patrick_y[PuristSPro Moderator]
33546
It is a natural escapement and it isn't a natural escapement.
It's debatable. Rolex calls it a natural escapement. The media has called it the same as well (journalists don't generally know the true exact distinction). While the argument can be made that it doesn't meet all the attributes of a traditional natural escapement (mainly it's not "directly driven" by the impulse itself over both wheels, but only one), over time, it's likely that the minor attributes will be forgotten and thus, the distinction will be minimized. Thus, as a futurist, I would say we should just skip ahead and call it a natural escapement.
While I agree with your last sentence. I don't think natural escapements will ever truly be normalized. Customers aren't sophisticated enough to ask for these minor details. Customer demand and customer request drives a lot of the changes. Or, the marketing team identifies untapped customer needs/wants and then asks engineering to integrate a feature into a future product. And customers are never going to ask for natural escapements en masse. So, I think we're in agreement there - although we're coming at the same conclusion from two different reasons.
Hmm...
By: patrick_y : September 21st, 2025-17:37
I don't know about LF's actions and why they're doing this. I have not conversed with them in a long time. On a slightly related but totally different string of the same thought... I wonder if the new Rolex Land Dweller with the Rolex version of a natural...
Good question
By: moguls_65_peels : September 21st, 2025-22:52
In reading more about the Landweller it’s not actually a natural escapement like LF or Breguet but a flavor of it since both wheels aren’t directly driving the gear train. Now that I read about it, I kind of want that watch. Sounds like Rolex is set up fo...