Patek Philippe

Hello,

are there any wristwatch experts out there that can talk about Fusee and Chain?  A. Lange & Sohne, my second favorite watch brand after Patek Philippe puts Fusee and Chain in their "Pour Le Merite" line of watches.

What is it that Patek does in this regard.  I have read that Fusee is a dated part of a watch that has generally not been used since the 1970's, I have read the History of the Fusee, where it makes a pocketwatch or a Marine Ship Watch more accurate.  What is the sugnificance of the Fusee and Chain today?  Is there any importance?  Are their other more accurate measures being used that makes the Fusee obsolete.  I am not talking about Quarts or electronics but mechanical measures that makes the Fusee obsolete?

Thanks

 

 

Hi parkavenue740,

The only companies that currently manufacture movements with fusee and chain mechanisms are Lange and Cabestan to my knowledge.  Lange was the first company to manufacture a wristwatch with a fusee and, while it may be true that marine chronometers continued using them to some extent until the 1970s (I really don't have any idea, but I'll take your word for it), they fell out of fashion for all other purposes in portable mechanical timekeepers at least a hundred years or so before that.

Fusees attempt to regulate/stabilize the power flow as near as possible to the source (the mainspring/barrel) in an effort to keep balance ampltiude consistent and thereby improve the consistency of the rate over the run time of the watch.  Back when mainsprings were of questionable consistency, this was a critical concern as the amount of power delivered when fully wound was huge compared to that available even after a few hours.  Fusees were introduced to counteract this problem, but they are fantastically complex (involving hundreds of tiny parts) and must be carefully designed for a given movement or even a given mainspring's power curve in order to do their job very well.  Escapement design was not as thoroughly optimized at that time either, making the consistency of the power flow available at the escapement more critical to good timekeeping and hairspring/oscillator designs also had greater inherent isochronism errors, making the ultimate rate of  the watch much more dependent on smooth power flow than they are today.  A the time that they were in fashion, fusees did the job better than any other alternatives despite the difficulties present in manufacturing them.

As technologies have evolved, we have better mainsprings, better escapements and better hairsprings, and the result is more consistent power flow, better escapement response across a wider range of power inputs and better isochronism across a wider range of amplitudes.  All of this adds up to fusees not making any sense from any practical standpoint.  Lange very clearly understood this when they came out with the Pour Le Merite and undertook the fantastically difficult and labor intensive task of putting a fusee and chain into a wristwatch purely for the artistic/artisanal/craftsmanship sake of doing it.

Patek's engineering and design is generally speaking driven by functional performance enhancing initiatives, whether they be actual rate performance gains, greater ease of serviceability, greater longevity of the various components or increased reliability.  Sure, they polish up the bits nicely and decorate all the little wheels and nubbins, but you won't find too many superfluous chatons or archaic swan's neck regulators in Patek Philippe movements.  It's just not what they're about (and thank god for that IMHO).

_john

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello John,

What you say makes alot of sence John.  I think your right that Patek Philippe is more a practicle Mechanical type of Company and A. Lange is more Mechanical Art, and lastly Vacheron Constantin is even more artsy and The Diamond Watches, where Patek focuses on the Meat and Potatoes of Time Mechanics and what is relevant and what is not relevent.

John would you wager that the Richard Lange Observatory Watch is no less accurate than the Richard Lange "Pour Le Merite" which has the Fusee and Chain in the wristwatch?

It sounds like The Fusee and Chain is now merely a mechanical work of art and not a needed component for an accurate wristwatch in this day in age, much like the fact that The Tourbillon will not make the watch more accurate but is merely a decoration?  Since as we all know when wearing a watch and moving it up and down will cause the Tourbillon not usefull for time accuracy.

Like the fact that Patek Philippe doesn't do a whole lot with designing Skeleton Watches or Diamond Watches the way that Vacheron Constantin does, or this Fusee and Chain that A. Lange & Sohne does?

Thomas

 

 

 

Hi Thomas,

I've never tested a Richard Lange or certainly a Richard Lange PLM for accuracy "in the lab" or "on the wrist", but I imagine that you'd find more sample variation in rate consistency across positions and states of wind with either model than you would consistently better isochronism from one to the other. What I mean is, any potential performance gains would not be addressing the largest sources of variability from the perspective of the end user and so would likely not be noticed. This is just conjecture on my part, but we're talking about watches that are capable of accuracy on the order of a few seconds a day anyway so...

_john

nt

The Breguet Marie Antoinette pocketwatch should also have a chain fusee.

The new Breguet La Tradition Tourbilllon may is also to feature a chain fusee.

Patek to my knowledge has not produced a chain fusee watch yet.

How does the Fusee and Chain in difficulty and complexity when compared to the Minute Repeater, Tourbillion, Split second chronograph, celestial?

Anyones wristwatch wisdom will be much appreciated

are complications, IMHO.

Tourbillon and chronograph are not. 

I have seen 12 pieces of very nice tourbillon produced by Seagull two days ago with average price of USD4,000.

I have seen cheap working but fake AP RO chronograph and many more.

So far, I have not seen fake fusee & chain, minute repeater, split second or celestial.

Regards

Ling  

Hi,

I know that a tourbillon is generally not considered a complication as it brings no function, but if you see how tiny it is, I hardly see it as un-complicated! 

A fusee-chaine device is not more a complication than a tourbillon in the same logic!

The date is a complicaiton in itself!

Cheers

Dje

perhaps, individual definition of complications differs.

Based on your logic, every watch is a complication to me.

 

Regards

Ling

Hi,

Specially since we already have the time on the fridge! 

AFAIK a complication is something that is added to the indication of the hours, the minutes and the seconds!

So in this logic a PP 5101 is not a complicated watch but a JLC Master Tourbillon is (for the date and the second time zone)!

I agree that this kind of definition has its limitations, but it is not mine. That's what I've read in the last 20 years!!

In fact creating shared definitions is one of the main subjects of work at the FHH!

Patek Philippe has a range of "Grandes complications" but AFAIK it is of common acceptance that "grandes complications" watches must have a minute repeater, a perpetual calendar and a chronograph (some even add a split second). PP didn't make that many in wristwatches (only one piece I think).

I confess I can admit the 5101 as a complicated watch! I don't see it as a "grande complication" though, but as a very nicely made complicated watch yes!!

Cheers

Dje

Hi,

It seems that the Minute Repeater and the Split second Chronograph are the   most complex and then the Tourbillionto a lesser degree, and The Perpetual Calendar   simple chronograph and Ten day watch and World time even less complicated.         

Consider this, the chain and fusee was actually a technology from 200 years ago. But it didn't work, largely because manufacturing those tiny components simply couldn't be done consistently 200 years ago.

Today, we can make it thanks to advanced machinery that is designed to manufacture such tiny components and devices.

In terms of complexity, it isn't a complex idea rather it's actually a very basic idea, but it is complex in implementation. For instance, a perpetual calendar is a complex idea and complex to implement.

The chain and fusee is something very special. I might consider it to be more fascinating than a tourbillon (since virtually every watch company has a tourbillon these days, I think there's even a Louis Vuitton tourbillon). However, in terms of normal complications, I still find the minute repeater and the perpetual calendar to be my favorite complications.

In terms of movement powertrain, my favorite complications in this category are dual escapement movements, chain and fusee movements, and lastly tourbillon movements (especially tourbillons that rotate on a less normal axis).