Marcus Hanke
[PuristSPro Moderator]
11295
In which direction should the technical innovation go? (long! take your time!) ...
Originally, I started this comment as a reply to Charles' post down below:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=201110&messageid=1114389739
In spite of its thought-provoking phrasing, unfortunately nobody wanted to offer his own opinion about this.
Modern materials are one, if not the most important way to make mechanical watches easier to maintain. Especially due to the fact, that the permanent increase of production output of complicated pieces is met by a permanent decrease of able service watchmakers. I am not speaking of the marvelous and gifted young independent masters, who create their own pieces, but the "infantry" watchmakers without own brand ambitions, who are able to service and repair simple and complicated watch movements quickly and reliable. These become rarer and rarer, so sooner or later, those wonderfully complications sold today might have to rest in drawers, because there is no service infrastructure.
To lengthen service intervals will become a major sales argument in the next time, I am sure about that. Of course this cannot be met by fulfilling the same purpose with even more parts. Therefore, in spite of my personal high respect for the accomplishment as such, I doubt that the Daniels co-axial escapement will have a future. Contrary to what had been stated originally, it still needs lubrication, albeit less so, but the small advantage is more than nullified by the - compared with conventional arbor escapements - highly complex layout.
I think that Ludwig Oechslin showed the right direction by reducing the watch movement to as few parts as possible, as shown in the "Freak". One should not forget that keeping the escapement lubricated is only a part on the path to the service-free movement: All parts in the power transmission have to run smoothly as well. So where is the advantage of a lubrication-free movement, when the watch still has to be sent to the service centre every five years, for disassembly, cleaning and lubrication of all the other moving parts? Therefore, in my humble opinion, replacing but one anchor wheel by one made from silicone, as done by Patek now, while leaving the complete rest of the movement unchanged, barely has any practical advantages regarding serviceablility, in my humble opinion. I think that the idea must be to simplify the whole movement, or to make it indpendent from frequent service. Maybe the idea, featured in last year's Heuer V4, by using belts, has some future potential? However, for now, I think that this approach was a dead end from the very beginning.
the only other way to bypass the upcoming service crisis would be to use standardized parts as much as possible. ETA rules. Any watchmaker with decent training should be able to service a 2824 or 2892. and spare parts are ample in supply. However, this solution completely contradicts the current trend on the market, which tries to go away from the standard ETA base movement, towards the independently developed and produced unique in-house movement. We watch enthusaists are not fond of the idea to have an expensive watch, powered by a common movement, even if it is a very good one, as the 2892. If we pay are major sum, we want something more exclusive. But are we ready to spend major sumes every five years, and to wait several months, only to have standard service applied to the watch?
The big complications boom in mechanical watches is not old, so not many of these watches were due for service. But what if all the tourbillons and perpetuals sold since two years have to be disassembled, cleaned, re-lubed and assembled? Where are watchmakers competent enough to do this? How many young watchmakers are now leaving the schools each year? In Germany, this is a handful only, in Switzerland and Austria the situation is not better. At the same time, production numbers of the brands offering mechanical watches are steadily increasing. The urgend demand for service work will of course further raise the prices, and sooner or later, the problematic situation can negatively affect the sales of new watches as well.
Therefore, in my opinion, innovation in the development of mechanical watches must be concentrated on serviceability, other issues are irrelevant. This specifically includes accuracy. Some still deplore that the ancient pursuit for accuracy has slowed down, or even has disappeared from the watch manufacturers' agenda. Rightly so, I think, since all mechanical timepieces today are accurate enough to meet any conventional timekeeping requirements. Those who need a higher accuracy can find it in radio-controlled quartz watches. Maybe there are still some problematic situations negatively affecting the accuracy and reliability of mechanical watches, especially vibrations, shock and massive temperature changes. I would say that to make mechanical movements less prone to these influences is a minor issue that should not divert ressources from the solution of the serviceability problem, since conventional movements already perform satisfactory nowadays (anybody ever had a real shock, vibration or temperature problem with his Rolex, or 2824/2892 watch?). In this respect, a problem awareness is created by the brands, without any real problem existing.
Well, this has become a long statement, and I sincerely hope that it will not drift into oblivion too soon. So please feel free to add your comments and opinions, even (better: especially) if they are contrary to mine. I am looking forward to see some discussion!
With best regards,
Marcus