2 ms·

I have a far cheaper automatic (mechanical auto-winding) watch, so maybe I can offer another perspective. I don't need to remember to wind it, though I do need

I have a far cheaper automatic (mechanical auto-winding) watch, so maybe I can offer another perspective. I don't need to remember to wind it, though I do need to remember to wear it every few days so it auto-winds. The mechanism for this alone, with the rotor visible in the rear, is really fascinating to watch. There's something very satisfying about a watch operating solely dependent on mechanical precision rather than a digital computer. Also, more generally, because it competes on craftsmanship rather than having the latest features, it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch. This changes how I look at it, because unlike with my smartphones or laptops, in the back of my mind I don't have a plan to eventually replace or upgrade it. It feels less... disposable. I hope this helps illustrate my decision process a little. Obviously you may feel differently, but to me the feeling of consistency that I get from something that will be functional and repairable decades from now makes it a reasonably logical decision.

microtherion 8y ago
> The mechanism for this alone, with the rotor visible in the rear, is really fascinating to watch. I can see the appeal of visible gears. But most mechanical watch aficionados seem to satisfy with the thought that the gears EXIST. > it competes on craftsmanship Not entirely sure what that means. It's not like smartwatches don't feature ingenuous engineering and quite a bit of manual assembly labor. > it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch That always seemed an exceedingly silly argument to me. Mechanical watches have been outdated for DECADES. By the 1980s, they were thoroughly outclassed in accuracy, functionality, and price. Sure, in a few years, today's smartwatches will have been surpassed by better models, while odds are that the mechanical watch maker will, at best, have slapped a new paint scheme on the same old model. But in a few years, today's smartwatches will still outclass mechanical watches. And I don't see what's superior about stagnant technology. > something that will be functional and repairable decades from now For sufficiently small values of "functional", as apparently being off by 15 seconds a day is considered "well within their quality standards". https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-accuracy-standards-2956666.html https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-ac...

microtherion 8y ago

> The mechanism for this alone, with the rotor visible in the rear, is really fascinating to watch. I can see the appeal of visible gears. But most mechanical watch aficionados seem to satisfy with the thought that the gears EXIST. > it competes on craftsmanship Not entirely sure what that means. It's not like smartwatches don't feature ingenuous engineering and quite a bit of manual assembly labor. > it won't be outdated in a few years as will every modern smartwatch That always seemed an exceedingly silly argument to me. Mechanical watches have been outdated for DECADES. By the 1980s, they were thoroughly outclassed in accuracy, functionality, and price. Sure, in a few years, today's smartwatches will have been surpassed by better models, while odds are that the mechanical watch maker will, at best, have slapped a new paint scheme on the same old model. But in a few years, today's smartwatches will still outclass mechanical watches. And I don't see what's superior about stagnant technology. > something that will be functional and repairable decades from now For sufficiently small values of "functional", as apparently being off by 15 seconds a day is considered "well within their quality standards". https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-accuracy-standards-2956666.html https://forums.watchuseek.com/f419/jaeger-lecoultre-watch-ac...