anon438
429
Both opinions seem to be correct
Feb 01, 2019,14:20 PM
My feeling tells me to conform with Carlos Perez.
My brain would tell me, earning no money would mean, no future - that would bring me very close to Dr. Roland Ranfft.
But that Dr. Roland Ranfft tells us, to compare movements is not possible, is for me not plausible. At least not with this two movements.
The K1014 movement is based on the same movement architecture. Therefore it would be very well possible, to analysis the very differences, step by step - almost like a black box analysis.
The first basic principle would have been, saving production costs on JLC side for the raw ebauches and later on assembly costs.
The next step would have been, to allow further lower cost components and to integrate components at all - to minimize the costly extra features or parts.
Since the further development was based on the cal. 1001, the argument of Perez, the movement was never designed for usage in fine watches, could hardly persist.
For me another philosophy of the house was also, especially since in close cooperation with JLC, something like 'take the best that exists and make it better' (Henry Royce). They take the best they could get. Just the set up point was, after the cost optimization, was a quite different than before, especially quite less elegant.
But the basis layout of the caliber was not changed much, just very obviously the balance design. The integration would have cost precision, because of the higher sensibility to temperature change. So any step to simplify would have had some certain costs - I guess especially regards precision.