Movements - how important to you?

bogmanfan

First of all, this is not a quartz v mechanical question. Assume that we're talking mechanicals here.
So, when buying a watch, how important is the movement? To me, it's not a primary concern at all. Once I know it's a trusted movement (ETA or Valjoux) I would be much more interested in the case and bracelet quality.
In-house movements mean absolutely nothing to me at all. Is there any evidence that an in-house movement will keep better time or last longer than a COSC certified ETA? I saw an Audemars Piguet for sale on a forum recently. In house movement, had just been serviced by AP, at a cost of over £2000 :eek:. Now, give me a nice Valjoux 7750 or ETA 2892 which I can drop into any competent watchmaker for servicing.
What are your views?

Wibbs

Well I'm a vintage boy so the movements would be of interest to me. There were more in house movements back then, though Valjoux were found in quite a few chronos as were the longines chrono movements which are sweeeeeet.

I would reckon, though open to correction, the amount of finishing of a base movement would make a diff accuracy wise if that's what they were aiming for. You see that even with some vintage in house movements. Zenith as an example. There was a base model but varying grades of that. So a top end one would be jeweled to the center, positionally adjusted, breguet springs etc and you can see the diff in timekeeping. Fancy cosmetic stuff wouldnt make any diff to me TBH.

Wibbs

bedlam wrote: »

Plenty, the benefit of COSC is debatable, and you'll find many non certified watches that can outperform a COSC tested watch. It isn't that hard really when you consider the tolerance is -4/+6sec a day on the movement (not the completed watch).

I would agree. One of my vintage yokes a zenith, after a really involved rebuild and really expert regulation, regularly kept time to +/- a one two seconds a day, on the wrist too. Sadly that watchmaker passed away a few years ago on a few levels. Lovely man. Serious artist who was so into the movement he really went to town on it. No quick ultrasonic dip for him. Did the full balance work too.

If you want accurate take a look at the winner of this years chronometrie, the JLC Master Tourbillon. It was tested per ISO3159 (including testing at COSC) to an average of +0.13 seconds a day*. Of course, given that most watches entered were Tourbillons, the majority of people are never going to experience such time keeping first hand.

That's amaing accuracy from a mechanical system. Especially when one releases teh tolerences required to keep a timepiece to even one minute a day. I remember a figure along the lines of 99.9999%. That said I wonder is the Tourbillon much of that figure? I understood that tourbilons were really only of value for pocket watches as they tended to be kept upright and gravitational influences were brought to bear. The tourbillon with it's rotating cage minimised this, but on the wrist a watch's movement was canceled out the advantages of a tourbillon. I'm sure it has some effect, but how much I wonder. In a static test or a 3 positional test I'm sure it makes a diff, but on the wrist?

Origipolo

Wibbs, did George service that Zenith for ya? I'm not going to write a thesis on the pros and cons of tourbillons because number one it will just bore people and number two the web is full of stuff! You will just have to trust me and fire questions if wanted.

The tourbillon nowadays, either in the pocket or on the wrist has absolute no timekeeping benefit. Perfect timekeeping is mechanically obtained (presuming the going train and motion work are functioning correctly) incorporating a perfectly round and poised balance wheel, then the use of a perfectly flat and concentric hairspring from the exact centre. Believe it or not, friction nowadays comes third place because of advanced materials and lubricants used. Have my doubts about the Chrono 2009 tourbillon win result for this reason..

Just to deviate a little, for all it supposed timekeeping properties due to non use of lubricants, the techs in Bienne use a dollop of 941 on the co-axial entry and exit. I don't know is that just two fingers up at Daniels, but hey, he argued for decades with them... Origi..

Wibbs

Origipolo wrote: »

Wibbs, did George service that Zenith for ya?

No, an american chap.

The tourbillon nowadays, either in the pocket or on the wrist has absolute no timekeeping benefit.

That's what I had thought. Indeed I would have thought it's very action must lead to losses somewhere in the mix? Or have to be compensated for.

Perfect timekeeping is mechanically obtained (presuming the going train and motion work are functioning correctly) incorporating a perfectly round and poised balance wheel, then the use of a perfectly flat and concentric hairspring from the exact centre.

What about breguet or overcoil springs? http://hiro.alliancehorlogere.com/en/Glossary/Breguet_Overcoil They seem to be fitted to a lot of marine chronometers and I've read they're a better bet. Is it that achieving a perfectly flat and concentric spring is difficult, so the overcoil compensates for this?

Blackpitts

bogmanfan wrote: »

Now, give me a nice Valjoux 7750 or ETA 2892 which I can drop into any competent watchmaker for servicing.
What are your views?

+1

I like all the different movements and I enjoy to look at the differecences, but what i want from my watch at the end is just reliability.
What drives me mad is to see some watches (ie IWC portoguese) cost 4 or 5 times more than another watch with the same identical movement inside.

Origipolo

Wibbs wrote: »

What about breguet or overcoil springs? http://hiro.alliancehorlogere.com/en/Glossary/Breguet_Overcoil They seem to be fitted to a lot of marine chronometers and I've read they're a better bet. Is it that achieving a perfectly flat and concentric spring is difficult, so the overcoil compensates for this?

Yes Wibbs, you are 100% correct with regards to the Breguet overcoil. I didn't want to go down the 'outer bend' road, so for all intents and purposes I used 'perfectly flat'.

Its not that difficult to make a perfectly flat and concentric hairspring. The overcoil does not compensate for a poorly made spring. It is only the outer curve that is bent upwards above the horizontal plane of the rest of the spring.

Basically the main advantage of the Breguet hairspring is that it promotes a more constant rate. The centre of gravity of the Breguet hairspring remains constant regardless of position this enables the spring to develop more concentrically from the centre.

Any of those cylindrical or helical springs used in marine chronometers do not perform any better than Breguet overcoil...

Hope this helps... origi..

Cyrus

bedlam wrote: »

Fixed your post

Lots of mention of calibre 79350 being "heavily modified" version of the Valjoux 7750. Can't find a full list of changes used on the IWC Portuguese Chronograph but here are some...

- Blued screws (cosmetic change)
- 29 instead of 25 jewels
- Date wheel removed
- Sub second dial moved from 9 o'clock to 6 o'clock.
- Calibrated to 5 positions
- power reserve appears to have been reduced by 2hrs
- Use of higher quality parts

Modifications to movements how ever small do incur costs which will get passed on.

I'm not saying it justifies the price difference, and you are still going to pay a premium for the name after all but it's not really fair saying they are identical.

i have had a fair few 'cheaper' 7750 chronos, i own a portuguese chrono too,

quite aside from the modifications to the movement, and there are many,

for a 7750 its a remarkably thin watch and the craftsmanship and attention to detail is excellent, when you look at it you can see what you paid for imo

old boy

will not a 80s - 90s basic orient keep time to within + or - 20s second a week.