Horological Meandering

The biggest qualm I have is the tourbillon. To begin with, the tourbillon is an invention to solve problems in a pocket watch - which usually resides in a vertical position, inside a person's pocket. Specifically, it is to average the rate errors that pop up when the balance wheel is vertical - which back then was difficult to balance/poise. This is because more than a century ago, balance wheels are made of bi-metallic strips (to compensate temperature errors) with sliding weights on it. These things which can flex and bend, make a perfectly poised balance wheel quite difficult (think about balancing your car rims, but a hundred years ago without modern machinery). 

The conflict is that these are meant to be marine chronometer clocks. In other words, they are suspended by two gimbals, so that by gravity the weight will orientate the clock so it is always facing upwards, in a horizontal position. In other words, this is not meant to be mounted as a wall clock (i.e. vertical position), but is something mounted on a pedestal and a navy captain would walk over, as if reading off a flat table. 

Since the clock lies in a horizontal position, the tangible benefits of a tourbillon is very little. In fact, the double gimbal already serves as a "simple" solution to ensure the clock will never see the vertical position, which is difficult to adjust for (a modern day example of this is the Zenith Zero-G Gimbal watch, which is a technically superfluous solution that installs two gimbals inside the geartrain itself, but I digress). Thus, I feel that the implementation of both a double gimbal and a tourbillon is mostly redundant, and a sheer expression of luxury. Of course, we have to be realistic that these things are designed as luxury, but to what extent is it sensible?

My other comment is just personal preference - I think aesthetically the movement would looks more coherent if the screws were not blued for the steel or rhodium-plated parts. Some watchmakers observe this tradition, I believe due to colour contrast. So for instance, Patek, Lange, George Daniels, etc. are quite careful to ensure that blued screws only goes into brass parts, and non-blued screws are used for the steelwork and rhodium-plated bridges.

That out of the way, I feel the double fusee and chain is beautifully overkill, and has a tangible benefit on paper for even power distribution. Especially, with such a tall fusee and barrel that can only feasibly be done on a clock, which gives a huge sense of depth in the movement. Also, unlike some large clocks, the wheels in this movement looks like as if it was designed for an oversized pocket watch - i.e. lots of tiny, stakced wheels to drive mechanisms, instead of singular large gears. It portrays a sense of intricacy.

But I don't own a yacht, so that comment is fairly moot...

Regards,

skyeriding

More posts: George Daniels

  login to reply