Horological Meandering

SteveG
1529

• Show profile
• Show other posts

According to Fritz von Osterhausen...

paraphrasing from his book "Wristwatch Chronometers":

The term "chronometer" began in 1715 with English watchmaker Jeremy Thacker, for a sea watch using a verge movement. John Arnold extended the use to pocketwatches in 1782 for those having spring or pivoted detent escapements. When the Swiss designed lever escapements with equivalent or better precision, the term came to indicate the high precision, rather than the escapement type. In 1925, the Swiss Association for Chronometry said: "A chronometer is a watch which has received a certificate from an astronomical observatory".

Which I think serves to point out that while the COSC has attempted to claim ownership of the term 'chronometer', they are not even the first to do so, and certainly there are powerful reasons not to accept their sovereignty.  Notably, FP Journe has marked his watches as chronometers, without COSC certification, and I suspect there are others.

The notion of a chronometer as a reliable, predictable, isochronic, and accurate timekeeper I think still has merit, even if one might be suspicious of the process of manufacture self-evaluation.  Other examples which come to mind include Seiko (Grand Seiko testing and certification) and JLC (Master Control testing).  Given the ease with which mass-produced movements are evidently able to meet COSC standards, it seems reasonable that a legitimate manufacture is as qualified to award the term as the COSC.

As a lover of mid-20th-century chronometers, my personal preference is for watches which are designed to be regulated to a very high standard, and then proven as individually conforming by some credible agent.