Horological Meandering

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening PuristS friends! A holiday post (it’s Labor Day here in America) for your enjoyment. Though I risk branding and expectations I shall not be able to meet in future with this initial photograph… At least this time I remembered the ice cream!

But down to business… The Ball Engineer II Red Label Chronometer GMT was the first watch for which I spent in excess of $2K, and with that outlay I felt I had entered the world of high horology. (Well, in a sense I had. But more about my current perspective in my final paragraph.) No longer available, in my opinion it remains the most handsome timepiece Ball has ever produced. 

Rightly sized in a 40mm stainless case (after a time, Ball bowed to customer pressure and offered a 43mm version with day, as well as date), the watch’s jet black, vertically-striped, teak-deck-style dial sports narrowly tapering applied indices that are enhanced by the placement of slender tritium tubes atop half their length. 

A discreet chapter ring encircles these, featuring a GMT timescale in even-numbered-hour, small white numerals executed in a plain and easily-readable font. 

Surprisingly, the tubes’ greenish-yellow cast in daylight offers a pleasant accent to the indices, and in addition to their all-night glow, their presence is felt whenever ducking into a darkened passageway, rummaging through a closet, or when twilight falls. 

At 12.2mm high with the addition of its slightly domed sapphire crystal (which is treated for glare reduction), the watch easily slips under a cuff—though we’ll readily admit that such a dimension places the piece in the category of many a modern chronograph. 

This contributes, no doubt, to the fact that its polished case and bezel are scratch-attractors, for sure. 

But compromise is the first word in watch design, and a brushed or bead blasted case would have made no sense in this dressier Ball.

One would hardly mistake the timepiece for a dress watch with this sort of mass, though. Thus, the presence of a date window with a starkly contrasting white date wheel is unsurprising. This is nicely outlined in raised metal that matches the indices and contributes to a sense of care in design. 

But the most notable visual elements are the seconds hand, with its highly stylized Ball logo counterweight (a florid script RR, reminding us of Ball’s origins as a supplier of watches to America’s railroads) that balances the diminutive tritium tube placed a little more than half-way out—lollypop-like—on the hand’s limb; and the (dare I say) cherry-red GMT arrow. 

Ball’s designers were careful to provide a reference for this startling color by relating the first line of text above six o’clock, “GMT,” in the same red. (The two lines that follow—“Chronometer,” in script, followed by the watch’s depth rating, “100M/330FT”—are done in white, as is the rest of the text on the dial.) And true to the watch’s quite formal aesthetic, the shaft of the GMT hand is colored in a black that disappears into the dial, leaving the red arrow to float around the circle of indices in a wonderfully subtle fashion. 

Finally, the screw-down crown (also RR decorated) is very well engineered, with the spring against which one must push to engage the threads offering a comfort-giving resistance. The Italian-made alligator strap also is well-suited to a feeling of quality, 

and though its signature company buckle looks almost out of proportion in photographs, in reality it is just right for this timepiece: substantive, but unobtrusive.

Completing an overall impression of strength, the watch’s stainless back screws on to protect Ball’s version of ETA’s 2892 A2 ébauche, and is embossed with a representation of an old steam locomotive with Webb C. Ball, the company’s founder, imprinted on a plate on the engine. 

Substantial, confidence-inspiring, nicely finished if not extraordinarily so, by any standard this is a good-looking watch.

Now let’s take a look at the essential features of this timepiece.

Elemental resistance, shock: 5,000 G’s. 

In addition to the more conventional Incabloc shock absorbing spring most of us came to know in “Shock Tech 101,” Ball’s “SpringLOCK” system encloses the entire balance spring in a cage, protecting the movement to a greater degree. Rolex’s “Kif” system (specially designed jewels at the end of the balance staff points, also used by other high-end makers, such as AP, JLC, and Patek) is complemented by its “Paraflex” spring—a differently shaped affair than the Incabloc spring, but serving the same purpose. But let’s cut to the chase here: Ball uses the same “5,000 Gs” found in the Rolex literature as a hard number to impress would-be buyers. Naturally both companies want us to know that they’ve gone some steps further to create a timepiece that will handily slough off the daily knocks against door jambs any wristwatch will inevitably have to endure. (I guess I have to admit that there are men who drift through life never running into anything, but I am not one of them!)

Both makers, then, are prepared to state that their products meet the ISO 1413 Shock Resistant Standard. This test simulates the forces on a timepiece falling a distance of 1 meter from tabletop onto a hardwood surface, and few watches will survive such a drop without damage unless some special attention has been paid to this liability  The standard Incabloc spring integrated into the ETA ebauches that are used by the majority of Swiss manufacturers whose watches fall (forgive me) into the “under $5k” market segment cannot deal with such an assault alone. But Ball’s enhanced system gives it an edge. The Red Label Chronometer GMT is not just another a pretty face, but has been engineered to survive “the slings and arrows.”

Elemental resistance, water: 10 bar (100m/330ft) 

Perhaps the thing above all others that makes a Rolex a Rolex is its robust nature. The first time we picked one up we knew: this is a serious tool!So, too, the Ball. Just as its more illustrious cousins—the Air King, Explorer, and venerable Oyster Perpetual—the Red Label Chronometer is designed to withstand 10 bar of pressure (as are most Grand Seikos, by the way) providing a comfort zone that allows one to relax about that dash to the car through a downpour, or the forgetful grab for keys as they slip from a hand into a shallow pool.

Yet many companies—Eberhard, for example—mysteriously hold to an old standard with even their sport lines. Their Extra-Fort Vitré,a very handsome chronograph in steel with black dial and red accents at a marvelous 39mm dimension (ref. 31952.30), is protected only to 50 meters (5 bar). What were they thinking???Who is going to feel confident wearing this at a race track in the rain? And why wear a chronograph if not to use it? Tissot’s interesting Heritage Navigatoris protected only to 30 meters (3 bar). A navigator? Really…. Certainly I admit to only a modicum of knowledge regarding the building of watches. But if wearinga watch is a priority, many attractive timepieces on the market today cannot be considered unless one is ready for the uncomfortable level of responsibility their modest resistance to water pressure demands. Give me a watch that I can enjoy without thinking of it first whenever I move about. Here again, the Ball excels, and surprisingly to some, with a considerable degree of elegance.

Elemental resistance, magnetism: 4800 A/m magnetic resistance 

Now this is an area of a bit of “funny money.” For all that 4800 A/m magnetic resistance  (or some 60 Gauss) will get one is protection from a common refrigerator magnet (50 Gauss)! That is the disappointing bottom line laid down by the ISO’s watchmaking standard, and it’s a weak one that needs updating. For example, a coin-sized “rare earth” magnet emits 12,500 gauss (can lift more than 9 kg and erase credit cards!), and the coil of an average loudspeaker, from ~10,000 to 24,000. Woops! Hey, it’s a dangerous modern world out there, and this “anti-magnetic” claim offers little comfort for those of us who seriously consider such things—keeping our watches well away from our cell phones and digital clock radios. Ball now makes a “Milgauss” (1,000 gauss) of its own, and though one-thousand is a nice, round number, we all know who this takes aim at. (Omega has now gone off the deep end with a watch capable of withstanding 15,000 Gauss, which has ridden placidly through an MRI scanner with no discernable change in rate). This is an area of considerable confusion, for many collectors—exercising a thoughtful bit of caution—manage to keep their watches safe from this “attractive” scourge. So let’s leave it at this: Ball’s Red Label GMT offers better protection than none at all in this department, but if a fellow really wants a watch that stands up to strong magnetic fields, then he must buy a specialty tool—or spend quite a fortune on a watch made by an independent maker who specializes in silicone and other non-magnetic materials. (Silicone parts are making their way into the offerings of a number of the large “commercial” watch manufacturers, and perhaps it is only a matter of time until the price of such exotic materials comes down to a point where they will become fairly common.) 

Legibility: 

It is not always necessary to consult one’s timepiece in the dark. We have our cell phones, our clock radios, our tablets, our smart watches. Yet… it is a comfort to know that no matter the hour, the Ball Red Label will tell me the time. Ball is one of the few manufacturers that uses tritium-filled tubes for illumination, for the simple reason that their luminosity will not diminish for ~12-13 years. Oh yes, they will still be readable after 20, as the company’s literature boasts, but by then the radioactive material will be nearing the end of its cycle, and the tubes (then considerably dimmed) will need to be replaced. That they can beshould be of interest, ensuring not only a long, but a bright future for any Ball model.

Here’s my four-year-old, at 4:24:51 a.m. in an out-of-focus shot that approximates how the watch looks to me without my glasses on (the yellow indicia is at 12 o’clock). I fiddled around a bit to get the right effect. Notice that something is crossing the hour and minute hands at their base, but it’s indistinct.  

Now I’ve put my glasses on, and after a few tries I come up with this. It’s now 4:35:09, and you may notice one of the “Rs” from the seconds hand’s counterbalance quite clearly silhouetted against the minute hand. 

These photos are not enhanced in any way, and provide a realistic representation of clear time-reading at an hour when most other watches—whatever the specific formulation of the paint used to illuminate the hands—have dimmed considerably.

But what about the greater portion of our lives spent in the daylight? How easy is it to read the time at a glance? The hands and indices of the Red Label are cut in such a way that their elegant shapes reflect light admirably. This success gets lost in the company’s emphasis on tubes. But when the light dims to a degree that would render other watches difficult to read, they take over in a wonderfully subtle way, so that it is possible always to tell the time quickly and easily. Twilight can be a vexing time to read the time on one’s wrist, but not with the Ball. In a darkened recital hall I need only barely glance at my arm to tell how much longer than I’d counted on the program is going to run. And on late night walks around town—where it’s really dark—I always know how I’m doing against my reference time. Oh, there are brighter Balls! The Marvelight’s broader tubes provide more glow. Or if you really want your timepiece to “light up like a Christmas tree,” then the tortuously-named Engineer Hydrocarbon Submarine Warfare Ceramic will not only keep your partner awake if you wear it on the wrong wrist, but will also provide: shock resistance to 7,500 Gs; water resistance to 300 meters; as much antimagnetic protection as a Milgauss; a luminous, ceramic, unidirectional rotating bezel; and all this while keeping COSC time! But the Red Label’s tubes are perfectly adequate, and seamlessly integrated into an eminently legible design.

Accuracy:

Having for so long worn quartz watches that I didn’t pay much attention to but to reset them every several months or so, the subject of accuracy naturally loomed large when I began my study of mechanical timepieces. Slowly I discovered that the number of zeros attached to the price tag of a mechanical watch did not necessarily correlate with its stated accuracy. In fact, past a certain point accuracy was a parameter not even discussed! What was going on, here?

To generalize, most people unfamiliar with modern mechanical timekeeping refer to whether a watch runs fast or slow. But under what circumstances? Has it been left in a hot car? Did you just pick it up off your smart phone? Is it new? All of these factors will affect the ticking and tocking—just a little. Have they noticed that some days it seems to run quite fast, while on others it is slower? Ah, then we come to an important crossroads, that of Avenue A (accuracy) and Boulevard C (consistency). Opinions vary, and there are many (many!) factors that might be taken into consideration, but most of those in the know seem to agree that a watchmaker would much rather be faced with a timepiece that consistentlyruns x-sec. fast, than one that is fast one day, and slow the next. 

To that end, the Ball Red Label’s movement is a COSC certified. Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètresperforms seven tests as part of its certification, but the most commonly referred to is “mean daily rate,” which tests for an accuracy of -4 to +6 seconds/day. Most newbies to the world of mechanical timepieces would have no idea of the phenomenal degree of accuracy that range represents: an accuracy of some +99.994%! Now, Rolex currently guarantees (the only watch company to do so, I believe) a rate of -2 to +2 spd, which is even better. (Omega, to sneak another company into the discussion, now employs it’s own, far more rigorous, METAS certification, which, among other things, requires both movement and completed, cased watch to fall between 0 to +5 spd. But as far as I know, this accuracy is not guaranteed. Please correct me if I'm in error here, Omega fans!) 

With apologies for this approximation (as I do not own a watch timing machine), here are three results from the past ten days, using the ToolWatch website’s method to measure this Ball chronometer.

August 20, 2019 at ~11:00 a.m. after 24 hrs.

Even if I cede you a second or two for my reaction time, Internet delay, etc., etc., I'm pretty pleased with this result! A four-year-old watch worn only occasionally (and therefore never serviced); for the purposes of this test worn during the night (average of seven hours) and resting dial up during the day; wound every day (since I only wore it while asleep) to keep the movement topped off.... Amazing.

***

To sum up, suffice it to say that I’m damned happy with my Ball chronometer. 

It’s stylish, exceedingly well-constructed, very accurate, and easily readable 24/7/365. And it’s producers have not been sitting on their hands. Just as other manufacturers continue to offer new technologies, better materials, Ball, too is keeping pace. Its latest steel (designated 904L) contains extra amounts of chromium, molybdenum, nickel and copper, which are said to increase its resistance to corrosion, rust and acids. Uniquely hard, to withstand extreme conditions, the metal requires special machinery and production processes in order for it to be shaped. Visually, it takes a beautifully high polish and ages exquisitely well. What’s not to like? Further, Ball’s best movements are now made in house with even greater shock and magnetic protection. If I’m not so pleased with the company’s continuous rollout of new rather same-looking pieces, or case sizes unrelated to that of the smaller calibers that can be seen through a back window (a personal pet peeve), there are enough interesting models still available on the secondary market to more than keep a Ball collector happily occupied.

But what of high horology? I said at the outset of this piece that when I wrote the check for just over $2K I felt I’d passed a milestone.

Since then, my PuristS friends have shown me the wonders, the elegance, the intricacies, the breadth and scope of this fascinating world. When time, patience, and money are no object, indeed human ingenuity and imagination are shown off to quite wondrous effect. And I am happy to discover that these heights are no longer the province of Kings and Queens alone. For many of you own and enjoy not only one, but several of these marvelously intricate and painstakingly hand-created wonders. From time to time though, (there I go again…), it is important to take a step back and acknowledge what the last hundred years of endeavor have come to offer up as a starting point—by comparison, how good such basic watches as this Ball chronometer have come to be. Mechanical watch manufacturers might have given up in the 1980s. Fortunately for those of us who value mechanical complexity and tight tolerances, a few did not. (We have firmly dedicated believers such as Charles Vermot to thank, for example, for saving the El Primero caliber. Those not familiar with this tale of intrigue—and stubbornness!—should research his story). As a result, see what an ocean of possibility their faith in this world has spawned! Here’s to that. And here’s to all of you, my watch-savvy friends! HAGH (holiday)!

Fred Halgedahl