I'm big into mechanical watches and I find it surprising that more software developer types are not into watches. They're the mechanical parallel that completes my otherwise purely digital world.
Also, everything about them (when done well) sounds like a top developer's wet dream, from the design, development, and down to the extremely rigorous QA processes around building these mechanical marvels.
>I find it surprising that more software developer types are not into watches
Hopefully I don't offend anyone, but I have noticed that many software devs these says are just that, software devs, instead of being engineers with a passion for designing and building amazingly complex machines/systems.
If you call yourself an engineer and can't bring yourself to appreciate the beauty of a jet engine or the construction of a F1 race car or the craftsmanship of a Patek Philippe watch, then I actually lose a bit of respect for you.
If you call yourself an engineer, your focus might be to perform a task (eg: "giving correct time") as cheaply, efficiently and practical as possible. In that regard, Patek Philippe watches are nowhere near your standard of "beauty". I understand you might appreciate the design, and craftsmanship of those watches, but don't disregard other engineers who focus their attention on other features like portability, reliability, resistance and so on. Those are not taken into account by high horology, and also require ingenuity and craftsmanship. Do not loose respect for the guys that care to design a watch that you will actually be able to afford, that can be mass produced, and give time (and easter date !!) reliably for the next 100 years or so (do you really need more ?).
Actually, Patek's design absolutely fits your criteria of engineering excellence.
If one of the design constraint is "no use of any electricity allowed", and the requirement is a perpetual calendar, then Patek's design is absolutely amazing in both functionality and reliability.
That's harsh. Pride in one's craft doesn't have to mean that someone appreciates the same things you do.
I find jet engines utterly uninteresting and I'm a software engineer. They're cool...I guess. I know Elon Musk did something cool with one that landed upright or something. That's about it.
I'm sure a lot of things are really cool that I almost never think about. But I have no impulse to go learn about those things to satisfy a childlike sense of wonder. They just don't appeal to me.
I do like mechanical watches though, and I own a Lange myself. But I wouldn't lose respect for an engineer of any sort who doesn't appreciate intricate mechanical watches, because it's not going to appeal to someone just because of their profession. That's kind of a polarizing perspective to have, no? You can't really dictate what people should get passionate about.
Engineers should be designing machines and systems which are as simple as possible (i.e. all the complexity is essential). The more complex a system is, the more likely it is to fail, and you don't want that.
In my experience, many software developers build unnecessarily complex systems for various reasons which are well known (i.e. much of the complexity is accidental).
Or you're a pragmatic engineer and understand that quartz watches are more reliable, just as accurate, easier to maintain, and simpler to produce. There is also beauty in the simpler solution. Brands like Citizen have also added a lot of cool features to standard quartz watches.
And I say this as someone who loves mechanical watches. But really all they are over complicated creations for the sake of what can be reduced to art. And I'm completely fine with that.
Quartz is definitely more accurate and simpler to produce, but not easier to maintain or more reliable.
Finding a working early 80's quartz in good condition is already hard and expensive. Repairs (or even finding a suitable battery) might be impossible
Finding a 70's or 60's working automatic in good condition is trivial and cheap. Repairs are easy.
Of course, upgrading every few years to the latest cheap quartz might still be cheaper than a mechanical watch, but there's something nice to be said about using a device that can perform its function for 40+ years with ease, and basically indefinitely with minimal maintenance.
I have some interesting pieces from the 1950s that are still running with no repair to date (but these were well kept).
I'm fortunate enough that my grandparents had some of their really old watches sitting in a drawer. For most of them, I just picked it up and it worked. They had no need for them, so they're in my care now. Got lucky :)
You really can't say with anything else over 60 years old. Heck I'd be ecstatic if any of my code even runs/compiles in 30 years from now, let alone 60. But I'm pretty certain the same old watches will still be ticking when it's time for my grandchildren to rummage through my drawer and find them happily awaiting another windup. Timelessness in a timekeeping device is part of the appeal.
If a Chinese sweatshop in Hangzhou, was able to make a perfect replica of a F1 race car or a jet engine (that performed to the same standards as their contemporaries) i would be in complete awe and give total respect.
If a similar Chinese sweatshop were to make a perfect functional replica of this Patek Philippe watch (without having had physical access to it) at 1/100th the cost would you express similar appreciation? Would you wear it with the same level of pride as you would a Patek Philippe watch?
However, back to answer your question precisely, China simply doesn't have an industry or heritage or history that can support a Patek, which is why it doesn't exist. Even with the history I've linked to above, the Swiss industry is light years ahead and it's not even close.
I don't think you should let your bias, if any, of the very inferior counterfeit movements and counterfeit casing industry color your opinion of watches. Anyone in the know would trivially identify the differences. To your analogy it would be like producing a cheap engine and simply calling it an F1 engine. That's not how it works.
Furthermore, if you asked this theoretical Chinese sweatshop to build a modern highly complicated Patek Philippe, it wouldn't cost 1/100 the price, it would cost 100x the price if not more. They'd have to start by sourcing synthetic materials, reinventing tools, or recreating components that a theoretical sweatshop wouldn't even have access to. Part of why counterfeits are so cheap is because they source really cheap Japanese or local Chinese movements that have had decades of build up to scale to the current counterfeit prices. Meanwhile, the real deal modern watch movements are decades more advanced.
I am sorry to say you haven't assuaged my scepticism.
The watch in question made in 1989 is valued at 6 million dollars (according to wikipedia). OK fine, that might be an extreme example. Lets take a typical Patek watch which costs tens of thousands of dollars.
I can't believe that the price reflects the materials, the complexity and labour that went into the watch. I admit i know next to nothing about horology but as a software engineer i have trouble believing it has more complexity than a similarly priced family saloon or even a mobile phone, or a microprocessor.
My point with the Chinese sweatshop example was its really about the image that they want to be associated with. There seems to be a typical formula: An aristocratic sounding family name of the founder, a founding date sometime in the 1800s and a founding place in Geneva or some town or village with a quaint name in France. A making-off video which features men with Germanic features, wire-frame glasses and who is never smiling(we're portraying gravitas here), delicately assembling the watch components. Oh yeah and make sure you get celebrities, powerful politiciansand pro athletes to be photographed wearing the watch (the fact that some of these people couldn't reasonably afford such watches seems to suggest they were given the watch for free or even paid to wear them).
edit: I know there are examples of watch manufacturers like Richard Mille who break the mould (at least with the historical legacy aspect), but it seems to be an unclear path to convince the gatekeepers of this clique that you're not just another poser trying to pry hundreds of thousands of dollars from the wealthy.
Actually even the tools Patek uses to make their watch are made in house, mostly by hand.
Watchmaking and does take a tremendous amount of labor, a watch made by a sweatshop in China will simply not have the same precision and reliability, let alone the fit and finish of its movement inside.
You are confusing complexity with ease of manufacturing. Some very complex objects are actually much easier to mass produce, such as a family sedan or a CPU, simply because we've gotten very, very good at it by now and the economy of scale makes it easy and cheap.
But for a watch, since there is no such economy of scale, and the customers demand those watches to be hand made, then the amount of man hour and labor that's put into making a perpetual calendar way out weights that of a car.
Is there a huge amount of price inflation caused by marketing? Absolutely. But even a top tier Chinese replica of a Patek can cost a couple thousand dollars, while not being the same quality inside.
A more "common" Patek like a Calatrava would be a different story and you've changed the goalpost in the discussion. So we're no longer talking about the highest levels of horological achievement -- that's fine, but the answer is still not what you're looking for.
As a software dev, you're aware of diminishing returns. Fine watchmaking is an extreme case of this. The reason it costs what it costs is because everything is done to an extreme, by hand. Engraving, finishing are all unique on each piece. Quality assurance makes sure that it's passed a variety of brutal tests (and if it doesn't, you're on the hook for fixing it for free under warranty). That's not even getting to the raw material costs, which of course is precious metal 18K for the casing and silicons and alloys and synthetic lubricants for the movement. All of these pieces are proprietary and uniquely fit for the watch, so the Chinese sweatshop would need to reach a certain scale before they could produce it at profit. Just take a look at the extreme lengths Rolex goes to manufacture these watches with automation (linked in the original comment post). Patek has to do most of that by hand to keep each piece unique.
Is there a high margin in the business when done right? Absolutely. Should the Chinese all give up the counterfeit industry and move in high quality watches instead? No, because the pricing would be within the same order of magnitude (though no longer out of reach like the earlier example with the highest levels of watch making) with large gains on labor and marketing cost but minus the heritage and history to actually sell the pieces.
I think you're inaccurately making some assumptions about watchmaking that's fundamentally cutting your estimates down significantly to state that a Patek could be manufactured at 1/100th the price by a sweatshop or even 1/10th. It can't be done for the same reason why there isn't a Chinese Bugatti Veyron. The product is that good and true expertise and industry is backing that product.
At the end of the day, we don't need to argue hypotheticals. If this were possible, it would already be done. In the wild, there are plenty of cheap counterfeit watches with Patek written on the dial but there are no "fake" Patek level watches that a person familiar with watches wouldn't immediately spot as a fake.
And ultimately it's disengenuous to make any argument using "image" or marketing as a basis when it's done with fanfare plenty in our industry (a la Apple)
A Seiko autowinder will keep time as well as a Patek Philippe. Even Rolexes, which are much better made than PP, are cheaper.
PP is just one of those brands that gets away with being so expensive because it is so expensive. The point of owning a PP watch is to demonstrate to the world that you can own a PP watch.
I noticed that the commentary in this thread seems to be full of untruthful statements being thrown around as facts. This probably betrays the fact that the audience here is not very knowledgeable about mechanical watches, which was part of the curiousity mentioned in the original post.
No, a run of the mill mechanical Seiko (say a Seiko 5 or even a SARB) will not run as accurately as a modern Patek. That's silly. Patek have their own Seal of quality guaranteeing a certain range of drift per day and performs well beyond COSC requirements. The typical Seiko wouldn't come close unless you're starting to get into Grand Seiko territory or Spring Drive movements which is a different league.
Rolex vs PP on a typical 3 handed watch will have similar performance, with the Rolex probably fairing better due to the typical Rolex being designed (and QAed) for more extreme conditions. However, the most complicated Rolex is an annual calendar and this is where PP shine.
> The typical Seiko wouldn't come close unless you're starting to get into Grand Seiko territory or Spring Drive movements which is a different league.
But still nowhere near the PP league, price-wise.
I think you're the one who is being untruthful by introducing qualifications like "run of the mill" which I did not.
> This probably betrays the fact that the audience here is not very knowledgeable about mechanical watches
There are two aspects to understanding mechanical watches: the mechanics and the culture. People who buy a PP want not just a functional, quality timepiece--they want exclusivity. PP is not just a watch company, it is a luxury brand. And luxury brands create exclusivity via high prices--much higher than is strictly justified by the costs of manufacturing.
All this is to say that if another company wanted to replicate a PP, they could do it for less than the retail price of a PP. But there would be no point, because no one would buy it. Because there is nothing cool or exclusive about owning a Chinese knock-off of a Patek Philippe, no matter how well it works.
It's a shame Rolex has such a reputation for being showy jewelry. Their manufacturing rigor is one of the best in the mechanical watch industry. But good luck convincing someone of that when the first thing you see on the dial is "Rolex."
It's often said among watch collectors that you start out wanting a Rolex because it's all you know of in haute horlogerie. Then you learn more and want nothing to do with the brand, and finally you settle in and appreciate it for the legitimate workmanship.
Rolex has it figured it out by segmenting their products with their marketing. You have the SKUs that are 18k solid gold fitted with precious stones and on the other extreme you have the stainless steel professional line. In many ways, the volume of sales in the former helps fund the research and manufacturing prowess in the latter, and overall it's a win-win for everyone.
Kind of like how iPhone and blingy Apple Watch sales used to fund great work in Apple's professional line of laptops. (Low blow, I know, but I couldn't help it)
Nowadays, there is very little functional purpose. But historically, they were used widely and the robustness of the watch mattered a lot. There's a very good reason the Omega Speedmaster was sent to space.
Today's mechanical watches are a celebration of that tradition. You have to have an appreciation for that as well as the historical significance in timekeeping as part of civilization's endeavors into transoceanic navigation, extreme mountaineering and ultimately into space as a prerequisite for truly appreciating mechanical watches.
The best manufactures today, like Rolex, uphold that tradition in their professional line. You can read about the history of the GMT, the Explorer and the Subminariner (in particular the Milsub) to get a glimpse of the historical significance.
In some way, a mechanical watch is a miniature museum and houses some very significant advancements. Modern watchmakers continue to push mechanical and material boundaries. This is to be appreciated if only as an art, even if outdated.
And due to the high beat movement, the second hand moves in a much smoother way than the jump seconds on quartz movements, which a lot of people prefers.
> I'm big into mechanical watches and I find it surprising that more software developer types are not into watches. They're the mechanical parallel that completes my otherwise purely digital world.
The lack of interest from my side is due to the inferiority of mechanical watches in accomplishing their main purpose: keeping time. I know my smartphone always has the right time, because it's internet-connected and uses NTP. For a mechanical watch, that trust just isn't there: either it has the right time, or it's run out of power.
Surely, I can appreciate the craftsmanship, but when it comes to knowing what time it is, this is not relevant for me at all. When I look at a clock, I really appreciate knowing that if it has run out of power it doesn't display the wrong time, as opposed to a mechanical watch.
Same. I seem to consider them a Rube Goldberg machine that people use to indicate status. I was partly reading the comments here to see what I'm missing. I'm sure there's a lot.
My wife loves watches (for the design). I'd rather have a nice bike.
By the same rationale, bikes could be considered a Rube Goldberg machine that people use to indicate status. Maybe not extreme wealth, but signalling physical fitness, plenty of leisure time, disposable income, etc.
Of course that's probably not the case with you. It's likely you personally have deeper motivations than simply indicating status.
I'm not trying to corner you here, and I hope you see how these explanations of the situations are the same except in one case you're the actor, in the other you're the observer.
Anyone who buys a watch for the status is going to be disappointed. A $200,000 car will get you laid quick. A $200,000 watch wouldn't get noticed except by geeks you wouldn't want to bed down anyway. Fortunately, in 10 years, at least the latter will still be worth roughly just as much if not more while the former would be depreciated to less than half the value if that.
my mechanical watch keeps telling good time for days when I go out camping, whereas my phone will be dead or out of service. Otherwise, generally when I need to know the time, it's at the end of a night out and I'd like to catch the bus, or at least know if theres still another bus coming. My phone tends to be on its last legs by that point, and frequently is dead
another benefit is charging -- when I'm wearing a watch, I wind it instead of fidgeting, and I'm not stuck waiting at an outlet for my phone to charge.
I like watches but if you consider silicon as a tiny electromechanical movement, stuff like the Garmin Fenix 5 totally blows away even the most complex movements which are purely physical. It might be neat to combine old+new and make something like a watch with a physical step-counter mechanism but also Bluetooth (which would somehow read the mechanical step counter and sync with your phone).
Because it's inaccurate. After a while it's going to gain or loose a couple of seconds.
I have a couple of G Shock, some with solar rechargeable and atomic radio sync.
Even when in countries with no atomic radio signal I can sync my laptop using ntp and use a Java program + headset / speaker to mimic atomic radio signal to sync my clock automatically.
As an computing professional, I find mechanical watches to be inelegant and ugly. I mean, they're basically designed to be inelegant, the word "complication" is used as a positive description.
I just can't get into it. I think an impressive electronic watch is more interesting to me; though there doesn't seem to be much interest in these being made, so the most fun I can have is with Timex. I think smartwatches are the electronic equivalent of mechanical watches: inelegant, gaudy, and utterly pointless.
No, they are not designed to be inelegant and "ugly", they are designed to function without the need for electricity.
A digital watch like Casio or Timex are designed to be practical, but your taste is pretty....unorthodox if you think a Timex or Casio looks better than a beautifully crafted mechanical piece.
Your statement about smartwatche is also...bizarre, especially since you just praised Timex. But again, I think you have a very different definition for words such as "elegant" and "gaudy" than most people out there.
> No, they are not designed to be inelegant and "ugly", they are designed to function without the need for electricity.
Yeah, and electronic watches are designed to function without mechanical intervention. You say this like electrical systems are somehow less reliable than mechanical systems; and it couldn't be further from the truth.
Complication is inelegant. Adding jewels to hidden parts of your mechanism is bound to make it more prone to failure, considerably harder to build, and with no tangible benefit. It's a status thing, like pouring champagne on the floor or having a seven-car garage full of vintages and imports. In my opinion, all this flaunting shows a lack of class. It becomes about how much of your income you put toward useless nonsense.
I put complicated mechanical watches right up there with oxygen-free all-silver HDMI cables, pretending that vinyl sounds better than CD, and using "organic" household cleaners.
It's not a status thing...necessarily. There are a lot of people, myself included, who enjoy collecting mechanical watches and don't flaunt them. If you're wearing a Rolex Yachtmaster, yes alright maybe it's a status thing. If you're wearing a Patek, Lange, or VC it's probably for legitimate appreciation though. They are understated and virtually unknown outside of collectors or people who know collectors. You'd be very disappointed if you were wearing them for status - almost no one would recognize them on you.
Try not to compare peoples' hobbies to "pouring champagne on the floor." You may not think they're legitimate, but that doesn't make it so. I'm happy to admit that mechanical watches are inefficient and poor timekeeping devices compared to modern technology. But they're supposed to be a form of art that you personally enjoy that happen to tell the time. Comparing mechanical watches to electronic ones on the basis of utility is missing the point (and so is calling them a status symbol).
My original response is not about it being a valid hobby or not. I'm simply saying that there's nothing about mechanical watches which should seem particularly attractive to a software developer, which was the original assertion of lunaru.
A "Developer" should have an appreciation of quality engineering in any form -
At my first Job at CIT one of the other tenants had a side biz in rebuilding spitfires and we used to all go out a watch when they where showing it off - if seeing and hearing a spitfire doesn't make your heart sing then I am sad for you
Yes, because your taste represent all software developers right?
I'm a software developer, I've worked at YC startups as well as big companies like Google, and I have a degree in Computer Engineering so I know the hardware side of things as well.
I am not into mechanical watches at all, but I see a big point that is common with software: the incredible scale of the complexity that can be reached by a craftsman. You often have to go into large scale engineering to find that in other fields.
I'm speaking particularly of the purely-decorative ones; or the ones added to up the "jewel count" to some nice round figure for sales. I doubt that those have any positive impact on the functioning of the device.
You won't find many manufacturers (if any) that use jewels in the movement for anything other than efficiency purposes. Rubies are actually one of the most low friction natural materials known to man, so watchmakers have been using them in movements for a long time.
Only recently have we started seeing more advanced materials/alloys being used in lieu of Rubies.
I think you may be referring and responding negatively to decorative watches found in fashion stores typically sold for a few hundred dollars. The mechanical watches discussed here and in the original article are in a different universe.
Woah, you don't know much about watchmaking do you? Can you name one single respected watchmaker that adds jewels to increase "jewel count"? Hell, not a single haute horology house advertises how many jewels they have in their movement. They simply label it, and you won't see it in any marketing material because it's irrelevant.
Jewel inflation used to be a big thing in the 60s and 70s, with watches advertising 70+ jewels,most of them completely non-functional. These days there are standards on how jewels can be counted and it doesn't occur that much. It's mostly only done by the cheaper brands.
How is having a seven car garage the same as pouring champagne onto the floor? What if you legitimately like cars? It's not like they drive them into trees to show off they can afford them.
I'm sorry, but you sound extremely shallow minded, if not downright bitter, about some people's hobby just because they are expensive.
And no, jewels are used in watch movements for legit reasons, and no haute horology manufacturers add them for the sake of status symbol, you are just making it up there.
I actually don't think you know much about mechanical watches at all, and if you think mechanical engineering is the same as Monster's cables...then I really don't know what to tell you.
>Adding jewels to hidden parts of your mechanism is bound to make it more prone to failure, considerably harder to build, and with no tangible benefit.
The "jewels" you find inside a watch movement actually do serve a purpose. They're there to reduce the friction between metal parts at the points of heaviest wear like bearings and pivots. Also, they are mostly extremely inexpensive synthetic rubies.
I started out just loving Rolex Bubblebacks--years ago. I loved all watches. I started learning about the repair of watches. It took me a awhile to accumulate the right tools, at the right price. In order to be be efficent, it did take me a few years, but it was a hobby for myself.
The love of mechanical watches will just come around for a lot of people. I haven't figured if it's because certain people like precisely engineered items, like Apple products, or it's kinda the only acceptable form of adornment for men in all cultures, or men are subconsciously aware they die earlier than females.(Yes--some women just love all aspects of horology, but in my experience, it a different passion than men. Plus--I can't sell women's high end watches. It's so difficult, I don't even buy them for resale anymore. It's changing a bit though, especially with the Fitbit, and even female Rolexes are not sitting on a website for years anymore.
That said, once you imerce yourself in watch repair, there's a moment where you look at an older Rolex movement, and a say a modified(usually just engine work on the movement) on a better ETA movement, and don't see why a Rolex costs so much more. Yes, their are differences quality differences, but not to the tune of thousand of dollars more. Basically, a Rolex, Patek, IWC, etc., were machined to be easily taken apart. A lot of thought was put into ease of repair. It's ironic you can't buy parts for said watches from the factory?
And here I go, that Rolex some of you are wearing on your wrist, when it goes out of warranty, you won't be able to have just anyone repair it. Rolex, the Swatch Group, along with most of the other watch brands will have you send your timepiece back to the factory when it needs a service, or repair. At factory prices. I refuse to spend $800 on a clean, and lube.
See, when you buy that $10,000 watch, even if you spent years learning how to repair, they won't sell you parts, or even offer service diagrams. It's like buying a car, and having to take it to the dealership fir repairs forever, and not being able to buy parts for it.
Seiko is one watch company that still sells parts to consumers.
O.k.--what's my point? Certain high end watch companies, appear to be guilty of The Sherman Anti-trust Act. Yes--the federal government looked into it, but figured it wasen't a top priority, and called it a rich man's problem.
To those interested, a grey market watch, like those at Costco, were bought overseas at overseas prices. Rolex warranty will not honor those watches if they stop, even if under warranty.).
I just read the post about GI's not being able to code. If you happen to like watches, there's a few watch repair schools left on the world. Rolex is sponsoring many of them. They need technicians at their factories. Many schools offer free tuition, but not boarding. It's not a bad deal.
And again--if you're about to spend thousands on a fine watch, call the watch company and ask about parts, and "just what will happen when it goes out of warranty, and needs a service?".
Hey, what brands would you recommend? I'm fairly interested in mechanical watches myself (own a Seiko) but you bring up some good points I've never read/heard of before.
They're easy to take apart and put back together, and spare parts for the more common movements can be easily sourced.
Their range spans from cheap to models far beyond the price-range and complexity of the most well-known Swiss brand.
Also, as a brand, it's far more prestigious than is usually assumed (because they're mainly known for their high volume models), with everything produced in-house, from the oil, to the rubies, and the alligator leather straps.
They also have a long and impressive history, up to and including getting kicked out of European accuracy competitions because they made the rest look bad.
Your modest unassuming Seiko has a lot more to it than you probably suspected.
Also, everything about them (when done well) sounds like a top developer's wet dream, from the design, development, and down to the extremely rigorous QA processes around building these mechanical marvels.
In particular, this "inside rolex" piece from the Hodinkee website is a must-read, and I believe was also posted to HN a few months ago: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex