Comments:
"Just a few quick knee jerk thoughts on the subject (sorry, limited to a Blackberry for the moment; if I had a decent keyboard and a bit more time this could be much shorter.
Or 10 times longer.
Raw and unedited -
Form vs function is one aspect of (the) question, just as it is in every discussion about luxury and substance (vs fashion vs style)
Tourbillons were a (high) complication at first because -
1. It was a new idea, a new approach to solve an old problem
2. It was, as a new idea, "very difficult to execute" both because of its newness and complexity - it was inherently "hard to do" in the context of the time (1790's-1810's)
3. Which resulted in the perfect ingredients for the marketers -
A. New concept
B. Appeals to the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals as a concept
C. Appeals to the mechanical snobs because of its difficulty
D. Rare (due to newness, complexity, difficulty)
E. Expensive - high nominal margin ( - but D, E also therefore inherently elitist with attendant snob appeal)
So spun right, a marketers dream - in the 18th-19th century.
But it was a technological dead end, a commercial non-event, and lay dormant until the latter mid-20th century: how many tourbillons were made, in toto, before 1980? (not a rhetorical question)
Then marketers and product development managers "rediscovered" (something the Swiss Watch industry is hugely successful at) the tourbillon, and with the aid of modern materials and computer aided tight tolerances the tourbillon became as ubiquitous as mushrooms in the forest after a rain.
What was once "rare and special" became common and banal, special only because the mar-comm department said it was, swallowed wholesale by gullible newly minted tycoons hungering for ways to spend their newly found riches to broadcast a facade of sophistication.
All of which is background to (the) question,
"What is a (serious) tourbillon today?"
Some stream of consciousness thoughts on tourbillons
I was asked recently, as an editorial advisor, my thoughts on tourbillons today. I thought my reply to the EIC might start an interesting discussion here.
Or 10 times longer.
Raw and unedited -
Form vs function is one aspect of (the) question, just as it is in every discussion about luxury and substance (vs fashion vs style)
Tourbillons were a (high) complication at first because -
1. It was a new idea, a new approach to solve an old problem
2. It was, as a new idea, "very difficult to execute" both because of its newness and complexity - it was inherently "hard to do" in the context of the time (1790's-1810's)
3. Which resulted in the perfect ingredients for the marketers -
A. New concept
B. Appeals to the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals as a concept
C. Appeals to the mechanical snobs because of its difficulty
D. Rare (due to newness, complexity, difficulty)
E. Expensive - high nominal margin ( - but D, E also therefore inherently elitist with attendant snob appeal)
So spun right, a marketers dream - in the 18th-19th century.
But it was a technological dead end, a commercial non-event, and lay dormant until the latter mid-20th century: how many tourbillons were made, in toto, before 1980? (not a rhetorical question)
Then marketers and product development managers "rediscovered" (something the Swiss Watch industry is hugely successful at) the tourbillon, and with the aid of modern materials and computer aided tight tolerances the tourbillon became as ubiquitous as mushrooms in the forest after a rain.
What was once "rare and special" became common and banal, special only because the mar-comm department said it was, swallowed wholesale by gullible newly minted tycoons hungering for ways to spend their newly found riches to broadcast a facade of sophistication.
All of which is background to (the) question,
"What is a (serious) tourbillon today?"
(IMVHO)
1. It should be made to the highest standards, with the best materials.
This is just the basest of baselines (especially when "Chinese tourbillons" - note the bunny ears - cost a few hundred dollars and "keep time" as well as some $multi-hundred-thousand "high tourbillons." Having studied those Chinese tourbillons, they are "throw away" in terms of finish and materials quality but they do serve as a wake up call.)
From this baseline there are three paths -
2a. It should advance the state of the art and technology using modern techniques and knowledge about isochronism reconciled with the basic original principle of the tourbillon (corollary - when is a tourbillon no longer a tourbillon?)
(Greubel Forsey)
Or
2b. It should stick STRICTLY to the original definition of the tourbillon, and use strictly traditional methods and tools, a la Ph. Dufour and his Simplicity in the context of the time only timepiece.
(Laurent Ferrier - but how traditional are they really, in their methods and tools? I really don't know but the finished product seems very very traditional)
2c. The concept of the tourbillon should be abstracted to the level of art, complex mobile kinetic art on the one hand, or reduced to minimalist essence on the other.
(Beat Haldimann Central Tourbillon, Vincent Calabrese carrousel golden bridge, Omega Tourbillon Central)
For me any of the above or any executions that fall under the above parameters qualify as a "(serious) tourbillon"
(Again, unfiltered and off the cuff - this was done stream of consciousness style, in between meetings and flights. Apologies in advance for any errors or omissions)
Cheers,
TM
1. It should be made to the highest standards, with the best materials.
This is just the basest of baselines (especially when "Chinese tourbillons" - note the bunny ears - cost a few hundred dollars and "keep time" as well as some $multi-hundred-thousand "high tourbillons." Having studied those Chinese tourbillons, they are "throw away" in terms of finish and materials quality but they do serve as a wake up call.)
From this baseline there are three paths -
2a. It should advance the state of the art and technology using modern techniques and knowledge about isochronism reconciled with the basic original principle of the tourbillon (corollary - when is a tourbillon no longer a tourbillon?)
(Greubel Forsey)
Or
2b. It should stick STRICTLY to the original definition of the tourbillon, and use strictly traditional methods and tools, a la Ph. Dufour and his Simplicity in the context of the time only timepiece.
(Laurent Ferrier - but how traditional are they really, in their methods and tools? I really don't know but the finished product seems very very traditional)
2c. The concept of the tourbillon should be abstracted to the level of art, complex mobile kinetic art on the one hand, or reduced to minimalist essence on the other.
(Beat Haldimann Central Tourbillon, Vincent Calabrese carrousel golden bridge, Omega Tourbillon Central)
For me any of the above or any executions that fall under the above parameters qualify as a "(serious) tourbillon"
(Again, unfiltered and off the cuff - this was done stream of consciousness style, in between meetings and flights. Apologies in advance for any errors or omissions)
Cheers,
TM
Interesting thoughts
One of the points I may add is that the traditional tourbillon almost never was shown on the dial side. And honestly, why the need to show it? Unless....
I agree with the fact that there is the category of the kinetic art such as Haldimann and GF. Both with a different approach though. In the end if funds would allow the Haldimann H8 would be the one of my choice, no joke.
So where does that leave us? A lot of stuff that has no added value to the evolution of the tourbillon. Some new materials as used by De Bethune, some hyper complicated pieces. In the end, I think it is a kind of gimmick in 98% of the watches...
Still A H8 would make my day!
Thx for your interesting thoughts on the subject.
Best regards,
Dirk
I agree with the fact that there is the category of the kinetic art such as Haldimann and GF. Both with a different approach though. In the end if funds would allow the Haldimann H8 would be the one of my choice, no joke.
So where does that leave us? A lot of stuff that has no added value to the evolution of the tourbillon. Some new materials as used by De Bethune, some hyper complicated pieces. In the end, I think it is a kind of gimmick in 98% of the watches...
Still A H8 would make my day!
Thx for your interesting thoughts on the subject.
Best regards,
Dirk
Thanks, Dirk. I agree with your further points...
and for those of us that understand that tourbillons in practice often don't increase averaged rate stability - the complexity of the escapement introduces more errors than it compensates for, in most cases - those of us who still appreciate and like tourbillons, as Jeff and you and I point out, mostly do so for respect and appreciation of the tradition or art of watchmaking, which includes materials and technique and attention to detail and aesthetics.
On the other hand, I disagree and find misleadingly over-simplistic the argument that tourbillons are superfluous in a wristwatch because the wrist is a natural tourbillon (both the EIC I was discussing the subject with and Jeff Kingston below both used this argument against the functional rationale for wristwatch tourbillons - the wrist in most cases is a POOR substitite for a tourbillon, in practice or in theory, unless it is worn on the wrist of a chronic and indefatigable wanker on the wanking wrist.
Me, I barely move my wrist enough to keep an automatic watch wound (hence my need for a RDM or power reserve indicator on an automatic watch...
Cheers
TM
Before GF, I think that JLC has to be mentionned, with the Gyro One.
The biggest problem I have with the Tourbillon is that Marketing teams killed the Tourbillon.
From the natural sophistication of whzt is by essence a sophistication, we had a marketing product, in most of the cases.
The sophistication, vulgarized.
A pity.
Best,
Nicolas
I agree the contemporary tourbillon is mostly a marketing exercise...
with few exceptions.
Eric Coudrey's GyroT is, of course, amazing and of course would fall into both categories (1) and (2a) advancing the technology and SOTA (state of the art), perhaps even (2c) tourbillon as art or abstraction, in the same way as G-F, though not finished to the same levels of finishing.
Cheers,
TM
You say it better in your second language than I could in my first.
"Sophistication, vulgarized."
That sells, but it's not something most of us want. The participants on this thread all seem to agree that some tourbillons are worth the trouble. At this stage, their raison d'etre cannot simply be "because it's a tourbillon!" For much of the market, however, that's all it takes.
We should probably be glad of that as the less-picky buyers are funding watch companies and making it possible for them to do the interesting work that we like to see. (And not only that we like to see: I'm confident that the watch makers and designers, even when making highly commercial watches, would always prefer to be making the kinds of watches that appeal to Purists.)
That sells, but it's not something most of us want. The participants on this thread all seem to agree that some tourbillons are worth the trouble. At this stage, their raison d'etre cannot simply be "because it's a tourbillon!" For much of the market, however, that's all it takes.
We should probably be glad of that as the less-picky buyers are funding watch companies and making it possible for them to do the interesting work that we like to see. (And not only that we like to see: I'm confident that the watch makers and designers, even when making highly commercial watches, would always prefer to be making the kinds of watches that appeal to Purists.)
Different thoughts
First we have to face reality. Tourbillons in a wrist watch are not there for the chronometry. Journe once joked that the "best way to improve the performance of his tourbillon was to take out the tourbillon". Actually that was not too much of a joke, since he did just that with his Chronometre Optimum where he left in the constant force, took out the tourbillon. Let's face it. The human wrist is a wonderful natural tourbillon. It moves the watch (and its escapement) into a multitude of positions all day long. Thus, a tourbillon that compensates for positional errors is really not needed.
Do I therefore denounce tourbillons? Absolutely not! When done well (and done in-house) they are classy embodiments of watchmaking art. They are visually entertaining, bringing great interest to the watch. Therefore I prize the tourbillons (and the related cousin Carrousel) watches that I own. I enjoy wearing them.
One more thing. Technically speaking....applying watchmaking definitions....tourbillons are not now and never have been "complications". Watchmaking complications are defined as something other than timekeeping mechanisms. Since the function of a tourbillon is timekeeping, it is not a complication. But then today, must of us think of anything that makes the watch harder to build qualifies as a complication. So maybe it is time for the Berner watchmaking dictionary and the watchmaking schools to modernize their definitions.
I'm not sure we were saying anything different...
Hi, Jeff,
Thanks for the further thoughts. In reading your comments, I'm not sure we were saying anything different, though it is always nice to read things from another perspective or with different wording, something akin to reading or discussing the same topic in another language....subtle nuances do bubble to the surface.
(Ref my level 2b / 2c in what would constitute a (serious) tourbillon today.)
Regarding semantics, I agree that a "tourbilllon" is not a "complication" in the classic definition, but you know as well as I do that there are many many fine hairs to split if we decided that's what we wanted to do.
Is a small second a complication, petite or otherwise?
What constitutes a Grand Complication vs a grand complication?
Would a tourbillon count as a "complication' in the classic definition of a Grand Complication and its necessary minimum number of complications (often a rattrapante chronograph, repeater and perpetual, though one must distinguish, then, between a Triple Complication vs a Grand Complication; and yes, I am aware that in some cases there are those that would argue no, a tourbillon would NOT count as one of the requisite complications to qualify for a Grand Complication; others would...)
What level complication is a perpetual, especially today when modules can add a perpetual calendar to a base movement for not much money and not much watchmaking skill?
I agree it is always a good idea to be rigourous in one's use of terms and consistent in which "reference" one adheres to.
Is a Jumbo (specific model name) the same as a jumbo? (generic adjective describing a model the same size or larger than a Jumbo but not specifically referred to as such)
Berners, et al, are good starting points for updates and modernizations...
On the other hand, I did clarify at least twice in my original post that it was a knee jerk, unedited "stream of consciousness" mind dump so I hope you'll forgive any fast and looseness with specific terminology between reference standard semantic rigour and common idiomatic usage...
;-)
Always a pleasure to read you, Jeff...hope all's well.
TM
What are each of us looking for in watchmaking?
First, the Tourbillon mechanism was made, if I remember well, for pocket watches: as they remained in a vertical position and still (in theory) in the pocket, making the escapement rotating on the level of where it carries "mistakes" is good for time keeping.
Today, while wearing wristwatches, it is not useful anymore (and the movements of the wrist during the day doesn't reproduce this movement at all).
Hence, I guess:
- It is nice to look at (rare to see such a whole cage moving and we know when it does that it is more complicated to create);
- It is the heir of past innovations (watchmaking is a lot about transmitting past watchmaking skills) so I feel I have historical memories on my wrist.
- As you said, it is nice to know it is more complicated to do.
Thus, this brings me to two things:
- Making 400 $ tourbillon enables everyone to have access to this rarity and is not dedicated to wealthy buyers only (the problem is that it destroyes its rarity thus philosophical value and charming power);
- A tourbillon is worth only considering the "amount" of finishing skills a brand can put inside. The more it is beautiful, better it is. Some brands still have progress to make in that field.
When we like watches, we often like mechanical prowess. Compared to a standard Swiss lever escapement, the tourbillon is a much greater feature.
We can regret that Marketting has made what the Tourbillon has become today but, in the mean time, it is because Marketting that gives this special aura to the Tourbillon and make it so desirable.
I think it is nice to desire something, no matter if we can afford it or not.
Tourbillon is, to me, everything but a technical improvement. It is only dream, prowess, legacy, history and so on. I understand we can feel getting that.
Thanks for sharing Thomas, reading your thoughts was interesting.
Cheers, Mark
Today, while wearing wristwatches, it is not useful anymore (and the movements of the wrist during the day doesn't reproduce this movement at all).
Hence, I guess:
- It is nice to look at (rare to see such a whole cage moving and we know when it does that it is more complicated to create);
- It is the heir of past innovations (watchmaking is a lot about transmitting past watchmaking skills) so I feel I have historical memories on my wrist.
- As you said, it is nice to know it is more complicated to do.
Thus, this brings me to two things:
- Making 400 $ tourbillon enables everyone to have access to this rarity and is not dedicated to wealthy buyers only (the problem is that it destroyes its rarity thus philosophical value and charming power);
- A tourbillon is worth only considering the "amount" of finishing skills a brand can put inside. The more it is beautiful, better it is. Some brands still have progress to make in that field.
When we like watches, we often like mechanical prowess. Compared to a standard Swiss lever escapement, the tourbillon is a much greater feature.
We can regret that Marketting has made what the Tourbillon has become today but, in the mean time, it is because Marketting that gives this special aura to the Tourbillon and make it so desirable.
I think it is nice to desire something, no matter if we can afford it or not.
Tourbillon is, to me, everything but a technical improvement. It is only dream, prowess, legacy, history and so on. I understand we can feel getting that.
Thanks for sharing Thomas, reading your thoughts was interesting.
Cheers, Mark
Thanks for reading. Agreed that everyone needs to ask those questions and decide
For themselves.
Thanks for your thoughts...
I find the "stream of consciousness" thought process you've used very appealing since it illustrate your raw thoughts, void of editing that could have made your comments too editorial and, in a way, less informative. Very well done!
Emil
Thank you for your kind words. While I still believe that...
being respectfully considered is the best way to go for most posts, sometimes, raw unfiltered thoughts are necessary to reset the bullshit meter...
Thanks again for your kind words.
TM
Thanks again for your kind words.
TM
I liked this conversation so thanks for everyone's thoughts.
I offer the thought of comparing whether a tourbillon is useful or not to whether a minute repeater is useful or not. I see in this thread the heart of why we like watches... the history of innovation, how England dominated then lost it all because it stuck with guilds and didn't change, the current industry and it's wonderfully creative and talented people, advancements in metallurgy, designs, etc.
How many of us need have no light at 4:00 am but need to hear four chimes from our watch in order to wake up and start to bake bread for the other monks? Not too many. Yes, to a great extent tourbillons, minute repeaters, equations of time, and similar aren't of use to us but many of us appreciate the art, difficulty of execution and perfection, and the many people and years of training that go into making such a work of craftsmanship. Jeff and so many others write much more and better than I can about it, but we're not purchasing a tourbillon to help offset the effects of gravity on the balance wheel because that's anachronistic.... it just doesn't apply to our lives today. We value it for all the beauty and talent that it represents. If you're on the other end of the spectrum on this and carry that thought to the extreme, then mechanical watches go out the window because there are cheaper and more accurate ways of telling time.
Evan