Quartz Why the negativity

longshotvalue

I see all these bargains , particularly in the US for Quartz watches from Very good brands at massive discounts

Like this

https://www.ebay.com/itm/332717113159

Why does anyone care about Automatic etc. I'm new to this but am struggling not to just order a few of this kind of watch, i dont particularly care about a movement or things you cant see..

Wibbs

Much of it is down to the Swiss marketing machine that came along after quartz very nearly destroyed the Swiss watchmaking business. After championing and innovating with quartz technology at first they simply couldn't compete in price or innovation with the Seikos and the like in the sector, especially when the craze for digitals came along in the mid 70's. They tried, even Rolex had an LED digital in development, but couldn't keep up.

So the Swiss industry nearly died and to revive it they used the cash they made from of all things cheap quartz "fashion" Swatch watches to fund the mechanical watch revival. A large chunk of this marketing pushed the idea that mechanicals were somehow more "handmade", more "traditional", a nod to a Simpler Time™, more "luxury" and more "authentic"(marketeers really get the horn for the A word) to a largely male audience. They tried with women, but it didn't take. Look at even the very top mad money names like Patek and their women's offerings are nearly all quartz. For good reasons. Quartz is more accurate, more robust, requires far less maintenance and is always ready to go.

This all made solid financial sense. Contrary to popular belief the average mechanical movements found in most watches, even watches costing many thousands aren't that much more expensive to produce than quartz and they can demand much higher prices for them, so the profit margins are much larger. Most mechanical movements are rattled out in their millions in mostly automated processes.

It also means more frequent and much more expensive service intervals. Something all the big names have been pushing ever harder trying to squeeze independent watchmakers out of the loop, so they can raise prices even more. And over the last decade the Swiss marques have been pushing prices ever higher and releasing more "limited" editions at higher prices again. Rolex keep some lines very restricted to increase interest and uptake and prices. A few years back Zenith raised their prices by a fair amount across the board overnight. For the same models.

We can really see this in watch models that have been around for decades. EG Rolex tool watches in steel and something like the Omega Speedmaster(Moon Watch ™). Accounting for inflation, wages and other indicators a basic Omega Speedy is up to six times more expensive than it was when it was chosen for the Apollo moon programme. A Rolex Submariner is many multiples more expensive than back in the 60/70's. Well back then it had to compete with all the other mid tier models from all the other independent brands. So in say 1970 a Rolex Sub was around the same price as a Longines/Omega/Zodiac/Doxa/Blancpain dive watch. Seiko dive watches weren't that much cheaper either. And around that time the very first early quartz watches were scarily expensive by comparison. When an Omega Speedmaster was around 200 dollars in the US, one of their first quartz watches was more like a 1000 dollars.


And all this has largely worked, at least among watch collectors and guys want a "nice watch" and who read the largely industry spiel backed by watch "journalists". Watch journalism with vanishingly few exceptions is basically brand marketing slightly reworded with a journalists name attached.

My take A? Ignore the marketing and buy what you like.

NIMAN

Surely for the common man in the street, it'll be the look of a watch first and foremost that will attract you to it and want to have it on your wrist?

Are there purists around who would see an absolutely gorgeous watch but say, "nay not for me, its a quartz"?

Eoin

I don't like the negativity / "it's only a quartz" attitudes, but I do understand the preference for mechanical watches. I don't disagree with Wibbs' post, but on the flip side there's just something cool for some people about knowing that there's a very intricate mechanism working away on their wrist. If we want to get really logical about watches (we don't), then there's really no point in spending more than 50 quid max on one.

I think it's a bit like how some refuse to drive an automatic car. Others may think it's nuts that they wouldn't want that convenience, while they think they're more connected to the driving experience with a manual.

If you're not arsed about seeing the second hand glide, a display case back or any of that stuff, then absolutely go with quartz.

Cienciano

Buy what you like is the only advice. I don't like certain brands for absolutely no reason. None of this makes sense. I have two quartz watches and its great putting them on knowing they'll have perfect time and date

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I think with smart phones the use of a watch has become limited. Its not really bout telling the time any more. Its about one of three things....the look of the watch, the mechanics or the watch or the social status of the watch. A wristwatch is jewellery, and the quartz watch falling into the costume jewellery bracket. Its all a nonsense, and the value is notional, but once your look at them as jewellery it all makes sense, in so far as its all a nonsense.

njburke

The huge advantage that quartz has over mechanical is functionality. A designer can implement more in a quartz design for less cost than a mechanical, consider for example an implementation of a perpetual calendar.
I have just purchased a Casio s100 from Japan, it will be my most accurate watch, it corrects any accumulated error in timekeeping daily by radio synchronisation with an atomic source.

It does have a telltell 1 tick per second, I have another quartz that has smoother second hand traverse than any of my mechanicals, even the hi beat ones. Bulova accutron II quartz have a 262 kHz timebase rather than the common 32678 Hz timebase of most quartz watches. It's not quite Seiko spring drive but it's up there for a discrete timebase.

As has been said the negativity towards quartz is the classic Fear, Uncertainty,Doubt directed towards a competing technology. I think my next purchase will be a mid range quartz watch with classic styling, the look and feel of an automatic three hander but with accuracy, solar powered and always ready to wear.

njburke

njburke wrote: »

I have just purchased a Casio s100 from Japan, it will be my most accurate watch, it corrects any accumulated error in timekeeping daily by radio synchronisation with an atomic source.

Had my eye on that for a while, I would be interested to hear your impression and where you got it etc

Wibbs

I'd add to this bit Nj

njburke wrote: »

As has been said the negativity towards quartz is the classic Fear, Uncertainty,Doubt directed towards a competing technology.

bolstered by a large scale Swiss marketing campaign in the 80's and 90's to revive its fortunes and increase margins.

Like I said, early on the Swiss were real innovators in Quartz technology and pushed hard for it. Patek Phillippe threw resources at electronic timing as early as the start of the sixties. While Seiko got to market first(just) with their quartz movement, the Swiss had pushed the boat out on various quartz technologies and implementations and were ahead of the rest for a good while. Though to look at their marketing today with few exceptions one would swear this period never existed.

Two things killed their business, a sudden negative change in Swiss franc exchange rates shot their prices up and the rise in popularity of the digital watch in the 70's. They had almost no skin in that game. It was kicked off mostly by the Americans in the newly forming "Silicon Valley", then the Japanese made it more affordable and by the late seventies very cheap. The everyday watch market from cheap entry level to mid level became digital. Even in the high end luxury level digital got involved for a time. The Swiss tried to compete by buying in the tech, but by the early 1980's they were in serious trouble. Many brands laid down and died, never to be seen again, some were bought out by others as they collapsed(Breitling, Heuer). Some were later resurrected from shelf companies with zero connection to the originals(Breguet). Some like Longines and Omega kept limping along, shadows of their former selves, until they were bought out and brought into the conglomerate fold(The Swatch Group).

How the Swiss turned this disaster around is pretty incredible, though they had long been geniuses in marketing. They made the 20th century their own and "Swiss watch" became synonymous with precision and quality and the very idea of a quality timepiece. Even though French, German, British and especially American innovations had equalled and outstripped them on many occasions. The Swiss industry took the idea of mass production and standardisation of parts from the Americans. American watchmaking of the 19th century changed everything.

longshotvalue

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd add to this bit Njbolstered by a large scale Swiss marketing campaign in the 80's and 90's to revive its fortunes and increase margins.

Like I said, early on the Swiss were real innovators in Quartz technology and pushed hard for it. Patek Phillippe threw resources at electronic timing as early as the start of the sixties. While Seiko got to market first(just) with their quartz movement, the Swiss had pushed the boat out on various quartz technologies and implementations and were ahead of the rest for a good while. Though to look at their marketing today with few exceptions one would swear this period never existed.

Two things killed their business, a sudden negative change in Swiss franc exchange rates shot their prices up and the rise in popularity of the digital watch in the 70's. They had almost no skin in that game. It was kicked off mostly by the Americans in the newly forming "Silicon Valley", then the Japanese made it more affordable and by the late seventies very cheap. The everyday watch market from cheap entry level to mid level became digital. Even in the high end luxury level digital got involved for a time. The Swiss tried to compete by buying in the tech, but by the early 1980's they were in serious trouble. Many brands laid down and died, never to be seen again, some were bought out by others as they collapsed(Breitling, Heuer). Some were later resurrected from shelf companies with zero connection to the originals(Breguet). Some like Longines and Omega kept limping along, shadows of their former selves, until they were bought out and brought into the conglomerate fold(The Swatch Group).

How the Swiss turned this disaster around is pretty incredible, though they had long been geniuses in marketing. They made the 20th century their own and "Swiss watch" became synonymous with precision and quality and the very idea of a quality timepiece. Even though French, German, British and especially American innovations had equalled and outstripped them on many occasions. The Swiss industry took the idea of mass production and standardisation of parts from the Americans. American watchmaking of the 19th century changed everything.

Thanks for some very good replies . I'm going to pick up some of the huge quartz bargsins . The likes of glycine have their on store with huge bargains . There is an automatic diver from them for 320 , probably 400 landed , but I'm more likely to go with the one above for about 240 landed

In addition there is a lovely Mondaine day-date that can be landed here for about €70. From a reputable seller .

njburke

Deleted User wrote: »

Had my eye on that for a while, I would be interested to hear your impression and where you got it etc

Same here I'ld been thinking about it for a while and I spotted one on Japaneese yahoo whilst looking for old seikos. I signed up for zenmarket.jp and find it a very good proxy service,I've used it a couple of times now.

Back to the Oceanus s100, there was a used but looked to be in excellent condition 2017 model with the box and most importantly when getting a watch from japan with an integrated bracelet,it had all the spare links,. There was some bidding on it but I won it at €235, landed here should come in around €300. New price on these is about €500.
It'll go under the tree, so I won't open it till then.

Link to s100 https://products.oceanus.casio.jp/_detail/OCW-S100-1A/

njburke

njburke wrote: »

Back to the Oceanus s100, there was a used but looked to be in excellent condition 2017 model with the box and most importantly when getting a watch from japan with an integrated bracelet,it had all the spare links,. There was some bidding on it but I won it at €235, landed here should come in around €300. New price on these is about €500.
It'll go under the tree, so I won't open it till then.

That's a great price for nearly-new, congrats.

What I like about the OCW-S100 is the clean face. The atomic watches available over here are usually too busy for my liking. A pity this model is not available here. I also like the Promaster PMD56...again, not available here for whatever reason.

njburke

Deleted User wrote: »

njburke wrote: »

Back to the Oceanus s100, there was a used but looked to be in excellent condition 2017 model with the box and most importantly when getting a watch from japan with an integrated bracelet,it had all the spare links,. There was some bidding on it but I won it at €235, landed here should come in around €300. New price on these is about €500.
It'll go under the tree, so I won't open it till then.

That's a great price for nearly-new, congrats.

What I like about the OCW-S100 is the clean face. The atomic watches available over here are usually too busy for my liking. A pity this model is not available here. I also like the Promaster PMD56...again, not available here for whatever reason.

The simplicity of the dial belies the s100s functionality, I liked the clean three handed over sub dials and micro text. As it happens I had a PMD56 in the watch list too, they are around the same price.

artanevilla

I am just fascinated by the fact you can tell the time with an amazing degree of accuracy using no electricity whatsoever, that to me makes a mechanical watch more attractive than quartz.

I've no problem with quartz, they are a lot simpler but at the same time more more complicated in theory. There is just something more about having hundreds of years of refinement in precision engineering on your wrist than a coil and a battery.

Then when you start looking at mechanical complications, you mind is completely blown. Tourbillon's etc are pieces of art as much as time telling tools.

It will be the same when electric cars become ubiquitous, there will always be people who want a car powered by a reciprocating engine, and will be willing to pay more money for them.

Why pay for a fillet steak when a round steak will give you the same sustenance?

A twenty euro bottle of Jameson will get you as drunk as the two hundred euro Middleton Very Rare, and both look the same in a hand crafted crystal tumbler. That's how I see mechanical vs quartz.

longshotvalue

artanevilla wrote: »

I am just fascinated by the fact you can tell the time with an amazing degree of accuracy using no electricity whatsoever, that to me makes a mechanical watch more attractive than quartz.

I've no problem with quartz, they are a lot simpler but at the same time more more complicated in theory. There is just something more about having hundreds of years of refinement in precision engineering on your wrist than a coil and a battery.

Then when you start looking at mechanical complications, you mind is completely blown. Tourbillon's etc are pieces of art as much as time telling tools.

It will be the same when electric cars become ubiquitous, there will always be people who want a car powered by a reciprocating engine, and will be willing to pay more money for them.

Why pay for a fillet steak when a round steak will give you the same sustenance?

A twenty euro bottle of Jameson will get you as drunk as the two hundred euro Middleton Very Rare, and both look the same in a hand crafted crystal tumbler. That's how I see mechanical vs quartz.

Jameson is not the same as a decent whiskey, wheres quartz and auto look the exact same.

artanevilla

aidankkk wrote: »

Jameson is not the same as a decent whiskey, wheres quartz and auto look the exact same.

They look the same in the glass.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

artanevilla wrote: »

They look the same in the glass.

And on the way out of you....

Cienciano

Hard to find a good analogy tbh. I think it's the same reason women like diamonds. I mean, look at some pretty pointless complications, like the minute repeater and the price. I can only compare it to women wanting diamonds, real diamonds and flawless ones rather than fakes that look pretty much the same at a fraction of the price. It's pointless really and just down to marketing to be honest.

893bet

Cienciano wrote: »

It's pointless really and just down to marketing to be honest.

This in a nutshell.

Watches are jewellery.

As a functional item they are redundant (though very impressive of course).

btkm8unsl0w5r4

As I type this I can see 3 clocks synchronized to atomic clocks, so the wristwatch is really a pointless item. This fact is what makes the mechanical cooler IMHO

artanevilla

Cienciano wrote: »

Hard to find a good analogy tbh. I think it's the same reason women like diamonds. I mean, look at some pretty pointless complications, like the minute repeater and the price. I can only compare it to women wanting diamonds, real diamonds and flawless ones rather than fakes that look pretty much the same at a fraction of the price. It's pointless really and just down to marketing to be honest.

But in the diamond market supply is strictly controlled to artificially inflate the price by creating scarcity where no scarcity exists, it's not like companies like Rolex are....

Actually, never mind.....

shutup

Armani Defeated Timepiece wrote: »

As I type this I can see 3 clocks synchronized to atomic clocks, so the wristwatch is really a pointless item. This fact is what makes the mechanical cooler IMHO

Not pointless if you can’t bring your phone to work or school etc.
A few jobs where it’s more practical to use a watch instead of being seen on a phone.
I find it much easier using my watch for training football team (sprints or timed drills) and in the gym (intervals, rest time)

Magilla Gorilla

To add fuel to the fire...

I'd compare it to CDs and LPs. There's no doubt the digital sound is cleaner etc . but old fogies reckon it has no soul, like vinyl has.

I have quartz and mechanical and I like them both.

Kintarō Hattori

Magilla Gorilla wrote: »

To add fuel to the fire...

I'd compare it to CDs and LPs. There's no doubt the digital sound is cleaner etc . but old fogies reckon it has no soul, like vinyl has.

I have quartz and mechanical and I like them both.

I've always been a fan of technology and would always have said digital was best- no contest. Then I heard a good quality record on a decent amp/speaker/turntable setup and I was blown away. It IS so much better but so much more expensive to get a setup that does it justice and of course vinyl is really impractical.