I mean, they're basically designed to be inelegant, the word "complication" is

As an computing professional, I find mechanical watches to be inelegant and ugly. I mean, they're basically designed to be inelegant, the word "complication" is used as a positive description. I just can't get into it. I think an impressive electronic watch is more interesting to me; though there doesn't seem to be much interest in these being made, so the most fun I can have is with Timex. I think smartwatches are the electronic equivalent of mechanical watches: inelegant, gaudy, and utterly pointless.

Cookingboy 10y ago
No, they are not designed to be inelegant and "ugly", they are designed to function without the need for electricity. A digital watch like Casio or Timex are designed to be practical, but your taste is pretty....unorthodox if you think a Timex or Casio looks better than a beautifully crafted mechanical piece. Your statement about smartwatche is also...bizarre, especially since you just praised Timex. But again, I think you have a very different definition for words such as "elegant" and "gaudy" than most people out there.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  > No, they are not designed to be inelegant and "ugly", they are designed to function without the need for electricity. Yeah, and electronic watches are designed to function without mechanical intervention. You say this like electrical systems are somehow less reliable than mechanical systems; and it couldn't be further from the truth. Complication is inelegant. Adding jewels to hidden parts of your mechanism is bound to make it more prone to failure, considerably harder to build, and with no tangible benefit. It's a status thing, like pouring champagne on the floor or having a seven-car garage full of vintages and imports. In my opinion, all this flaunting shows a lack of class. It becomes about how much of your income you put toward useless nonsense. I put complicated mechanical watches right up there with oxygen-free all-silver HDMI cables, pretending that vinyl sounds better than CD, and using "organic" household cleaners.
  - Cookingboy 10y ago
    How is having a seven car garage the same as pouring champagne onto the floor? What if you legitimately like cars? It's not like they drive them into trees to show off they can afford them. I'm sorry, but you sound extremely shallow minded, if not downright bitter, about some people's hobby just because they are expensive. And no, jewels are used in watch movements for legit reasons, and no haute horology manufacturers add them for the sake of status symbol, you are just making it up there. I actually don't think you know much about mechanical watches at all, and if you think mechanical engineering is the same as Monster's cables...then I really don't know what to tell you. But hey, those stupid NASA astronauts must be vinyl hipsters like you said right? https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/actual-pictures-actually-showing-the-speedmaster-professional-actually-being-used-for-eva-today-well https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/actual-pictures-actually-s...
    - giergirey 10y ago
      adding unnecessary jewels definitely used to be a thing up until the 1970s - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch#.27Jewel_inflation.27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch#.27Jewel_infl...
  - Inconel 10y ago
    >Adding jewels to hidden parts of your mechanism is bound to make it more prone to failure, considerably harder to build, and with no tangible benefit. The "jewels" you find inside a watch movement actually do serve a purpose. They're there to reduce the friction between metal parts at the points of heaviest wear like bearings and pivots. Also, they are mostly extremely inexpensive synthetic rubies.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    It's not a status thing...necessarily. There are a lot of people, myself included, who enjoy collecting mechanical watches and don't flaunt them. If you're wearing a Rolex Yachtmaster, yes alright maybe it's a status thing. If you're wearing a Patek, Lange, or VC it's probably for legitimate appreciation though. They are understated and virtually unknown outside of collectors or people who know collectors. You'd be very disappointed if you were wearing them for status - almost no one would recognize them on you. Try not to compare peoples' hobbies to "pouring champagne on the floor." You may not think they're legitimate, but that doesn't make it so. I'm happy to admit that mechanical watches are inefficient and poor timekeeping devices compared to modern technology. But they're supposed to be a form of art that you personally enjoy that happen to tell the time. Comparing mechanical watches to electronic ones on the basis of utility is missing the point (and so is calling them a status symbol).

Cookingboy 10y ago

No, they are not designed to be inelegant and "ugly", they are designed to function without the need for electricity. A digital watch like Casio or Timex are designed to be practical, but your taste is pretty....unorthodox if you think a Timex or Casio looks better than a beautifully crafted mechanical piece. Your statement about smartwatche is also...bizarre, especially since you just praised Timex. But again, I think you have a very different definition for words such as "elegant" and "gaudy" than most people out there.

microcolonel 10y ago
> No, they are not designed to be inelegant and "ugly", they are designed to function without the need for electricity. Yeah, and electronic watches are designed to function without mechanical intervention. You say this like electrical systems are somehow less reliable than mechanical systems; and it couldn't be further from the truth. Complication is inelegant. Adding jewels to hidden parts of your mechanism is bound to make it more prone to failure, considerably harder to build, and with no tangible benefit. It's a status thing, like pouring champagne on the floor or having a seven-car garage full of vintages and imports. In my opinion, all this flaunting shows a lack of class. It becomes about how much of your income you put toward useless nonsense. I put complicated mechanical watches right up there with oxygen-free all-silver HDMI cables, pretending that vinyl sounds better than CD, and using "organic" household cleaners.
- Cookingboy 10y ago
  How is having a seven car garage the same as pouring champagne onto the floor? What if you legitimately like cars? It's not like they drive them into trees to show off they can afford them. I'm sorry, but you sound extremely shallow minded, if not downright bitter, about some people's hobby just because they are expensive. And no, jewels are used in watch movements for legit reasons, and no haute horology manufacturers add them for the sake of status symbol, you are just making it up there. I actually don't think you know much about mechanical watches at all, and if you think mechanical engineering is the same as Monster's cables...then I really don't know what to tell you. But hey, those stupid NASA astronauts must be vinyl hipsters like you said right? https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/actual-pictures-actually-showing-the-speedmaster-professional-actually-being-used-for-eva-today-well https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/actual-pictures-actually-s...
  - giergirey 10y ago
    adding unnecessary jewels definitely used to be a thing up until the 1970s - see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch#.27Jewel_inflation.27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_watch#.27Jewel_infl...
- Inconel 10y ago
  >Adding jewels to hidden parts of your mechanism is bound to make it more prone to failure, considerably harder to build, and with no tangible benefit. The "jewels" you find inside a watch movement actually do serve a purpose. They're there to reduce the friction between metal parts at the points of heaviest wear like bearings and pivots. Also, they are mostly extremely inexpensive synthetic rubies.
- dsacco 10y ago
  It's not a status thing...necessarily. There are a lot of people, myself included, who enjoy collecting mechanical watches and don't flaunt them. If you're wearing a Rolex Yachtmaster, yes alright maybe it's a status thing. If you're wearing a Patek, Lange, or VC it's probably for legitimate appreciation though. They are understated and virtually unknown outside of collectors or people who know collectors. You'd be very disappointed if you were wearing them for status - almost no one would recognize them on you. Try not to compare peoples' hobbies to "pouring champagne on the floor." You may not think they're legitimate, but that doesn't make it so. I'm happy to admit that mechanical watches are inefficient and poor timekeeping devices compared to modern technology. But they're supposed to be a form of art that you personally enjoy that happen to tell the time. Comparing mechanical watches to electronic ones on the basis of utility is missing the point (and so is calling them a status symbol).