4 ms·
Quartz is definitely more accurate and simpler to produce, but not easier to maintain or more reliable. Finding a working early 80's quartz in good condition i
by craigsmansion 9y ago
Quartz is definitely more accurate and simpler to produce, but not easier to maintain or more reliable.
Finding a working early 80's quartz in good condition is already hard and expensive. Repairs (or even finding a suitable battery) might be impossible
Finding a 70's or 60's working automatic in good condition is trivial and cheap. Repairs are easy.
Of course, upgrading every few years to the latest cheap quartz might still be cheaper than a mechanical watch, but there's something nice to be said about using a device that can perform its function for 40+ years with ease, and basically indefinitely with minimal maintenance.
- eo3x0 9y agoI have some interesting pieces from the 1950s that are still running with no repair to date (but these were well kept). I'm fortunate enough that my grandparents had some of their really old watches sitting in a drawer. For most of them, I just picked it up and it worked. They had no need for them, so they're in my care now. Got lucky :) You really can't say with anything else over 60 years old. Heck I'd be ecstatic if any of my code even runs/compiles in 30 years from now, let alone 60. But I'm pretty certain the same old watches will still be ticking when it's time for my grandchildren to rummage through my drawer and find them happily awaiting another windup. Timelessness in a timekeeping device is part of the appeal.