Horological Meandering

"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."

Hi, nick,

I put that great statement in to the category of, "just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it's true or correct."

It makes perfect sense, that. But I just don't see decoration and design as mutually exclusive or somehow less important than technology or function.

Witness the desirability of the Trabant...

oh, wait, that didn't work very well either...

in view of utilising limited resources most effectively. judging from his own work (and the experiences his elevens reported), he values finishing very much, but discounts it if it is implemented in lieu of something horologically significant.

Best,
Magnus

This is the view of Thomas Pretcher from an interview a couple of years ago.

There is something to be said for decorations that were placed explicitely to capture particles (loose bits of dirt and metal) that would otherwise find their way into the movement.

In a time when most watches had a solid back, this level of decoration was also a sign to a watch repairer to know what or with whom he was dealing with, coming from whatever an era. Unfortunately a lot of pocket watches were botched or scarred by often inept watch-repairers who courtiously (;-) left ther own stamp of a repair, invisible to the owner - who úsually couldn't care less.

I would welcome a revival of solid-backs with a clasp to show some (!) of the inner works; but if I happen to know what is going on deeper inside - why bother with glamorous polishing?

With that said, I am firmly on the side of purely functional, chronometer-like polishing, with emphasis on precision time-keeping and reliability - also readability.

I also like, dear Magnus, the Ochs & Sohn line - but more so the Gerber 33 - in fact much, much more than the MIH.

Best regards,

Amery
This message has been edited by amerix on 2010-05-04 09:13:59 This message has been edited by amerix on 2010-05-04 09:19:30 This message has been edited by amerix on 2010-05-04 09:23:04 This message has been edited by amerix on 2010-05-04 09:26:15

Dear Amerix,

There is no reason that Einstein shouldn't also be able to add correctly.

Cheers,

TM

Dear TM,

I could use some, well a lot, of that myself - such as getting the names, the spelling, the grammar, and even the thought patterns right!

However, I am fairly reliable when it comes down to the facts.

Cheers back to you!



Amerix
P.S. I can still spell Talisker correctly - the main source of the problem. This message has been edited by amerix on 2010-05-05 02:08:10

will continue until replacement parts with their materials are no longer available or the machines designed to fabricate them have been scrapped, dismanteled or re-programmed to suit the latest tolerances and specifications; human skills will still be required to service them, but only remotely connected to the spirit of watchmaking, as well as to the use of skilled, trained, talented, experienced - human - hands.

All for the aim and purpose of what?

Watches are being made as luxury articles for the buyers of luxury acticles! The horologicaly interested or knowledgeable will be absorbed into the marketing strategies for fashion and design. I think they already have been - at least for a century or two. That is tradition!

To rephrase Frank Zappa's comment, "jazz is not dead, it just smells funny".

Luxury will outlast all of us - and maybe some watches as well, but not necessarily those with the high-tech movements or design! The ones that remain will be seen as collector's and luxury items - except for the horological adept, and the aesthetically and scientifically minded Few.

And yes, they have lost their signifiance.

Sadly, if not totally.

amerix

Does fine finishing improve the functionality of the movement? is it the shiny bright surfaces that are attractive on some basic level, or is it all abstraction?

The finishing contributes to higher accuracy and better reliability: the polished surfaces and beveled edges reduce friction and general wear and tear. The decoration does not contribute to better function in any way. I encountered the watches (mostly on the lower end of the price spectrum) with highly decorated and purely finished movements. The opposite example would be marine chronometers and some pocket watches: the movements aren't decorated at all with very high level of finishing.

.

is similar to the 19th and early 20th century distinction in architecture made between ornament and decoration. That is, ornament is a heightening of some architectural quality, be that structural, programmatic, thermal, symbolic, whatever. In this view, ornamentation is a further expression of a necessary condition while decoration is a quality laid onto the work and somewhat removable or transferable. However, the trouble in these type of moral aesthetic arguments lie with what is necessary, especially with an item that in these time of cellphones and atomic clocks is functionally useless, namely watches. Are gold chatons held in by blued screws in the German manner ornament or simply decoration? The jewels need to be set in place in some manner, but are the screws overkill or good common sense? Again, the engineer in us might pull out all types of testing equipment to prove the durability of one approach or the other, but ultimately I think these are aesthetic decisions. This does not mean that they are decisions beyond judgement. It seems to me in an aesthetic decision we are always looking for a particular viewpoint toward the work, and therefore toward the world itself that rings true to us. Thus, we can talk about a Swiss, German or American approach to watchmaking or compare Patek to Breguet to Richard Mille's approach. The question is not what is right, but instead, what has value to us today and perhaps forever. All of this is perhaps a long-winded response to the question of what is the difference between finishing and decoration: it depends.

Fine finishing is part of the watchmaking.  We can't ignore it and strike it out completely.  It is akin to:-

1. Power reserve - you have 48 hours, he has 8 days and I have 31 days.

2. Case - yours can withstand the drop from the table, his can withstand the strike on the table, mine can withstand the strike by a hammer.

3. Tourbillon - yours is light, his is even lighter, mine is the lightest and can spin faster than a helicopter's propellers.

What else?

 

Regards

Ling

 

to be one of the PuristS, because of discussions like this.

Love - where else can I find dicussions like this 24/7?

Hate - what else keeps me away from sleeping at 4 am?



My humble contribution: Fine finishing is just one important detail of the whole thing, nothing more, nothing less.

Thanks gentlemen!

Oliver

and then we can judge what of fine-finishing is useful for being a watch, and what is useful for being jewelery.