Richard Mille

not exactly definitive reading

 

Hello Eric,

Wikipedia is obviously not the most reliable source on technical issues in a niche field.  I'm sure you realize that it's written by whomever has an interest in saying something on the subject, and in fact I've written and/or edited portions of the small tidbit on Flying Tourbillons several times myself.  And no, I will not in any way take credit for the abyssmal piece of writing that entry (Flying Tourbillon) has become, but will merely throw my hands up at the trials of writing by anonymous committee to be edited by an equally anonymous committee, all of dubious expertise on the subject at hand.  This is not to say that there is anything about the Wikipedia entry on tourbillons that I disagree with particularly (I haven't read it all that closely), just that like any Wikipedia entry, it should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

Osvaldo Patrizzi.  Hmm.  Hardly an expert on technical matters as evidenced by the wide variety of errors in that article.  And Carlo G. Croce whom I've never heard of who has apparently built one tourbillon, in a clock.  Let's move on.

I certainly expected you to bring up the often cited Jean-Claude Nicolet article, which is pretty clearly the most damning article about tourbillons written by someone who truly kows something about the subject, although perhaps that article is not in line with your way of thinking since Msr. Nicolet seems to find tourbillons to be equally parasitic in pocket watches as well as wristwatches.  And no, I don't agree with Msr. Nicolet's conclusions for the most part, regardless of the general high regard I hold him in. 

It's interesting how you've chosen to attempt to shift the focus of the discussion and therefor wiggle out from under the burden of proof as you put it.  If you'll re-read the thread thus far, you'll notice that noone has said anything definitive on the subject up to this point except for you.  When you say that the subject is not even open for debate because it is a "'fact' that tourbillons provide no improvement in accuracy in a wristwatch", well, it seems that you have voluntarily accepted a rather collossal burden of proof yourself.

If you'll allow me to elaborate a little more on my scant familiarity with the subject at hand:

•  I am a watchmaker by trade and training, so have studied tourbillons somewhat academically while completing the 3000 hours WOSTEP course.  If you had asked all 6 of my fellow students and both instructors whether a torubillon is useful in wristwatches where accuracy is concerned, you would surely have gotten at least 8 different opinions on the subject.  It is unequivocally not considered to be an open and shut case. Since having left school and working professionally as a watchmaker, I've developed and/or maintained relationships with at least 5 other WOSTEP instructors in the US as well, and not one of them would presume to speak definitively on the subject regardless of how strongly they may feel one way or the other.
• I've observed more than a handful of tourbillons on state of the art timing machines while performing QC and/or prelimary diagnosis on them for several different high-end brands.  I've seen the sometimes-not-so-subtle sinusoidal rate and amplitude traces they can make, and observed firsthand the extent to which basically careless poise adjustments can be completely masked by simply observing the rate for slightly longer lengths of time (anything longer than a minute basically).
• I have personally spoken with Philippe Dufour, Ludwig Oeschlin, Svend Andersen, Vincent Calabrese, Giulio Papi (Renaud et Papi) and Stephen Forsey (Greubal Forsey) among others in the industry about the efficacy of tourbillons in wristwatches and I can happily say that the debate rages on.  Some of them firmly declaring that tourbillons are useless altogether and some of them carrying armloads of data that point in opposite direction.

I am far from an expert on the subject, but I've certainly done my best to have an informed opinion about it and it woudl frankly take someone with better credentials and sounder logic than yourself to convince me that I've been utterly misled up until this point.  Given the tone of your posts in this thread it seems clear that you are unlikely to be swayed to another opinion in any case, so perhaps the forum would be best served if we were to drop it, especially as the original poster is clearly not the least interested one way or the other.

_john