Independents

I think I didn't post these pictures when I took them several months ago. If I already did it, sorry !

Maybe my fav Greubel-Forsey watch !











I hope to see it again at the Salon Belles Montres.

Fr.Xavier

The case has a very special shape but it doesn't disturb proportions ... very nice wristshot ....

Thanks for the post FX !!

Filip

but i saw that piece, the double tourb and the other 30* i believe it was at an AD... asked for a loupe and spent quite a bit of time with it and i was not very impressed with the finishing on the movement to be honest.. the tourb was gorgeous and the way they set it up to be a "double tourb" but the finishing of the plates, gears, etc i just dont think were as good as it should have been for the pricepoint of the piece..

if you took a loupe to the piece, im very curious to hear your thoughts on the quality...

i will say the dial was stunning, the tourbillon design mechanically was stunning.. but the finishing is where i am being overly critical.. but i feel for the price that should be over the top as with a journe/etc..

Hi, Riley,

Honesty and candor, politely presented, is not only welcome here, but strongly encouraged.

I am very curious what specifically underwhelmed you about the finishing?

The frosted finish? The anglage? Any more specifics?

The G-F pieces I've seen are among the best finished in the industry compared to ANY OTHER company's, including Journes.

Like their DESIGN STYLE or not, most industry specialists, including Mr. Dufour himself, have made similar comments to me.

Are you maybe referring to STYLE of finishing (subjective taste matter) or finish quality as a relatively more objective matter?

Very curious for clarification.

Best,

TM

and involves considerable work.  As far as I have ever seen, and I have seen a few GF watches, their finishing is second to none.  Their bevelled edging and polish (on the surfaces that require it) is peerless and hence am wondering what area of the watch you were looking.  If you were looking at the titanium cage for the 24 second tourbillon, then true, it will not have the same polish as the rhodium or gold as it is a very difficult metal to polish to that type of finish.  GF stretch the finish on the titanium as far as possible (compare with the finish for the same metal on other watches with titanium parts).

I have to say, and not being confrontational in all of this, but I am dubious of your comment and if you could point out the parts where you witnessed where the finish was less than satisfactory, then perhaps that would be a start to the discussion.

Regards

Andrew H

i understand no geneva stripes...and im sorry for my lack of exact terminology...

the beveled edge has inconsitencies and the corners were not as crisp as i feel they should be....in some areas's the corner seemed almost rounded off... other areas such as the plate below the back plate i feel the finishing was not what it should for the price paid..(this would be subjective and opinion as i did not care for the finish chosen and felt it looked very cheap)..

not saying the piece was rubbish but for anything over 150k my standards go up and i just dont see this piece being worth the price paid with the finishing done... yes the tourbillon is a work of art both physically and design wise.. but the finishing could be tended to a little better.. so my judgement is part taste (opinion) and part me just looking to close at items... i remember there being other flaws i was somewhat bothered with,... but was 2 months ago.. i remember vaugely looking in on the tourbillon.. on the side "wall" housing the tourbillon their was a small mark and also the crystal on the side viewing area did not fit tightly against the case as if it was popping out... im not sure if this is usual with a strange shape crystal as my first URWERK the crystal stuck out considerably... and was not flush with the case whatsoever which i thought maybe was normal and maybe to protect the case.. but the second URWERK i got as replacement for flaws on #1 the crystal was almost flush and other things fixed as well. wish i had the piece in front of me to go into more detail, but i will admit parts were based on my opinion.. but other things such as the corners and a mark i remember wre not. This message has been edited by rijowysock on 2008-11-26 07:08:38

nothing against GF in any way, i feel that maybe i was being to harsh given the nature of their pieces and constructed and assembled im sure by hand which would then lead to small flaws..... but then again i have seen other pieces such as a friends dead second journe tourbillon, another friends AP concept tourbillon (alacrite version), and a couple of high profile pieces (unfortunately no defour) but with these pieces with the time taken. no flaws were seen by my eyes.. again im not a master watchmaker so i just look for the basic things i know and notice... but i do distinctly remember the visit to the GF AD... ..

magnified, you can note how the finish may not look exact as the polished surface meets the 'frosted', but the anglage and bevelled edges are perfectly done and exact.  Note the reflection of one angle in the polished edge of another plate.  All angles are tested both by human eye and by electronic imaging.  Notice the perlage and polish to the background plates.  What you see in the photo above is completely hand finished and the frosted surfaces are finished twice: once before the frosting and then after again. Screws are counter-sunk into polished holes. 

As I said, happy with everyone expressing their opinions, but wondering how what you saw managed to make it through GF's very stringent quality control.  I have seen it at first hand and they are fanatical about it.

 Andrew H

Ps.  For further detail see here:

general.watchprosite.com

 

I too respect Greubel Forsey's standard of finishing, the frosted plates are subtle yet exude quality. I am surprised to see them compared unfavourably to Journe, while his finishing has improved since the atrocious finishing of his early brass movement pieces, he is still not a watchmaker who focuses on fine finishing. I admire and respect Journe's timepieces for their beautiful design and complications, but certainly not the finishing.

- SJX

and maybe my inferences were not justified and were more led by opinion on most factors.. as i guess even the crisp'ness of a corner could be related to opinion versus fact...

the journe dead seconds tourb i viewed was actually at a location with a master watchmaker for one of the BIG guys there.. and after i looked at the piece in awe.. even the watchmaker was taken back with the piece.
i guess ill leave my opinions to myself in the future rather than voice what i felt after seeing the piece for fear of being called out on what looked flawed to me.. at least i know im not crazy when it came to the URWERK as once returned even the seller commented on the flaws... This message has been edited by rijowysock on 2008-11-26 08:51:37

There is a notable reluctance on these boards to say anything critical, and sometimes the messenger gets shot, metaphorically speaking of course.

Or ignored, if you're not one of the "regular crowd."

Usually what few critical comments there are have to do with reliability issues, frequent servicing requirements, or the time required for servicing. Such posts will often be followed by a spate of posts reminding the poster that they've purchased a one-of-a-kind work of art from an artisan, not a big corporate conglomerate, and different rules apply.

These boards are what the posters make of them. This is not a particularly contentious or free-wheeling place, and while that has certain drawbacks, it has certain benefits too. There isn't a lot of drama, and you can certainly obtain a lot of good basic information here about what products are available and often some details about them and their makers. We've all seen what can happen to boards when they descend into bickering. Still, I can't help but thinking that a little more critical debate would be welcome from time to time.

Movement finish gets a lot of focus here, primarily because its a reminder of the craft that goes into these art objects and why people become so passionate about them. For me, design is equally important. I know not everyone shares that view. My problem with this watch, and with others introduced over the last couple of years as the small high-end watchmakers have competed to distinguish themselves with innovations and complications, is that the indescribable sense of balance and harmony that characterizes the really classic watch designs has been jettisoned in favor of the overly busy and baroque (as here) or the downright bizarre (as in some recent designs from some other brands). Design is a subjective thing, of course, but its not completely subjective, and history can be a reliable guide to the designs that are likely to be flashes in the pan and those that are likely to remain classics, as it provides hard evidence of which of the influences and mannerisms of the past have survived the Darwinian struggle to remain relevant and revered today.

I like the sentiments, and would go along with much of it. 

I've never been a fan of uber-finishing, and uber-mega-extreme-finishing leaves me cold.  I admire the skills, wonder about the mental state of someone willing and able to do it,  but couldn't care less at the end of the day.

I also have a hang-up about the level of magnification the finish is supposed to seen at.  Watch dials and cases are generally designed to be looked at from a certain distance, but flip them over and people seems to think it's normal to drag out the electron microscope to look for protruding molecules on the black polishing on components the size of flea crap.  Go figure...

This ties into an overall concern about macro photography isolating design elements and loosing the whole design.  Are we admiring the skills of the photographer in creating a stunning graphic of an element that is both isolated and out of context, or the skills of the watch designer fo producing a harmonious overall design?

nick

context of the words in your posts.

albcwc, your observation that there might be a reluctance to be "critical" on this site, is well founded and I too worry about this. So much so that I am often in the awkward position of trying to TONE DOWN by balancing response over the top complimentary passages about watchmakers and brands that I like.  And of course, I too have experienced the "arrows" from the blindly devoted fan boys, so I know how it feels.

But it works both ways; when a serious, sincere question is raised about what is actually being seen in what is being presented as opinion, without any belittling or "covert subversion" of the original point(s) being made, to knee jerk into defensiveness is just as bad.

The foundation of this site is the concept of a discussion, and the standards of this site are that all discussions be conducted in a civil and respectful way. In a civil discussion, nothing should be dismissed out of hand, IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

Alas, this "civility" opens us up to the same thing the pioneers in the American West suffered - Native arrows in the front, Cavalry bullets in the back.

One small example? we give Marketplace listers the "benefit of the doubt." In most cases, nearly all are honest. What about those that realize the HUGE grey area and take advantage of that and rip people off while they are being "the benefit of the doubt?"

All opinions are welcome here. But I sincerely have a hard time accepting that anyone here really feels that the opinion of someone who has never held in their hand a watch higher grade than a Swatch/Hamilton or Casio Iron Man is "equal to" that of someone who has spent years, or decades, studying high watchmaking, their makers, and their products.

It is all too easy, in the name of "democracy" and equality, to shout "kill the academics, eat the rich" but is this what we really want, really believe? (yes, I already hear the shouts of "elitist snob!"  :-(  )

It is that hard a concept that we should allow, encourage, RESPECT, all opinions, but that each should decide for themselves the context of the opinions being presented, and decide for themselves how relevent that opinion is, FOR THEMSELVES, IN PROPER CONTEXT?

But then, if all probing, NON-PEJORATIVE follow on discussions are prohibited or shouted down, how is that any better than an environment that doesn't allow dissenting opinions in the first place!?!

Nick, I agree that there might be a general, almost obssessive, mania about

1. micro aspects of a design that lose sight of the whole

2. cosmetic finishing

on these and other gatherings of watch geeks.

But hey, that's why you are free to offer your dissenting opinion, with its attendant alternative obssessive manias (chronometric performance?) and I can keep trying to remind people that Philippe and Kari as still human, afterall.

TM

Hi Thomas,

 

PuristS and PPro always encouraged personal opinion and individual observations. My favourite posts are those that present an owners’ new watch with all the excitement and passion that this brings. The best of these are tempered with comments about what could be done better.

 

It is true that it takes time to build up a reasonable level of expertise based on experience, but part of this process is the shared discussion here. None of us should mind if someone presents a different opinion of a watch – as AndrewH did above with the GF – which is based on personal observations. We all grow from these types of shared discussion when they are presented in a civil and balanced way. If the outcome of a thread such as this leads to Riley reviewing his thoughts about GF finish when he next has an opportunity to handle one, then even better. If he is still of the same opinion regarding the finish then there will be even more to discuss!

 

All good.

 

Andrew

"There is a notable reluctance on these boards to say anything critical, and sometimes the messenger gets shot, metaphorically speaking of course."


Nothing wrong at all to voice your opinions as a matter of fact it's ENCOURAGED (that's why we have the forums to share our experiences)!  But the problem arises when people do not have the background nor knowledge to qualify their opinions and those that do will respond accordingly.

For example (those that were there can validate this), a bunch of us here on the west coast were able to be the first to view a brand supposedly know for finishing.  The AD kept pointing out how well finished the pieces were.  Other customers were impressed.  Upon inspection, there were noticeable burrs and nicks on the movement.  Of the 8 pieces they got in, 6 had obvious and major flaws.  What I'm saying is that those that DON"T KNOW would go and tell others how great the finishing is because they don't know what to look for.  If you've never seen a highly finished movement (Dufour, Voutilainen,  Vacheron skeleton, AP battleship, etc...) everything looks exceptional.

If you don't like a certain design, color, or whatever, that's totally fine and acceptable.  Constructive criticism is helpful to the brands and of course to all of us.

People take things too personal here on the internet.

goes both ways IMO.  I also have a slight problem with having to qualify one's opinion in some ways.  An opinion is just that, and to say that someone has to have certain knowledge and experience to express one without getting "shot" as another poster expressed it, is troublesome.  So what I get from this discussion is that you are encouraged to express your opinion if you are by some (unkown) standard  "qualified" to do so, and if not you had better be prepared for the being told you don't know any better.

Based on what I've seen of Riley's collection, he has owned a fair number of very nice watches.  I'm not sure it's fair to discount his opinions or what he saw.  After all, if these are hand made is there not a chance the xample he saw was lacking?

Am I overstating the situation - maybe but I think sometimes everyone here needs to take a step back.  They are only watches after all...

Regards, Al

 

Hello Al!


What I meant by qualified was about misinformation.  One of the reasons the original website was created was to provide the correct information with all the confusion and wrong information floating around.  I was not specifically picking on any particular person on this forum .

Happy Holidays,
MW

So opinions can exist in a vacuum, and one opinion is as "good" and "sound" as another?

Knowing the "context" of an opinion doesn't help "understand" the opinion?

Also, I'd really like to understand what you define as a "collection" and wonder if your "opinion" of Riley's "opinion" would change if that definition differs from the reality.

I don't know about the other posts, but my question to Riley was a sincere one. It had nothing to do with the "worth" of opinions in the abstract; it had nothing to do with "defending" Greubel-Forsey; it had nothing to do with Riley's experience or "wisdom" and real knowledge of watches and watchmaking. I sincerely wanted to know what he saw that was so disappointing, specifically.

The context for MY questions were my own feeling that too many comments, often INCLUDING MY OWN, are so much blah blah, without real substance to back up "opinions" - WHY is Dufour and Voutilainen so exalted? Is it the legally blind leading the clinically blind? The King's New Cloth syndrome? (I happen to feel that Dufour and Voutilainen deserve their exalted reputations, even if I also strongly feel sometimes the typical consumer comments in the past few years go way the hell overboard and elevate them to the level of gods, which I believe, HOPE, neither of them want nor believe themselves...)

In the abstract, and as a matter of principle, I agree with the defense that ALL opinions are interesting and worthwhile to share, if understood and presented in context, and I applaud the follow up posts supporting this idea.

But to say, write, and truly believe that ALL opinions are equal, and that context is unimportant, really, really leave me scratching my head.

It is one thing to RESPECT Hamilton for what it is (or ABR, or Bell and Ross, et al)

It is another thing entirely to not know the difference between a Swatch/Hamilton (or ABR, or Bell and Ross) and a Greubel-Forsey/Dufour/Voutilainen...

Are you serious?

TM

(edited; caps lock got locked accidentally)

This message has been edited by ThomasM on 2008-12-01 06:58:29

I did not say that context is of no consequence - how you arrived to that conclusion is puzzling and "now I'm really curious...."

I guess I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not discount their opinions out of hand as I think has happened here.  The fact that seemingly no one will even entertain the idea that the finishing on the watch in question is anything but stellar is really what bothers me.  As was ignored in my previous post, is it not possible that one is out there that is not as perfect as people in this thread claim them all to be?

Certainly Riley's post where he says he will keep his opinions to himself is a step forward here, right?

"It is another thing entirely to not know the difference between a Swatch/Hamilton (or ABR, or Bell and Ross) and a Greubel-Forsey/Dufour/Voutilainen..."

When you have a system of proving who has what qualifications for posting their opinions, please let me know and I'll submit mine for review.  Until then, I guess you will consider me one of the great unwashed.

Thank you.  I have learned a great deal in this thread.

Regards, Al

 

 

 

Hi, Al,

"I did not say that context is of no consequence - how you arrived to that conclusion is puzzling and "now I'm really curious....""

You are right, you did not explicitly write "context is of no consequence."

It seemed to me that such a conclusion is reasonable from comments like "I also have a slight problem with having to qualify one's opinion in some ways." But I admit, there is a bit of a stretch to get from your comments to my stated, drawn conclusion.

"  An opinion is just that, and to say that someone has to have certain knowledge and experience to express one without getting "shot" as another poster expressed it, is troublesome.""

Perhaps this last statement of yours is what got me on the "wrong path" - no one said that either, and, at least for my initial comments, and as far as I can read, Andrew's initial comments, we were asking for "context" for a comparative, not denying that an opinion can be stated without context a priori. No one (at least, I wasn't) was "shooting" anyone.

I find it a perverse irony that those who would want to protect their own (or others) "right to have a dissenting opinion" are also often the first to deny those who would "dissent with the dissenter"  (A general comment, not necessarily directed at you or your comments, Al)

"  So what I get from this discussion is that you are encouraged to express your opinion if you are by some (unkown) standard  "qualified" to do so, and if not you had better be prepared for the being told you don't know any better."

Speaking only for myself and my comments in this thread, your last is as far a stretch from my (original) words as my conclusion that "context is of no consequence" from yours, and a non-sequitor from the initial follow up posts to Riley, before defensiveness kicked in and degenerated the budding discussion.

To be clear,

anyone can hold any opinion they want - Rolex sucks; Rolex is the best; Patek is the best, Patek is a sham; G-F has disappointing finish, G-F has the best finishing in the business. (Personally, my opinion is that opinions that speak in absolutes are inherently wrong, and opinions based on personal opinion - whether finishing is personally satisfactory or disappointing - need not be qualified if held to oneself, but don't be surprised if clarification is asked for (in a non-challenging, non-demeaning way to the opinion holder) if presented publically. So long as presented politely and respectfully, anyone participating on a public forum should be prepared to "clarify" - ANYONE and EVERYONE (I'm avoiding using loaded terms like "defend" or "qualify" though those terms, if stripped of their judgemental implications, are perfectly appropriate terms in the proper context)

"Based on what I've seen of Riley's collection, he has owned a fair number of very nice watches.  I'm not sure it's fair to discount his opinions or what he saw."

Please ask Riley about his "collection."  Or don't; at this point, this discussion has veered far beyond it's significance to me and taken a personally unpleasant tack (sarcasm, misconstruing or misrepresenting intentions, character, etc. And no, I don't excuse myself from this, for which I apologize, that was not my original intention...)

  "After all, if these are hand made is there not a chance the xample he saw was lacking?"

Yes, absolutely, and one of the things I was trying to get at, in my original post in response asking for clarification.

"Am I overstating the situation - maybe but I think sometimes everyone here needs to take a step back.  They are only watches after all..."

Indeed.

 

"I guess I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt and not discount their opinions out of hand as I think has happened here. "

I'm not sure who did this? Certainly my comments didn't (or weren't intended to) in my initial request for clarification from Riley. And I'm not sure Andrew intended that either, though I am in no position to speak for Andrew.

Again, Riley is free to express his "unconventional" opinion; Andrew should be free to rebut it with his opinion and whatever supporting "facts" he wishes to bring into the discussion, so long as he is not dismissive. Where's the problem?

 "The fact that seemingly no one will even entertain the idea that the finishing on the watch in question is anything but stellar is really what bothers me."

Who did this? Isn't this a bit of a stretch, at least from my comments? I simply asked for clarification on what Riley saw. You might retort, "My comments were not addressed to you, Thomas, originally." Okay, but then, "seemingly no one will even entertain the idea..." seems pretty damning to anyone who already posted in reply to Riley before your comment.

"  As was ignored in my previous post, is it not possible that one is out there that is not as perfect as people in this thread claim them all to be?"

There is NOTHING that is perfect, and that is not the standard being applied nor discussed. (At least) my original post and questions were merely to get some specifics, and context, for what was presented so I could better understand what is being described and claimed.

"Certainly Riley's post where he says he will keep his opinions to himself is a step forward here, right?"

Not sure if this was sarcasm?

'"It is another thing entirely to not know the difference between a Swatch/Hamilton (or ABR, or Bell and Ross) and a Greubel-Forsey/Dufour/Voutilainen..."

When you have a system of proving who has what qualifications for posting their opinions, please let me know and I'll submit mine for review.  Until then, I guess you will consider me one of the great unwashed.'

Sorry, that's a non-sequitor.

"Thank you.  I have learned a great deal in this thread."

Indeed. Moi aussi.

Cheers,

TM

 

However I get the feeling there is an agenda here and I really don't want to be a part of an attempt to discredit someone.  I admit I may be way off base but I would think if there is some view that someone here is not truthful about what they own (you have implied this twice now) or what their experience is in relation to having handled fine watches, that it would be handled a different way by the management here.  The way this thread has developed and the fact it was highlighted on HOME with another thread indicates to me this is not just discussion for the sake of it.  I hope I am wrong on this but the reaction seems to be disproportionate to the offense.  The long drawn out replies disecting my posts adds to this - I certainly regret making any comment at all in this thread.

Whatever the exact wording was in this thread and the comments made about Riley's opinion, the result was that he said he would refrain from offering them in the future.  I see a lot of words expressing a desire for open discussion, but the result here was the opposite.  Maybe there is a good reason for this (you seem to know something about Riley that I don't) but it seemed to be out of the norm for this site.

You have taken this statement in a way that it was not intended to be taken:

"An opinion is just that, and to say that someone has to have certain knowledge and experience to express one without getting "shot" as another poster expressed it, is troublesome."

In this thread, "albcwc" said this:

"There is a notable reluctance on these boards to say anything critical, and sometimes the messenger gets shot, metaphorically speaking of course.

Or ignored, if you're not one of the "regular crowd.""

Clearly I am not the only one that feels this way about this site in general, and this was the comment I was referring to with people being "shot" for expressing their views (not necessarily related to comments in this thread).

I was being facetious with my comments about a system of proving how much experience anyone has with fine watches, but short of that or some other objective system (and aside from the small group here that may know each other personally) how is anyone who participates here able to know who is "qualified" to make a proper observation in context?  That is what I find troublesome. 

How do you go from the desire to reach the ideal state (where we know that all opinions are in proper context) from the current practical state (not really having any concrete method)?  I don't have the answer other than to say (again) that I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe I am too generous in this approach, but I honestly don't take anyone's "opinion" on an internet discussion forum as absolute gospel regardless of their apparent qualifications.  I always reserve my final view to what I see with my own eyes.

Regards, Al

and by your eloquence.

As such, I am sure you are aware that you are fully as guilty, maybe more so, of what you are accusing us of - that of trying to "discredit" anyone.

By simply making the public accusation, you have branded us. We (I) did no such thing, until this whole damned thread veered so wildly off course.

You have read what you want, were pre-disposed to want, to read into our comments (we=me and Andrew) and unlike my original post, instead of keeping "suspicions" to yourself and simply asking for more clarification, you shot first, aimed later.

You did this again with the reading of an agenda (how ironic, I was thinking the same thing about some of the subsequent posts) into my new post on HoMe, which was a meta-topic and very simple and literal - it was a question about opinions, context, and meaning - and thus further makes your own point, about your own "predisposition."  Again, I do not excuse myself from this syndrome either; as noted, in my previous post, I did make a little leap from your literal words to my summarized conclusion. Reasonable, in my opinion (and to those who have emailed me, but chose not to wade into the public melee) but a leap nonetheless. Mea Culpa.

You write about granting benefits of the doubt, but I find it ironic that you withhold that from your hosts here.

I invite you to give this topic a little breath and revisit it a few days/weeks later. I particularly invite you to read, in sequential order, Riley's first post, and my first follow up to him.

I know Riley; we have interacted in person, by email, and on the boards, quite regularly, in fact, for over a year. We've had our tensions, and as Riley well knows, we've given each other more than reasonable "benefits of the doubt." But frankly, Al, this is irrelevent even within the public context of Riley's initial comments and my initial reply to him asking simply for more details or clarifications - our original exchange was about what he saw, how he felt about what he saw, and my request, without impugning Riley, his ability to see or conclude anything, to clarify so I could understand better what he saw, so I might "learn" additional data points.  Knowing Riley, I knew there was a range of possibilities, and he might actually benefit from the resulting discussion; certainly I knew I would if it proceeded the way we hope discussions develop here - on point, substantive, and not overly fraught with ego baggage and the posturing usually following.

His "wounded rabbit" sulk reply to Andrew is what brought all the other (I'm assuming well intentioned and kindness inspired) posts out of the woodworks, causing the entire discussion to veer way the hell off point and bordering on the personal and ad hominem. Yet the meta topic itself I found interesting enough to search for broader commentary and "opinions" from HoMe; why the heck would you want to read into that some sort of broader, nefarious agenda!?!

Again, you don't read an agenda into Riley's comments (I'm not saying he had, or intended, any) yet read an agenda into mine/ours?

The perverse irony rears its ugly head again - it's okay, even encouraged, to disagree with the "conventional wisdom" (I personally agree that a certain, well founded degree of iconoclasm is good and healthy, if grounded in substance and not just iconoclasm for the sake of iconoclasm) but it is not okay to disagree with the disagreement, even if only to ask for clarification.

Huh?!?

Personally, I'd rather have seen the discussion and thread stick to the original topic - what was actually seen by Riley, what the context was, and if indeed there was anything to learn ABOUT WATCHMAKING AND WATCH APPRECIATION, rather than watch commentary.

Ironically, you are right, we are probably closer in ideology than my last words might imply, but alas, I'm not, and wasn't, accusing you of anything that impugns your public character and conduct; you now have done so twice to mine (implying some sort of agenda latterly, and something else equally unpleasant formerly)

Anyway, this subject has been beaten to death and beyond; I'll not comment further.

Cheers,

TM

I agree that stepping back is a good idea - for both of us.  Certainly I had considered contacting you in private regarding this discussion, and possibly if your initial reply to my post and the rather extreme conclusions you reached had been to me in a PM, we would not be where we are now.

"You have read what you want, were pre-disposed to want, to read into our comments"

Guilty as charged, as are you.  I think after some reflection we will both see where some things have gone wrong, and how what was said could be interpreted in different ways.

I certainly regret the direction this thread has taken and I am aware I am partly responsible for it, but not totally.  We have both taken liberties, and I do apologize for offending you.

If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me via PM.

Regards, Al

 

Hi, Al,

I travel quite a bit, with often unreliable and excruciatingly slow email connections.

I'm fine with where things stand, if you are.

As noted previously, I never excused myself from where and how the thread "went wrong."

Cheers,

TM

Life is a learning experience.
All reasoned opinions are valid opinions.
But we all have seen different things up 'til now.
I have been surprised recently to see the amount of machine finishing on expensive watches.
How many people have really held a Voutilainen or a Dufour or even a Gauthier in the hand and examined it closely to see what hand finishing really means?
For me the give aways for machine finishing are exactly the sharp edges, the hard points, the perfectly flat angles.
I want to say they cannot be done that way by hand, but maybe someone will find a way.
Let's say that todays hand finishing is softer, rounder, warmer.
That is exactly the warmth that makes viewing a Voutilainen movement such a vibrant experience.
But that is my humble opinion and if others prefer the hard sharp cornered look, show me the pictures and tell me why you like it so much.  Try to win me over.
It is a different esthetique.
It isn't hand finished 'though, if that is what you want.
Don

nt

performance and longevity of the watch itself.  If affects the distribution of the oil, how the parts act against each other, and hence the time keeping properties of the watch itself.  Use this website to research the issue.  For example, from here:

general.watchprosite.com

"Surface finish is not just for looks. The surface finish of materials as well as their shape plays a key role in maintaining the oil where it is supposed to stay."

And as to the design,: the 24 second incline, whether you like the design or not, is at the limit of the speed of rotation for the tourbillon cage.  It is the product of considerable R&D, not only in the design of the cage, the metal used, the speed of rotation, and gearing to use that speed to regulate the time keeping of the watch.  All non-trival, and believe or not, companies like Richemont (who might own a few of the brands you wear on your wrist), simply invest in the GF company to learn something that helps with the timekeeping and design properties of the watch that you might have on your wrist. 

Liking the design or not is a subjective issue, but to dismiss the work as the effects of macro photography or an over emphasis on finish or technical aspects, you are belittling the advance and the time taken by Greubel-Forsey in producing a watch at the fore front of what can be accomplished in haute horologie.  All agree that George Daniels produced the finest finished watches possible, and yet when a watch firm tries to accomplish the same, with front end tested innovations, some would rather look to knock it down.  As I said, you may like the design of the watch or not, but dont look to ascribe the achievements of the watch as an over-emphasis on finish and the technical wizardry of the digital macro photography.

The picture does not lie - it only makes harder for watchmakers to get things exactly right.  And as mentioned, finish has a purpose.

Andrew H

So, does the GF offer measurably better accuracy than others? Does it offer measurably better longevity than others?

This data is unlikely to ever exist in a measurable, repeatable form. I would hazard that beyond a certain level of finishing is makes no difference to the tribological performance. Instead, the finish is an expression and example of human effort. Which is I guess what makes it valued.

I actually prefer the precision machined finish of a GS, as I find too much decoration a little fey. IMHO of course.

Hi Andrew,

I think the point TCP was making is that the finishing of the acting surfaces is essential - meaning the finish of pivots, acting surfaces of teeth, sink holes, etc. And as the majority of these are to all intents and purposes not visible, I'm not sure they enter into the criteria most collectors use to evaluate the finish of a movement.  In fact, thinking back through all the reviews I've read of movements, it's only the rare take-apart reviews from people like Suitbert and John that mention this kind of thing.  Apart from that, there's the occassional mention of sink hole finish when a close-up photo shows something obviously wrong.  Grand Seiko and (the old) IWC produce excellent movements that have good or excellent functional finishing of acting surfaces, but with no "fancy" finish of bridges.

I've seen arguments that black polishing helps make small components more resistant to corrosion (I have no proof either way if this is correct), that anglage stops damage to components during servicing, that perlage on the baseplate traps dust, but I don't know if these are old watchmakers' tales or have an element of truth.

It seems obvious to me, as a non-professional simply stating his unsupported opinion , that the finish of non-acting surfaces has no impact whatsoever on longevity or chronometric performance.  For example, I have difficulty imagining that the degree of perfection of the polishing of the anglage makes a ha'aporth of difference to the performance, or that a higly polished tourbillon resists gravity better than a less unpolished one.

I'm not belittling the design work in any way, just pointing out that I dislike the tendency to use extremely high-magnification images to evaluate the quality of the piece, and that I find it can lead to excessive praise or criticism of something that was not intended to be seen out of the context of the overall design.

As for the performance itself, I'd love G&F and others to publish the hard, quantified data proving the improvements, but as far as I'm aware, nothing has ever been published (correct me if I'm wrong).  In the good old days, any manufacturer who produced a significant improvement through technological advances would publish the details in Chronometrie or the BHI and there would be a long debate around it.  Nowadays, the published info is little more than marketing blurb.  With the return of the observatory competitions, it would be good to have the return of published quantitive data to support the claims.

 nick

What I took exception to is the downplay that somehow macro photography was being lauded rather than the finish itself.  Macro photography has made the finish all the more open to close, clear, and public scrutiny, and hence getting it right is now required in the same exacting detail.  Finishing on the plates and bridges does matter in terms of the some surfaces moving against each other; winding barrels for example.  However, yes, for the most part, the finishing on bridges and plates is a matter of craft, detail, the love of finishing as an example of excellence, attention to detail, and for the love of the details.  GF finishing is on a par with Daniels.  I have seen both close up.  Smith, along with Greubel-Forsey set out to revive the finishing seen in English and French watches and clocks (before the rise of usurping Swiss and the Geneva stripes - joking here ).  All the craft and knowledge had all but disappeared.  Suitbert or John D (ei8htohms) would be better at explaining this than I, and have more knowledge, but the finish helps preserve the nature and philosphy of the watchmaker.

A picture again:

From Stephens own Quadruple Tourbillon protoype.  Note how the moving parts are all finished to the exacting detail required in the finished watch, whereas the plates and bridges are left rough and coarse.  Yes, you do not need finishing to make the watch more accurate or be a better timekeeping instrument, however, that is not the complete craft and artistry of the watchmaker.  The craft and artistry of the watchmaker are emodied in the finished article; the watch they will leave as testimony of the their skill and ability as a watchmaker.  How the watch is finished, and the type of finish are therefore an integral part.

How this finishing appeals to you is a subjective choice and if the 'industrial' finish of the Grand Seiko is more appealing to you (and let me state here that I do love the Grand Seiko watches myself), then it is probably the case that the watches of GF, Smith, and Daniels would not.

However, completely agree with the Observatory competitions and would like to see all watchmakers/firms entered against each other.

Cheers

Andrew H