most of life is lived.
Hi, MKVC,
I know you, so I understand your passion, and how that passion can sometimes be translated to absolutism.
But in this case, I can't walk away from some of the comments -
ceteris paribus, a larger movement will outperform a smaller movement.
True.
But the world is almost NEVER ceteris paribus.
Even if one were to take the EXACT same movement but simply scale out ALL parts, EXACTLY, so the EXACT same movement is simply larger, and therefore, ceteris paribus, "will outperform the smaller version" - sorry, the physics are not that simple. Spring rates and performance, production tolerances, materials tolerances, etc will not "simply" scale out like that. (of course, it's even more complex the other way around, scaling down)
But of course, you probably meant a larger movement "in general" (not the exact same movement, simply larger) will outperform a smaller movement.
Generally true, but again, there are so many counter examples as to render such a statement moot. The large Unitas movement is a well performing, well proven movement, but I'm not sure how many people would want it in lieu of a PP 215 or AP 2003 in a "fine" watch.
So the statement is a bit misleading, intentionally or unintentionally.
Which then leads us to the following paragraph, with its pretty strong closing sentence.
The casual reader looking for easy answers will find these rallying cries for future "Off with their heads" pitchfork and torch diatribes.
I'm sure you don't mean it is easy for a "reputable" brand to simply design and produce a larger movement, to their commensurate standards, to go with each "upsize" in case size.
Or that they should substitute, for example, a Unitas or Valjoux 7750 for a "fine" Venue or Lemania (or other inhouse) movement when they upsize their case for a new line.
;-)
Cheers, and of course, all written with all due respect; we know each other, outside the virtual "real world" so the comments are limited strictly to the ideas and their expression, nothing personal.
TM