Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Forbes article on mechanical wristwatches
From: Krechtz@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:24:04 EDT

In a message dated 9/13/00 11:09:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dante@umich.edu 
writes:

<< I have a 1998 Swatch Automatic that runs on an Eterna 2xxx 23-jewel
 caliber (I don't have it in front of me, but I was shocked when I read
 through an Italian watch book showing all of the calibers and what they
 went in), which is the same one used in lot of Omegas and other SMH group
 watches. Only difference is that the Swatch has a clear plastic case and
 ran (when they made them) $80.  The Omega mechanicals start at over
 $1,000.  What's in a name?!  The Swiss must be laughing their asses off.>>

Actually, depending on the maker in question, that could be very much like 
saying that a Leica II with 50/2 Summar is the same camera as a IIIg with 
rigid Summicron.  The calibre of a watch movement is roughly analogous to the 
chassis of a camera.  The bulk of the actual timekeeping is done by parts 
made and/or finished by the named manufacturer, if the watch is considered a 
high grade movement.  
Rolex is a familiar example.  Its very high-priced Cosmograph is based on the 
same calibre as dozens of chronographs sold under other names.  
Another comparison would be between a completely stock auto engine and the 
NASCAR "stock" racing version, which are nominally the same but internally 
quite dissimilar.<<

 I do have a real Omega, too.  Lots of cool moving parts, but you end up 
setting both every week.>>

Either your Omega is on the weak side or needs service, or it may have 
suffered permanent wear from neglect, if it literally needs to be reset every 
week in order to be within +/-  your quoted standard variance, below.  
Ideally, it should outperform the Swatch, although a strong Swatch could 
outperform a weak Omega.
  
<<Thestandard variance for mechanicals, or so I read, as +/- fifteen 
secondsper day.  That's a hell of a lot when you compare it to +/- 30 
sec/month
  with a one-dollar Japanese quartz movement.>>  

I assume you speak of a current Swiss watch industry standard.  That would 
apply to your Swatch Automatic.   Check out the Superlative Chronometer 
standard met by all Rolex Oyster Perpetuals, if you think standards are 
relevant.  That will give you a realistic comparison between your Swatch and 
the "identical" watches using the same calibre movement.  By the way, I have 
had any number of cheap quartz watches, and most do not meet the above 
standard, in reality.  It is only a standard, not a warranty.

<<But nothing beats a good 5hz mechanical tick.>>

If one appreciates watches, I suppose any tick sounds good.  I'm not sure 
what a 5hz tick would sound like, though.  That would be only 5 vibrations 
per second.  Big Ben, maybe?
By the way, I suspect Arthur's Luminor could be quite valuable, especially to 
an Italian collector.  

Joe Sobel 

 
 
 
 BTW: how many people on this thread know that the crappy Swatch quartz was
 what bailed SMH (the Swiss watch consortium) out in the mid-80s?  It was
 designed to be a high-profit subsidizing line.  Pretty ironic.
  >>