5 ms·
”Up until the late 70s, watches were tools to keep you from being late.” That’s not true at all. There have always been a lot of reasons to wear a watch that h
by irq11 7y ago
”Up until the late 70s, watches were tools to keep you from being late.”
That’s not true at all. There have always been a lot of reasons to wear a watch that have nothing to do with getting the time. Cheap movements expanded the market to the low-end, but didn’t really change the reasons that people buy watches.
Fundamentally, watches are jewelry. That’s been true forever, but it also isn’t something that can be reduced to “aesthetics” alone (for example, people pay handsome premiums for better mechanical movements, even though it has no impact on the look of a watch. The idea of wearing a well-crafted, tiny mechanical device is itself an attractive prospect.)
It’s the equivalent of people who talk about Windows machines being “better deals” than Apple machines. After all, they both flip bits, right? If all you do is fixate on the function, everything becomes a commodity.
- bouncing 7y agoPeople pay handsomely for better mechanical movements, but that's still an aesthetic choice. The world's most accurate mechanical movement is just not going to be as accurate as a mid-range quartz movement. Paying a premium for something that's mechanical because it's mechanical is the epitome of an aesthetic choice. It's not at all like the Mac vs PC choice, which might have some aesthetics involved, but is still about support, ease of choice, brand reputation, and of course, technical details. Maybe watches have always been somewhat aesthetic, and while they were made to be pretty in the 1920s, they really did exist as timepieces first and foremost. Now a mechanical watch's main function is the way it makes you feel.