Horological Meandering

I am hoping for insight. I find my interest in perpetual calendars runs hot and cold. While I find the complexity and engineering alluring, I question the practical aspect of living with one that would not be a daily wearer. I wonder if the setting process is either frustrating or if the movements themselves are more fragile than say an annual calendar. When I speak of being fragile, I think in both terms of setting the watch, such as not going backwards, as well as wearing on the wrist. My only experience has been with a FPJ Calendrier (annual) which was one my favorites. While it worked flawlessly, I always viewed it as being a fragile watch that I needed to be especially careful with. As a result, I ultimately sold it and I have been reluctant to pursue a perpetual calendar.

As such, I was hoping to hear some thoughts about having a perpetual calendar to know if my concerns are overstated. In general, has your appreciation of the complication increased or waned since owning one? Have you found it an easy watch to have in your collection, especially if it is only worn only once or twice a week? Can you also share any thoughts regarding how fragile and reliable the movements are, and if they influenced the brands you considered? Thank you

i had similar concerns....go for one with long power reserve. the above with 7 day power reserve is perfect, i wear the week once a week and leave it till next, never had to wind the watch much, function perfectly. into my 5th year of ownership, no issues whatsoever.

is like a day without sunshine.

For me the perpetual is the ultimate complication because it's pure and elegant - it's not a useless complication, it's incredibly practical.
I have a couple of identical daily wearers, never had any issues and I'm always enthralled with the idea of the perfected mechanical work of art -kinetic sculpture on my wrist.

My other watches get zero wrist time.

Life is short -live your dream.

B

The dude has a point.  I think all Perps (but not many) should come with long pwer reserves given the many indicators.  In fact, if Lange's 31 day capability coulld be added to a Perp, that would be ideal for,e...

That you can also set very easily, with the crown...

All the Ulysse Nardin Perpetual Calendars are like this.

You can set them backward and forward without fear to break the movement.

Best,

Nicolas

the UN perps definetly are the easiest to handle and work with

the setting is just relaxed that you don't realy consider the off-wrist time you can just strap it an set it and vua la your ready to go

I have both a Patek 3970 and a Patek 5970, which are both well know manually wound perpetual calendar chronographs.

I don't wear them every day, and I don't keep them on a watch winder, but when I do wear them, it take less than a minute
to set them. The reason is that there is a pusher at 11'o clock that advances all the indicators (moon phase, day, date, month,
etc) by 1 day with every push. So, all I do is push that push piece until today's date is displayed. Then, since there is an
am/pm indicator, I can easily set the hour and minute to the correct time. All this takes very little time, so it's completely
practical wearing those watches, even though I have many other watches to wear.
Eric von Schonberg

they are so easy to set that you take it for granted, but i can imagine that others are more delicate.

if in doubt by a UN.

best

Graham

. . . the overlap between complexity and practicality is most capably represented by perpetual calendars. The only experience more magical than watching a perpetual transition from February 28th to March 1st is the transition to the 29th during a leap year . . . that's when the level of mechanical sophistication is really apparent.

Having said that, I'll admit to having over-indulged with four Glashütte Original perpetuals . . . that's one too many for as circumspect a collection as I'm wont to keep. Yes, I tired of having so many and not getting a full measure of useful value out of each of them. It's not that my interest waned conceptually; it's just that having such a vast proportion of funding tied up in several watches that beg to be worn regularly stretches any reasonable sense of marginal utility when considering each one individually. On reflection, I could've done with one less and been just as satisfied. Re reliability: G O perpetuals are both rugged and reliable in my seven years of experience . . . cordially, Art

If so, do you have a favorite either because of design or ease of use? Also with 4 calendars, do you leave some unwound, while others running? I believe you posted before about unwanted wear & tear by using a winder. I assume the more features and higher complexity the greater wear relative to a time-only watch, and more servicing requirements?

. . . and while I've never owned a cal 100 perpetual, my experience with the cal 39 is mostly positive. Two had the 'sticking date' issue endemic to the cal 39, both of which were resolved under warranty. My Senator perpetual survived a two foot drop to a hard tile floor without damage to the movement. As for winders, I went from keeping them all running for the sake of convenience to none for the reduction in wear and tear. I'll be using winders on occasion from now on during intervals of disuse, but will never go back to having four spinning perpetuals. After keeping #1 running for ~ 3.5 years only to watch it seize up, I just don't have the heart to keep them on the treadmill anymore . . . cordially, Art

That is a very interesting shot of the GO.  Thank you for sharing it as well as your experience with winders.

... as already indicated, it is just a question of buying the "right" perpetual. There are a few easy-to-use, solid perpetuals out there, which are also easily legible. I like the GO perpetuals because of their good and legible layout. Their downside is the large number of correction pushers in the case, which somewhat compromises the water tightness. The Ulysse Nardin, also already mentioned above, can be easily set with the crown alone, and can also be set backwards. Its main disadvantage, if one will consider this as a disadvantage at all, is the lack of a moon phase display.

I am wearing my UN perpetual every day, 24/7, even when doing the dish washing, and so on. Only for garden work or hardcore offroad driving, I wear a different watch.

Regards,
Marcus

Or in the reverse what models you find more delicate and why? Thank you

Thank you for the responses so far. What features or designs elements do you associated with more resilient and reliable movements? Is it fair to say the Lange & GO are in the more robust crowd with their teutonic heritage, while FPJ is more a delicate with a thin and more delicate movement? It also sounds like UN models are more robust end of the spectrum. Is this more about the base movement or how the perpetual features are integrated? Is one design method (modular/integrated) inherently more resilient?

Generally, the question of ruggedness is not an issue for the calender mechanism as such. In fact, a perpetual calender is not a very complicated mechanism, and also does not imply a lot of energy that would cause increased wear of parts. To illustrate this: GO had a perpetual calender mechanism based on their nice cal. 49 handwinding movements. The perpetual mechanism did not change the number of jewels, compared with the base movement alone. For a single change per day, steel bearings are perfectly sufficient. Compared with a chronograph, and its levers, clutch and springs, involving many and very dynamic operations, a standard perpetual could be less prone to shocks and bumps than a chronograph. However, the perpetual is often used as an example for delicacy in watchmaking, while chronographs are generally considered the perfect sports watches.

So where are the disadvantages of perpetuals, regarding "ruggedness"?

1) problem of water tightness: A general rule says that the fewer holes are in a watch case, the easier it is to get it water tight reliably. Every opning in a watch case needs a gasket, and if the watch should be used as a sports watch for diving purposes, with water tightness ratings to 300 meters, or even deeper, a simple O-ring gasket per opening is not enough, but a more sophistical system is needed. Perpetual calendars normally indicate several calendar events: date, weekday, month, sometimes leap year or numerical year and moon phase. Some perpetuals offer a pusher corrector for every single indication, causing an additional hole in the case for every pusher. This is the main reason why so few manufacturers offer a true sports perpetual.

GO, for example, hesitated a very long time to transfer its highly popular perpetual calendar mechanism into the case of its equally popular Sports Evolution series. That it decided to do so two years ago, was based on economic considerations solely, and I see this decision with very critical eyes. When I mentioned the problem of watertightness to GO watchmakers, they seconded my worries. The official position, though, was that nobody would go diving with this watch anyway. The watchmakers emphasized the importance of a scrutinous water tightness tst to be executed once a year at least, if the wearer should want to use this watch in water.

In this respect, the few calendar mechanisms permitting the setting of all indications by means of the crown only have a distinct advantage, since they do not need additional holes in the watch case. IWC and UN are the best known examples here, while Moser does not make any sports watches, in spite of its perpetual mechanism also being dependent on the crown only.

2) problem of foolproofness: Not only the working mechanism as such can be problematic, but even an otherwise reliably working complication can be ruined by human interactions that do not follow the proper procedure. A perpetual calender display is the result of a mechanical program, a ROM, realized by wheels, levers and crosses. This program of a "perpetual" covers the timespan of four years (which, in fact, makes them quadrennial calenders rather than "perpetuals"). This program cannot be executed backwards, though. The reason lies in the program components: Conventional calendar mechanism are based on wheels that are "locked" by a spring or lever after every switch. Trying to turn these wheels backwards would result in damage to the system. As a consequence, it becomes difficult when the user "overshoots" the current date when resetting the perpetual. Either the watch permits the individual setting of every indication (like GO or JLC, for example), but then the individual pushers cause the water tightness problem. Or the user has to leave the watch stopped, until the actual time has reached the date indicated on the watch, or he has to ask a watchmaker to open the watch and to rearrange its indications (IWC).

As far as I know, only two perpetual calendars can be set backwards, the UN and the Moser (the latter does not show the weekday, though). They both are not based on a "locking system", but on - oversimplifiedly said - "freely" rotating wheels. The disadvantage of that system is the difficulty to fine-adjust the display, since shocks or strong vibrations can cause slight misalignment of the numerical indications.

Therefore, any consideration of perpetual "ruggedness" should differ between the various circumstances: ruggedness of the watch's actual use, ruggedness against mistakes of human interaction.

And, please permit me to state this: GO and Lange are as "teutonic" as Schwarzenegger is American. I would not draw conclusions regarding robustness, from the mere location of the manufacturing facilities.

Best regards,
Marcus

No message body

Marcus, that was a wonderfully lucid essay on perpetual calendars.  Thanks for furthering my education!

Tom

 

Your post was both informative and helpful.  Thank you 

several (well, actually five with the sixth on the way: UN Perp GMT +/-, IWC Portugiese, JLC Master Perp, Andersen Secular Calendar and Parmigiani Toric Perp.) I see no problem wearing any of the watches. With the exception of the UN, yes, the only risk is that they can not be set back if the date is passed (actually I believe that the Toric can but it is a pain). I think that any of them are robust and are no more "delicate" than any other watch. I would not be afraid to handle or wear any perpetual at any time or under most conditions (within reason).

I do not understand, however, the perpetuals that are hand wind with only the standard 40 hr power reserve. To me that is just an inconvenience and takes away from the practicality and functionality of the watch. The same, I might add, could be said about moon phase watches with the same 40 hr power reserve. The watches with longer power reserves are certainly more convenient and those that are automatic can, and I do, be kept on winders so that they are ready to go at a moment's notice. Of the hand wind ones, the JLC is easily adjusted as the single pusher handles all functions and the day/night indicator is a safety feature that prevents inadvertent advancing beyond the day. The IWC corrects all the functions with the crown.

Mitch