Horological Meandering

Some stream of consciousness thoughts on tourbillons

I was asked recently, as an editorial advisor, my thoughts on tourbillons today. I thought my reply to the EIC might start an interesting discussion here.

"Just a few quick knee jerk thoughts on the subject (sorry, limited to a Blackberry for the moment; if I had a decent keyboard and a bit more time this could be much shorter.

Or 10 times longer.

Raw and unedited -

Form vs function is one aspect of (the) question, just as it is in every discussion about luxury and substance (vs fashion vs style)

Tourbillons were a (high) complication at first because -

1. It was a new idea, a new approach to solve an old problem

2. It was, as a new idea, "very difficult to execute" both because of its newness and complexity - it was inherently "hard to do" in the context of the time (1790's-1810's)

3. Which resulted in the perfect ingredients for the marketers -

A. New concept
B. Appeals to the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals as a concept
C. Appeals to the mechanical snobs because of its difficulty
D. Rare (due to newness, complexity, difficulty)
E. Expensive - high nominal margin ( - but D, E also therefore inherently elitist with attendant snob appeal)

So spun right, a marketers dream - in the 18th-19th century.

But it was a technological dead end, a commercial non-event, and lay dormant until the latter mid-20th century: how many tourbillons were made, in toto, before 1980? (not a rhetorical question)

Then marketers and product development managers "rediscovered" (something the Swiss Watch industry is hugely successful at) the tourbillon, and with the aid of modern materials and computer aided tight tolerances the tourbillon became as ubiquitous as mushrooms in the forest after a rain.

What was once "rare and special" became common and banal, special only because the mar-comm department said it was, swallowed wholesale by gullible newly minted tycoons hungering for ways to spend their newly found riches to broadcast a facade of sophistication.

All of which is background to (the) question,

"What is a (serious) tourbillon today?"

(IMVHO)

1. It should be made to the highest standards, with the best materials.

This is just the basest of baselines (especially when "Chinese tourbillons" - note the bunny ears - cost a few hundred dollars and "keep time" as well as some $multi-hundred-thousand "high tourbillons." Having studied those Chinese tourbillons, they are "throw away" in terms of finish and materials quality but they do serve as a wake up call.)

From this baseline there are three paths -

2a. It should advance the state of the art and technology using modern techniques and knowledge about isochronism reconciled with the basic original principle of the tourbillon (corollary - when is a tourbillon no longer a tourbillon?)

(Greubel Forsey)

Or

2b. It should stick STRICTLY to the original definition of the tourbillon, and use strictly traditional methods and tools, a la Ph. Dufour and his Simplicity in the context of the time only timepiece.

(Laurent Ferrier - but how traditional are they really, in their methods and tools? I really don't know but the finished product seems very very traditional)

2c. The concept of the tourbillon should be abstracted to the level of art, complex mobile kinetic art on the one hand, or reduced to minimalist essence on the other.

(Beat Haldimann Central Tourbillon, Vincent Calabrese carrousel golden bridge, Omega Tourbillon Central)

For me any of the above or any executions that fall under the above parameters qualify as a "(serious) tourbillon"

(Again, unfiltered and off the cuff - this was done stream of consciousness style, in between meetings and flights. Apologies in advance for any errors or omissions)

Cheers,

TM

💰361 Marketplace Listings for Omega›

Interesting thoughts

By: dedestexhes : May 5th, 2015-12:03

One of the points I may add is that the traditional tourbillon almost never was shown on the dial side. And honestly, why the need to show it? Unless.... I agree with the fact that there is the category of the kinetic art such as Haldimann and GF. Both wi...

Thanks, Dirk. I agree with your further points...

By: ThomasM : May 5th, 2015-16:14

and for those of us that understand that tourbillons in practice often don't increase averaged rate stability - the complexity of the escapement introduces more errors than it compensates for, in most cases - those of us who still appreciate and like tour...

Before GF, I think that JLC has to be mentionned, with the Gyro One.

By: amanico : May 5th, 2015-12:09

The biggest problem I have with the Tourbillon is that Marketing teams killed the Tourbillon. From the natural sophistication of whzt is by essence a sophistication, we had a marketing product, in most of the cases. The sophistication, vulgarized. A pity....

I agree the contemporary tourbillon is mostly a marketing exercise...

By: ThomasM : May 5th, 2015-16:18

with few exceptions. Eric Coudrey's GyroT is, of course, amazing and of course would fall into both categories (1) and (2a) advancing the technology and SOTA (state of the art), perhaps even (2c) tourbillon as art or abstraction, in the same way as G-F, t...

You say it better in your second language than I could in my first.

By: mkvc : May 6th, 2015-00:29

"Sophistication, vulgarized." That sells, but it's not something most of us want. The participants on this thread all seem to agree that some tourbillons are worth the trouble. At this stage, their raison d'etre cannot simply be "because it's a tourbillon...

Different thoughts

By: jkingston : May 5th, 2015-15:30

First we have to face reality. Tourbillons in a wrist watch are not there for the chronometry. Journe once joked that the "best way to improve the performance of his tourbillon was to take out the tourbillon". Actually that was not too much of a joke, sin...

I'm not sure we were saying anything different...

By: ThomasM : May 5th, 2015-16:03

Hi, Jeff, Thanks for the further thoughts. In reading your comments, I'm not sure we were saying anything different, though it is always nice to read things from another perspective or with different wording, something akin to reading or discussing the sa...

What are each of us looking for in watchmaking?

By: Mark in Paris : May 6th, 2015-08:09

First, the Tourbillon mechanism was made, if I remember well, for pocket watches: as they remained in a vertical position and still (in theory) in the pocket, making the escapement rotating on the level of where it carries "mistakes" is good for time keep...

Thanks for reading. Agreed that everyone needs to ask those questions and decide

By: ThomasM : May 7th, 2015-08:25

For themselves.

Thanks for your thoughts...

By: Emil Wojcik : May 7th, 2015-08:39

I find the " stream of consciousness" thought process you've used very appealing since it illustrate your raw thoughts, void of editing that could have made your comments too editorial and, in a way, less informative. Very well done! Emil

Thank you for your kind words. While I still believe that...

By: ThomasM : May 7th, 2015-09:45

being respectfully considered is the best way to go for most posts, sometimes, raw unfiltered thoughts are necessary to reset the bullshit meter... Thanks again for your kind words. TM

I liked this conversation so thanks for everyone's thoughts.

By: Rock1 : May 8th, 2015-09:56

I offer the thought of comparing whether a tourbillon is useful or not to whether a minute repeater is useful or not. I see in this thread the heart of why we like watches... the history of innovation, how England dominated then lost it all because it stu...

Thank you Evan, I agree with your sentiments! [nt]

By: ThomasM : May 8th, 2015-17:38