WatchProSite|Market|Digest

Horological Meandering

What if...

 

...instead of being done by well-paid people in very comfortable workshops in Europe, the uber-finishing were done by semi-slave labour in sweat shops elsewhere?   Would that change the perception of it?   Can't you hear the protestors protesting at the use of such labour for something totally unnecessary that adds nothing to the functioning of the watch, and that's just there to appeal to the vanity of rich collectors...8 hours a day hunched over a bench...paid a pittance...watch sells for $x0000000... blah blah blah

I was always impressed/fascinated by the fussee chains on some of my pocketwatches (I still am).  Then, while doing family genealogy we discovered a couple of teenage girls in Clerkenwell at the end of the 19th century - occupation "fussee chain maker".  So I researched it and discovered that they used young girls because of their nimble fingers and good eyesight, that they worked innumerable hours per day to earn a pittance, head inches from the work piece (no luxuries like loups), that they suffered horribly from headaches and other problems related to the strain ... and suddenly I saw the wonders of the fussee in a totally different light.

There's a tendency to find a non-existant correlation between the perception of the result and the perception of the process that led to it, and this often hides the reality of the work that went into it.  We admire the finished result - does that justify the effort that goes into producing it?   The lust for fine finishing is leading young people to spend their working day hunched over a bench, shining bits of metal the size of a gnat's nadgers for no better reason than "it looks better and the customer is willing to pay".

I shall now remove my old socialist agent provocateur's  hat and go to work...

nick

  login to reply