Horological Meandering

Here's the problem: fine movement finishing is not really extremely difficult to achieve, it's just resource-intensive. While making a new mechanism or design takes a special talent, given a certain level of skill (a high level of skill, but far from unique) movement finishing is just a matter of putting in the time. Thus, any watch company that chooses to budget for enough finishing time can turn out very finely-finished movements. We see it happen all the time, as companies not previously known for their finishing decide to raise their game.

Fine finishing used to be associated exclusively with fine movements. However, that signaling function seems to have broken down. As it becomes more commonly available, fine finishing no longer seems to distinguish a watch company. As William S. Gilbert put it (in The Gondoliers, I think), "When everyone is somebody then no-one's anybody." A finely-finished movement is still pretty, of course, but as a signal to the buyer it seems to me that it resembles power windows in cars: while power windows originally were a luxury feature that distinguished the finest cars, once enough cars had them they were no longer either a distinguishing feature or an indicator of underlying quality.

Will we arrive at such a point with respect to movement finishing? Have we already done so? In any case, what will come next?

 

This message has been edited by AnthonyTsai on 2010-05-04 16:22:12

I think that fine finishing is icing on the cake... but the cake has to be good to begin with. I don't think
two cars are distinguished simply by looking at power windows: a tricycle with power windows is still
a tricycle

Fine finishing has "lost" its significance maybe as a SINGLE indicator as to how good a watch is. Then
again, was it ever a RELIABLE indicator?

Tien

1. for "art" to be art, it has to be recognized as art, which requires an audience who appreciates it and can identify it.

Honestly, much of what gets oohed and aahed over in recent months/years I am left scratching my head on.

Fine Anglage is more than just a bevel; it is mirror polished. It is even and evenly radiused (straight angle cut bevels are not considered fine anglage, at least not by me and not by most old timers) and consistent.

True fine anglage (as one example of fine finishing) is no more common today than it was 50 years ago.

Faux high finish - perlage, for example - was actually fairly common even in the old days, as it is today.

2. a line and a squiggle are art only at the right time and place and in the right context.

But certain styles are (nearly) universal - photorealism, for example.

So the issue as I see it, MKVC, is really a matter of the consumer and appreciating public, less a matter of the preponderance today of "fine finishing."

jmho without really thinking it through on a Sunday night (as I'm trying to meet 3 deadlines and wanting to rub my eyes and take a break...)

Cheers,

 

TM

Both cake and icing are good together but cake without icing and icing without cake can also satisfy us.  So we'll take watches of horological ingenuity without the finest decoration (eg, early Journe maybe?) and we'll equally happily take watches of the finest decoration but which don't involve much horological ingenuity (eg, Dufour Simplicity maybe?).  And we'll happily take watches with both (eg, Journe Sonnerie and Dufour Duality perhaps?).

I don't think that every watch willbe equally finished in the Future.

It takes time, and requires skill to finish a movement, I mean not an industrial finish, but a handmade one.

Which has a consequence on the ...Price.

Look at a VC skeleted minute repeater, for example, and compare it to a Panerai Pam 112, with its ETA movement.

There is a world between these 2, in terms of finish, sophisitcation and budget.

Both have their interest, of course, but if we speak about the finish, there is no possible comparison.

I think that an exceptiona level of finish will stay ...exceptional, reserved to a certain category of watches.

Why?

Because not everybody wants to pay for such an outcome, and even more, some don't care about the movement.

Like some don't care about a complication and are happy with a simple and nice watch.

And everybody's right, here!

Let's see what the others think.

Best,

Nicolas

...to what Thomas and Nico have written.

From a purely personal point of view, I do not like ornate movement finishing: no engraving; no skeletonisation. But that's me and the type of watches I enjoy. 

While I do appreciate "expertly" finished movements, like you, I am more impressed by the thought and engineering that goes into a new movement.

But when I see well executed black polished anglage on an inside corner...that's more than just 'putting in the time'.

 

 

 

>>...fine movement finishing is not really extremely difficult to achieve, it's just resource-intensive. While making
>> a new mechanism or design takes a special talent, given a certain level of skill (a high level of skill, but
>> far from unique) movement finishing is just a matter of putting in the time.

Is this really true?

I remember VH saying how difficult it was to find people capable of doing uber-finishing, and the tutor of a watching making course told me that if they're lucky one person per year has the potential to become an uber-finisher.  I think the problem is that it IS extremely difficult to achiveve, and that very few people are capable of mastering it.

Having many years ago done fine finishing of musical instruments I know that it is far more than just labour-intensive.  The same for knife making where the difference between a perfect hand grind and a merely excellent one is obvious once you know what to look for, but requires years of experience to achieve the "eye" and the control.  And a perfect grind doesn't nececessarily take more time than an excellent one (or a poor one, for that matter).

nick

I have some experience in that area. I have certainly seen plenty of violins with beautifully even corners, precise purfling, perfectly cut scrolls, etc. that win craftsmanship competitions but don't sound like anything. I have also seen plenty of violins (although fewer) that won't win any craftsmanship competitions but sound great. My sense is that the violinmakers whose instruments sound great understand wood and have excellent woodworking skills. Thus, if they were willing to put in the time, they could make instruments that would win craftsmanship competitions. However, they mostly don't care to do so. My sense also is that the people winning craftsmanship competitions do not necessarily have the ability to make good-sounding instruments.

That is, there is no shortage of people who have the skills to win violin craftsmanship competitions; there is only a shortage of people willing to spend their time that way. My guess is that there is similarly no shortage of people with the skills to be "uber-finishers," but those people would rather make watches or pursue other professions. I further guess that any watch company that wants to make beautifully-finished watches need only offer sufficiently attractive compensation to its finishers and it will have all the finishers it wants.

I may be getting taken in by superficially fine finishing, but it seems to me that a lot of companies woke up one morning and decided they wanted to get into the fine finishing business and several of them have done so to quite a high standard. (In many cases they make their work easier by using movement designs that are relatively easy to finish well, an approach I do not respect.) Assuming that they are actually achieving a high standard, rather than just doing so well enough to fool my untutored eye, my question is whether they are actually distinguishing themselves.

Hi, MKVC,

Your last sentence almost seems like a desperate tautology (no offense intended, I hope we know each other well enough not to get mired in misunderstood implied nuances of words) - sure I agree that anyone doing anything just for the sake of something else, rather than for itself, are not distinguishing themselves.

Getting good grades to get into a good school, rather than getting good grades because you have mastered the material AND can present this learning well.  (this begs the question of, what if one mastered the material, but alas, could not present well?)

Producing high quality in order to sell, and not for the sake of producing high quality.

Posting here not to share, but to build up one's profile so they can get paying gigs, here or elsewhere. (these REALLY bug the shit out of me, and I know several such who hide among us, I am watching you carefully!

"Oh, I feel I don't know enough to share anything" but then find it conscionable to then turn around and offer their writing services for pay. HUH?!?  Please, stay away from here, we don't need your hypocrisy.)

Hitting on the "nice cosmetic finishing" route to upgrade themeselves so they can sell more watches, and not because of a true, internal appreciation for high finishing.

I'd rather get a "brutishly" finished movement (of course, and not be charged for high finishing...) that is consistent with the character and style of the watchmaker, than a finely finished one done so solely for the purpose of selling more and for a higher price.

"Thus, if they were willing to put in the time, they could make instruments that would win craftsmanship competitions."

I think you are shortchanging the skills, experience, and "eye" necessary to do truly spectacular, transcendent "craftsmanship."

Nick brings up an interesting area, one which in so many ways distills much of the stuff we discuss in watchmaking - knifemaking. Because it is so simple, and the raison d'etre so simple and clearly and apparently so easy to achieve - to cut, or stab, or saw - the materials and the production processes and decisions are thrown into sharp relief.

It's easy to make a sharp edge.

It's relatively easy to make a mirror polish.

It is relatively easy to make a "nice" grind line.

It is VERY difficult to do a "perfect" grind line. (this is nearing, dangerously, to the "well, if I have to explain it, you won't be able to understand it" territory, unfortunately...and of course, not directed at you specifically, MKVC, a "generic" you.)

And not everyone can do it, even if they spent the time.

Just like I couldn't draw like Picasso or Luc (a forum member in TO) even if I tried for the next 100 years...

" However, they mostly don't care to do so. My sense also is that the people winning craftsmanship competitions do not necessarily have the ability to make good-sounding instruments."

You do draw a very interesting dichotomy, and at its root, this is one of the never ending Maginot lines of Art vs Science.

And Craft vs Art.

But perhaps I've gotten too abstract already...

Cheers,

TM

I am sure that everyone will be relieved to know that I am not feigning lack of knowledge in anticipation of securing a writing gig elsewhere -- I really do lack knowledge!

Go get 'em Thomas -- I'm definitely with you on this one.

Best,

Gary G

That was trenchant, to say the least.

TM, are you absolutely certain that there are contributors here who are "...posting here not to share, but to build up one's profile so they can get paying gigs, here or elsewhere"?

Isn't it possible that some people just like watches, and like to write, and want to write about watches, so they start writing about watches on (say) PPro, then find that they would like to write about watches somewhere else, so they get a "paying gig", and finally end up well-positioned within the "industry" as respected commentators?

Is that so bad? If I were in your position, as the original creator of this wonderful forum, I think I'd prefer to feel happy for those people, and proud that my creation had given them a chance to develop their voice.

I hope that you do feel that way, and that the rather negative comments above reflect a specific grievance against some particularly odious conduct on the part of (hopefully) just one or two individuals.

Hey, Mozart wrote all his best stuff for money.

Cheers, and with the greatest of respect,
Tony P

Hi

I am not a violin makers, nor had I any experience in making any musical instruments.  In an earlier post, there was a post that some violin makers won craftmanship awards with 'not so good' sounding violins while other makers make good sounding violins with 'not so great' finishes, and the good sounding violin makers, if they want to, can make their violins good sounding AND with great finishes as well.  This may be true or not.

There may be an instances when u try to change the finish on the vioins, that the sound changes as well.  Life as it is, doesnt bend to what we think will work..  Life goes on, in its own flow and it is rare that you find anything that serves 'everything best'.  The quest for 'absolute sound' in hifi has been a holy grail for many.  You can put in the most reliable capacitors, resistors, chip modules, internal cables or get the most exotic tweeters or woofers and have a nice circuitry layout with the best exotic, anti resonant chassis and it may sound crappy.  What make good sound may not be the material.  What make a good watch is definitely not the finishing alone.

It is up to you to know what you like and get the watch, speakers, car that satisfy you most given your budget.  If you listen to violin music and small ensemble on your hi fi, a Sonus Faber Guarneri may do the job much better than a Genesis 1 although the Genesis 1 will blow the SF away in dynamics.  Each has its supporters and why it is difficult to find a true ARTIST.

Good day everyone.

 

the know how. Many - high end- brands who are known for their finish have actually set up training workshops in their factories to teach the different techniques because you can have bevelled edges and geneva waves but if the angles are not perfectly at 45° and polished and the stripes of the geneva waves do not perfectly alighn or look rough then it just isn't fine finish, no matter how much time it takes.

 

Just my €0.2

These all are the prerequisites element for polishing.

Different type of steel, brass, gold, german silver!... need different ways to treat on polishing and get different outcome...

Harden process is usually finished by heating and cooling, like oil cooling, cooling on wood...Same as punching....they affect the density of the material which look different after polishing. Bad processed material will have bubble holes on it! it make the finishing realli bad!

For the polishing tool....AP uses cherry wood as the turning disc! Even some factory use a stirring machine. They mix the parts and polishing granules in it for polishing! Different angle, orientation, depth... All have different outcomes!

Some craftsmanship of polishing should be appreciated in microscope view! And they are worked out by hands! For sure....there is a machine to replace the handcraft polishing - hot-wire cutter! Example like JLC titanium repeater is done by this machine.... So....I am afraid ....someday....I can't recognized the different between hand made and machine made.

All these reason explain why china can't make a swiss like polishing movement....even they got skillful & smaller hand for polishing...and low labor cost. So I do believe watch company keeping the secret on how they make the watch look sexy on admirer eyes~!

This message has been edited by Ogygia on 2010-05-03 02:49:17 This message has been edited by Ogygia on 2010-05-03 02:51:56

I don't really have anything to add, I'm just building up my post count, not because I am looking for a paying gig, but in this economy....

Seriously, I can't add much to what's already been said.  I will offer this - I find myself marveling at finely finished, "common" movements.  This to me is truly transcendent.  To take an inexpensive but perfectly capable but inexpensive ebauche and treat it to beautiful finishing, well it makes me smile.  Maybe it's the marriage of utility and art I like?  Can't really say, and I guess since it's "art" I don't have to.

Thanks for something to think about.

Best,

Jed

Especially these days with every other watch on the market today being a display back (or front LOL). It certainly adds to the aesthetic and perceived value when done well, expensive movement or not. - and most importantly to the manufacturer, it will help sell watches. No reason why there needs to be any pretense when it comes to doing something that gives people pleasure to see. This message has been edited by mrsnak on 2010-05-03 18:14:52

. . . but I'm not savvy enough to make a judgement one way or the other.

I will address your parting question, though. My sense is that the current state of watchmaking is short on intrinsic value, and that the wave to catch will be ridden by the manufacturer(s) that offer quality goods for a reasonable price.

I expect that the wider availability of Grand Seiko will cause more than ripple effect . . . cordially, Art

Dilution affects perception (and probably reality as well). Following your "intrinsic value" formulation, I think the question can be recast in two parts:

1. Does fine finishing always constitute intrinsic value?

2. Even if it does not constitute intrinsic value, is it a useful signal that intrinsic value is present?

On the first question, we may be divided. Jed clearly falls into the "yes" camp. I fall into the "probably not" camp. Others will have their own opinions.

On the second, it seems clear that the connection between finishing and other aspects of movement quality or exclusivity has been broken.

Thomas, I can assure you that my motives in starting this thread were in no way career-oriented. Indeed, simply having started this thread may disqualify me for any job in the watch industry!

trying to leverage your participation here for some other agenda...

But thanks for the disclaimer...

. . . fine finishing is not of exceptional importance when I assess a watch. I value the finish of an Omega 30T2SC more highly than lauded independents not because I feel the Omega is superior objectively, but because it was produced in series, intended for wide distribution, priced reasonably, and most importantly, functional. Its difficult to convey this predilection adequately. When people ask why I'm so attracted to Glashütte Original, my response is that I appreciate their quality taking cost into account. This is a relative judgement, of course . . . there are less costly watches, and more costly watches, but imho there isn't a manufacturer that consistently produces movements finished as nicely near where they're priced.

There was a controversy yesterday between two credible members of this forum that almost devolved into a spat. One member asked for thoughts comparing a specific Lange to a comparable Glashütte. The other offered the opinion that the Lange had "much better finish". Unfortunately, I wasn't able to observe this exchange in real time, and the original post had been edited so I wasn't able to form a reliable judgement, but I must admit that I was befuddled. Granted, English is not the native language of the person that made the statement, but even allowing for that and for the usual level of casualness, I still can't quite come around to the notion that Lange is "much better" than G O when it comes to movement finishing. "Much better" than Rolex, perhaps.

The reason for this digression is to convey the point that I'm increasingly skeptical of my own judgement. If someone as reliable and sensible as Donizetti feels that Lange's finishing is "much better", then perhaps his acuity is at a higher level than mine . . . who am I to argue? Perhaps there's a language barrier. At any rate, I'm a little disturbed that the topic of finishing is as charged as it is because it is so subjective.

Back to your questions. Does fine finishing always constitute intrinsic value? My opinion is that fine finishing is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a watch to offer intrinsic value, but any movement that offers fine finishing has some level of intrinsic value . . . the rub is in how it's assessed.

Does fine finishing signal the presence of intrinsic value? Ask anyone that's bought a gorgeous lemon from one of the vaunted manufacturers, or worse, one of the independents . . . the reliability, durability, and performance of mundane brands like Rolex, Omega, and Seiko usually rises in their esteem. No, I don't think fine finishing when considered in isolation is an indication of intrinsic value . . . cordially, Art

evaluation and "worth" of functional criteria vs non-functional "cosmetic" finishing, underscored by value vis a vis price.

Related, of course, to the original post, but perhaps only as a second or third order derivative. Quite a bit different than the premise of the OP, if I read that correctly.

(not a criticism on how this thread has developed, of course, just an observation of curiosity. I often find the sub currents and sub text interesting tunnels and passageways to unexplicated assumptions and priorities...)

Cheers,

TM

.....points, Art (as usual). You cut to the heart of the matter. Well, for me, anyway.

"it was produced in series, intended for wide distribution, priced reasonably, and most importantly, functional".

 I share your prediliction.

 

 

This message has been edited by BDLJ on 2010-05-05 03:21:39

Until I found www.thepurists.com had the opportunity to tour the AP factory. These folks are artists at work, such fine details at each stage of production. So much to learn and so little time.

Thanks for the education www.puristpro.com friends.

JerryW

Although it depends on the metric you are measuring.  If it's accuracy vs. a less finished movement, then maybe yes.  However for many of us who appreciate the extreme art of "sweating the details", then no. .... why else would there be a price premium for comparably accurate movments?

It's like watching gymnastics.  Two gymnasts can do the exact same routine.  Yet the one who has the best form should score higher. (subjectivity aside).  Personally the longer I've been into this hobby, the more I appreciate these finer details.  Now if we are talking vintage watches (which got me started into watches in the early '90's, then different story.  Manufacture being a constant, case shape and dial originality rule for two watches of similar era and movement.

Paul

 

...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

All replies will be used in my forthcoming article Art in the Service of Oppression: an exposé of the abuses of labour by the bourgoisie in the name of Art, with the aim of raising an awareness of the use of art as a tool for controlling the masses, as a necessary presursor to a true proletarian revolution.

Comrade Nicksiki

If not, I suggest you hie thee to a slaughterhouse thither soon...

Not a veggie, and quite happy to hunt and do all the unpleasantness that goes with it

George Daniels, in one of his books, makes a comment to the effect that, from an historical point of view, in periods when watchmakers had nothing new or interesting to offer in the way of technology or improvements in timekeeping they resorted to decoration and external design.

I wonder if this is happening at the moment? 

It could be argued that there are technological advances at the moment - and there are new technological goodies out there -  but have they also lost their significance?

nick