Watch_time_it_is
544
Thoughts on "in-house" movements and their reflection of the watch maker?
Clearly the discussion on in-house movements in less about accuracy and
more about something else. Quartz is more accurate and as such would
appear to be the right decision for buying the most "accurate" watch.
Given this, the purchase of mechanical watches (which appears to be on
the rise) is for other purposes. Focusing on one, and only one,
potential purpose - the craftsmanship and the "art" of watch making -
how is one to measure, relative to others rather than to an absolute,
the watchmaker and the watch?
Add me to the list of collectors who use the "in house"-ness of the
movement as an indication of the commitment to the "soul" of the watch
and the craft of watchmaking. Given that as an indicator, the
in-house-ness is, at best, up for discussion, and at worst impossible
to measure (as I have found with some of the brands I have purchased)
what are, or should be, other/better ways to measure a watchmaker's
commitment to the craft of watchmaker verse the art of watch design
(read as style and look) or simply marketing?
Is it:
Hand assembled/made
Innovations/contributions to the industry as a whole
Selection and choice of parts used to make the final movement
Quality of watches made - as measured by time keeping and other complication functions
Uniqueness of modifications to a "base" movement
This is a very serious/important question to me as I have placed the
inclusion of an in-house movement (or high percentage of in-house
modifications resulting in a movement that can not be found elsewhere)
high on my list of criteria for watch purchases in the future. If there
are better ways to determine the watchmaker's commitment to the craft,
I would love to modify my criteria in order to ensure I reach what I
seek - to support watchmakers and the craft of watch making rather than
just watch marketing.
I appreciate any and all comments -
