Watches! What do y'all have on your wrists?

[watchnerd]

You are about the same age as my Speedy

I was born about 9 months after Buzz Aldrin's Speedmaster walked on the moon.

Precisely when is contested, as I have two different birth certificates with two different dates.

 

[raistlin65]

Sure, but a good mechanical movement can run 10-20 years before it needs service. I believe the shorter factory-recommended service intervals are more about keeping watchmakers in business, than what the watch actually needs. And servicing it more often than necessary doesn't do it any favors, more like to cause harm than good.

From an entirely pragmatic perspective, a motion powered quartz like Seiko kinetic is ideal. The accuracy of quartz, no batteries to ever replace (it stores power in a capacitor, not a battery). I have one that is now 20 years old, still running like new, always exactly 0.5 seconds fast every day. If I stow it in a drawer, it goes to sleep to conserve energy while keeping time. I can pick up over a year later, shake it, and the hands will wake up and move to the correct time.

Good quartz movements can also last for decades.

I have heard that Seiko Kinetics now use a lithium-ion battery that lasts 10 to 15 years. And the older capacitors can off gas as they get older, which can break down the oils in the movement.

 

[raistlin65]

That's where we differ.

Also, in terms of resale value, quartz generally do worse.

Example:

Compare a quartz Omega 300m Seamaster vs the purely mechanical in terms of resale value over time.

Seamasters don't fit my budget range. lol

 

[MRC01]

Good quartz movements can also last for decades. ...

True; my point was that for most quartz you have to open them up to replace the battery every year or two. This makes them higher maintenance than most mechanical automatics.

Unless the quartz is Seiko kinetic or Citizen eco-drive, which make up only a small % of quartz watches.

 

[watchnerd]

Seamasters don't fit my budget range. lol

At the risk of starting a flame war:

Unless you get the Seamaster Ploprof, I don't think you're missing out on something with the 300m that can't be had similarly from a ton of other makers.

I sold my 300m Seamaster because it wasn't as good as an actual dive watch as some of my other watches.

 

[MRC01]

Yes, they're [mechanical timepieces] like turntables.

I like the analogy. However, a good mechanical watch is much closer to quartz in accuracy, than a turntable is to digital audio!

 

[Frank Dernie]

As I've gotten more into vintage watches, I've realized it's all about the story.

Especially if the watch is old, rare, and was worn by a celebrity / in a movie.

Those original Submariner 6538 as worn by Sean Connery or Steve McQueen Heuer Monaco being examples that come readily to mind.

I have absolute zero in watches that are in those categories. They are the ones which totally baffle me when they sell for high prices.

 

[watchnerd]

I have absolute zero in watches that are in those categories. They are the ones which totally baffle me when they sell for high prices.

I guess you won't be buying one of the umpteenth variations and reiterations of the "James Bond" Seamaster, each one re-imagined with each movie release to create a new product placement and sales opportunity for Omega:

 

[watchnerd]

I like the analogy. However, a good mechanical watch is much closer to quartz in accuracy, than a turntable is to digital audio!

Which tells time more accurately:

A quartz watch on earth, or a fully mechanical watch traveling at relativistic velocities?

From the point of view of, say, 1 year elapsed time on earth.

 

[MRC01]

When it comes to unique watches, I prefer something that is unique due to its own design or construction, rather than unique for secondary reasons like how many were made or used by a celebrity.

 

[watchnerd]

When it comes to unique watches, I prefer something that is unique due to its own design or construction, rather than unique for secondary reasons like how many were made or used by a celebrity.

I have a similar attitude.

But celebrity sells.

Rolex, Omega, etc pay huge money to their brand ambassadors for a reason.

 

[MRC01]

Which tells time more accurately:

A quartz watch on earth, or a fully mechanical watch traveling at relativistic velocities?

From the point of view of, say, 1 year elapsed time on earth.

Assuming the acceleration is smooth so it doesn't destroy the watch, it shouldn't matter. Time dilation should affect both equally. That is, it shouldn't matter whether the watch is mechanical or quartz because it's time itself that is shifting.

From what I read here, a year in polar orbit (about 18,000 mph) makes about 0.02 seconds of relativistic time shift. No conventional watch (quartz or mechanical) is anywhere close to that accuracy. I believe you could measure that with an atomic clock.

 

[watchnerd]

I like the analogy. However, a good mechanical watch is much closer to quartz in accuracy, than a turntable is to digital audio!

Good analogies are always better directionally than they are specifically.

 

[watchnerd]

Time dilation should affect both equally.

Sorry.

I meant if one is undergoing time dilation and the other isn't.

If the mechanical watch is undergoing time dilation (traveling at, say, .9 C) and the quartz mechanical watch remains on earth.

In other words:

On January 1, I get in a space ship and fly away at 0.9 C and return to earth on December 31 of that same year, earth time. I'm wearing a purely mechanical watch.

Meanwhile, my friend Bob is wearing his battery powered quartz watch mechanical back on earth.

When I get back to earth on 12/31, if we both compare our watches to NIST, whose watch has drifted more?

(ignoring the date feature of the watches)

 

[Frank Dernie]

I guess you won't be buying one of the umpteenth variations and reiterations of the "James Bond" Seamaster, each one re-imagined with each movie release to create a new product placement and sales opportunity for Omega:

Indeed not.

 

[watchnerd]

I just noticed the rose gold knife in this picture...

Maybe if you're diving in Dubai?

 

[raistlin65]

Watch change

 

[MRC01]

... I meant if one [mechanical vs. quartz timepiece] is undergoing time dilation and the other isn't.
If the mechanical watch is undergoing time dilation (traveling at, say, .9 C) and the quartz mechanical watch remains on earth. ...

It seems to me that the watch's inherent accuracy & precision should be completely unchanged by relativistic time dilation or length contraction. Whether it operates mechanically or electrically shouldn't matter; both are based on laws of physics, which are valid in both reference frames.
Perhaps there is a point I'm missing.

Perhaps acceleration physically affects a mechanical watch more than a quartz, with variable effect depending on the orientation of the direction of acceleration to the watch movement. Clearly, this is true because mechanical watches run slightly faster or slower in different positions relative to Earth's gravity. But if so, this would have nothing to do with relativity.

 

[Balle Clorin]

Hamilton Khaki Field Automatic Black Dial Men's Watch H70555533 H70555533 - Watches, Hamilton - Jomashop

 

[watchnerd]

It seems to me that the watch's inherent accuracy & precision should be completely unchanged by relativistic time dilation or length contraction. Whether it operates mechanically or electrically shouldn't matter; both are based on laws of physics, which are valid in both reference frames.
Perhaps there is a point I'm missing.

Errors are drift in beats per minute.

If there are fewer total beats due to traveling at relativist velocities, the total error rate should change relative to more beats in the earth frame.

Obviously, yes, within their own reference from frame its moot.

But in the example I gave started and ended in the same reference frame (earth) with relativistic travel in between (fewer total beats) for 1 of the watches.

Or to frame it differently:

Does a purely mechanical watch drift more in 1 day* than a quartz watch drifts in 1 year?

*I have no idea if time dilation at .9 C is actually at a 1/365 ratio relative to earth. It's just a simple example.