Their 260th anniversary watch never had the price officially revealed, and they supposedly only sold one, but that is estimated to have gone for over $10 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_57260
That one was a pocket watch, but I doubt their wristwatch would be that much cheaper. Maybe I'm wrong.
edit the 250th anniversary watch was a wristwatch and went for a million at the time.
I haven't heard about Hodinkee before, but their website [0] has a tasteful little detail in the top-left corner. It shows the current date and more details are brought up after clicking on the icon/image next to it.
I don't think it looks very nice. But the whole point of it is for someone to show they have so much excess wealth they can thoughtlessly spend it on something useless and ugly.
This is a word play - in the watch world “complication” means “feature”, and this watch has 41 features, which requires tricky design decisions and high precision to house everything in a case that is still wearable.
It‘s not a word of play as it literally means complicated things added to the normal watch function. The word with that watch making meaning is coming directly from French (most famous watch makers are coming from the speaking part of Switzerland).
No, it’s a term of art. This discussion is sort of like someone complaining about the term computer being used to refer to both the electronic device and mid-century math whizzes.
But they’re not using it with its normal meaning in the headline. They’re using it only with the “term of art” meaning. You’re insisting on seeing a double entendre that just isn’t there.
I think would depend on whether the author of the article title was intentionally going for the more common meaning or not. But given that this seems to be a watch news site, I feel like there’s a decent chance the headline is only referring to the term of art (but I don’t know anything about watches, so this is pure speculation).
The author is definitely not going for the more common meaning. It wouldn’t even occur to someone who reads watch publications that this could have been some kind of double entendre or word play.
Features in the software world do sell, and they're cheap up to a point. But then complexity and technical debt lead to the hockey stick explosion of cost.
do timepiece complications have theoretical limits that might originate from the "7-fold limit" in origami, or huffman's work on folding curves in origami?
I realize watch complications are stacked disc segments and not folds, but intuitively if you are dealing with a material in a fixed space you either run up against limits in the stiffness of parts down to sheets of atoms, or some theoretical folding limit relative to the thickness of the case. a watch that expressed the proof might be worth the indulgence.
If you asked someone what a "feature" is, in almost any context, they will probably give you the answer we all expect.
If you ask someone what a "movement" is, they might well refer to the poop they had that morning, or Eurythmy (which I had as a subject at school!), or almost anything.
That's not a statement about how basic language has become, but rather intentionally lofty vagueness (like "bespoke" instead of custom) people invent for things perfectly well described by expressions anyone can use like "high precision timekeeping", but not-so-subtly signaling a higher price.
Real perspective shift from your comment, thanks! Reading more about usage of those terms now, but I still can't help but feel there's a deliberate "fancypants nonstandard language" signalling going on in the marketing of these "timepieces".
There's an easy parallel to make with the audiophile industry, which uses all kinds of colourful but ultimately vacuous language.
> You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary.
Eh, I don't think what he's saying now is unreasonable.
Certainly no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications."
A big part of the product of a fancy watch, or a bespoke suit, is the traditions. When tradition or sounding fancy is opposed to accessibility, the former will win.
> no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications
Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Rolex does a little bit of the Apple game, renaming jargon. But the watch industry mostly uses the term the first person to use it deployed. (“Complications” makes more sense than “features” when working multilingual across French, German and Italian.)
I’d also argue that “features” is a bit misleading. Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something.
> Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something.
This is not the original usage; "complication" does not imply "grande complication."
> ..."features"...
None of your criticism applies to "functions" which is the first term used.
> Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming.
Yes... I'm saying in a niche, luxury industry based upon exclusivity and tradition, the marketing pushes towards old, foreign, and exotic language. All these things in commodity digital watches are "modules" and "functions" instead of "calibre" and "complications." (With Apple, on the high end, choosing "complication" for some reason ;).
This is a baffling criticism. Why would you expect a niche not to have its own jargon? Not that "bespoke" is (it is an older usage than "custom" and is used widely).
>people invent for things perfectly well described by expressions anyone can use like "high precision timekeeping"
What is "high precision"? Why are you using engineering jargon when you could say something simple like "accurate"? Why are you using such lofty elitist language?
It's true that niches have their jargon, but I tend to be suspicious when the jargon makes its way into marketing pitches.
It's one thing if your software vendor writes the software in Haskell, but if their pitch to you is that the software has 40 patent protected monads and is entirely dotless and lambda lifted, you're probably being taken for a ride.
Yeah, I was just thinking that our B2B SaaS has been trying to churn out as many features and integrations as possible, with customers constantly wanting more and more.
I agree, you could have an Apple-like interface that lets you tune a single frequency with a particular modulation, but nothing there seems like it's a constellation viewer that has almost no practical use.
You can get a watch that's more accurate and more complex than one of these for under $1000 in an Apple watch or a Casio.
For me, this feels like one of the less harmful things rich people do. Ultimately you're paying a bunch of skilled labor in a developed state to maintain an artistic craft that uses very little energy and material, for a device that has worse functionality than one under $100. The only issue is where you got your money I suppose, and whether that money would have been better spent elsewhere.
The point of these is to signal you have money and are enough of an insider to know the high-status brands - or at least high-status enough for that particular social group, who use them to reassure each other they're not in the vulgar Rolex set.
They serve the same function as a designer handbag - although you can at least put things inside a handbag and carry them around.
This is overly cynical. The target demographic for a really complicated Vacheron Constantin is a rich person who is a HUGE nerd about watches. Think about people who get into really high levels of nerd hobbies and acquire super expensive gear. It's not primarily about showing off.
I'm not sure buying the super fancy handbag is primarily about showing off, either, and I think people who consume a lot of these goods have a lot of brand knowledge.
I mean, I think you're right in that watch nerds usually have more domain knowledge, but I don't think it's inherently dissimilar.
Not that I am wealthy enough to participate, but you see the same thing in cars and the same issue too. Sometimes status signalling and taste end up in the same product, and people who don't care about cars end up with the finest of the cars, almost coincidentally.
Just like those collecting stamps, figurines, comic magazines, paintings and so on the watch hobbyist pretty much _never_ makes modifications to their items. Why do you consider it a requirement for it to be a hobby?
You can get a Casio F-91W and replace the movement with a Sensor Watch board. The watch then becomes a water resistant temperature compensated quartz wristwatch. It's a literally world class time piece. I calibrated mine and now it deviates a few seconds per year. It's insane how good this thing is. Low power, battery lasts over a year.
It's a fully programmable ARM microcontroller. You can write "watch faces" for it. There's a 2nd factor codes face that lets you log in like you're James Bond on the Nintendo 64. One of the coolest projects I've ever worked on. I made it possible to calibrate the pulsometer, a feature I use frequently at work.
Like yeah, purely from a utility standpoint, a $50 Casio destroys a mechanical watch in accuracy and durability. But not everything people value is about utility - sometimes it's about beauty, craftsmanship, or just the joy of making something wildly unnecessary really well
The engineering and craft is beyond reproach, beautiful, involved, unique.
The market in which it needs to exist is exclusive, arrogant and elitist. So there is a bittersweet response to it. Makes me think of Royal arts of the past, made to adorn the palaces and display wealth. beautiful, but they're better now at museums. I believe this watch shall too.
Strongly disagree. Pilfered artefacts are usually safer in a Western museum. But they’re more beautiful when left in their natural environment. In any case, if there is one thing sillier than someone with no respect for fine watches treating them as a status symbol, it’s getting upset about it as a bystander.
You seem to have confused expense with arrogance and elitism. Honestly it just sounds like you are envious of people that can afford to spend their money on expensive luxuries.
I (surely I'm not alone here) know many people who would say the same thing about software development "scene".
Hell, even _inside_ the software development "scene" you can easily find similar cases.
Like when web developer who builds (relatevily) simple web apps on top of Rails earns notably more then someone who works with a complex hardware.
Impressive. Here I am struggling to design a decent UI for a screen of at least 13 inches. I shudder to think how much harder it would be if the only means of interaction were a scroll wheel.
Still can’t tell time accurately over a long period. The ultimate irony of these collectible expensive watches. I like them anyway out of respect for the engineering but still.
I guess it depends on your definition of "long period" but high end Quartz movements can achieve ±1 second per year by using a high frequency, thermally compensated oscillator. Movements with atomic radio control can do even better than that of course, though that's arguably cheating since the heavy lifting happens in a standards lab somewhere rather than on your wrist.
Is that a year of ideal conditions with little to no movement or acceration in standard temp. and pressure conditions, or a year at sea in a barometric rollercoaster with 60 degrees celsius cycling heating and cooling with 2G+ surges of roll, pitch, and yaw?
The mechanical marine chronometer challenge is a tough one.
A bit LARPy, I would think. The need for ludicrously accurate marine chronometers is doubly obsolete because of the somewhat lessened need for celestial navigation and the fact that the GNSS systems also disseminate the time (in fact, this is the only thing they can do). Even for those obligated to practice celestial navigation, pretty much any old quartz watch will do the job and you can check/set them by WWVB.
It's a genuine question about the conditions under which error bar performance was claimed (by whomever you quoted).
> A bit LARPy, I would think.
That's all relative - I worked global exploration geophysics for a decade, worked with folk that developed sapphire oscillators for use in gravitational wave detection, dabble with SKA data, etc.
Even the cheapest quartz watches (0.5s/day) are significantly more accurate than a typical Rolex (2s/day) in normal use.
I'm having some difficulty understanding how g shocks, temperature variations, and barometric changes will have less of an effect on a fragile mechanical system than a tuned electronic one.
It depends on the maker, not all quartz watches are equal. However, quartz is typically very stable as an oscillator over the conditions that humans can survive in. That’s why we use it in watches after all.
That said, I have used a quartz watch (mid level Citizen) for actual celestial navigation at sea. It is, for all intents and purposes always going to be more accurate than mechanical (mine typically is good for ~1 second per month, and always in the same direction) Certified mechanical watches typically vary more than that in a day, I believe the standard is 2 seconds per day. I don’t know what a proper marine chronometer is certified to, but it is worth pointing out that a marine chronometer is typically not exposed to the conditions you describe at sea. The official ships chronometer is always kept down below, protected in what is effectively a gimballed humidor. For the purposes of navigational measurements, you use your wrist watch at the time of sighting on deck and add or subtract the difference between your watch and the chronometer. To add on to all that, if a ship is rolling and pitching like you describe your chances of an accurate sight are very low. Even in perfect conditions, it is hard to call the exact moment of alignment to within a second.
If I placed my quartz watch in the box with the official chronometer, I am perfectly willing to argue that if there is a discrepancy in the times shown, the quartz watch should be trusted.
> To add on to all that, if a ship is rolling and pitching like you describe your chances of an accurate sight are very low
You as a human wouldn't shoot a line in those conditions, no.
The point is that mechanical clock mechanisms endure those conditions .. the rise and fall of tempreture, the rise and fall of air pressure, the shock of acceleration (even when sharply reduced by a gimbal mount).
The error bar over months at sea is the tension betwen the drift effect of all those conditions and normalising complications - gimbal mounts, the use of bimetallic strips to counter tempreture change expansions, etc.
In dead calm conditions a mechanical clock at sea carries the accumulated drift baggage of past storms and heatwaves.
Circling back to quartz oscillators, my question above goes to prompting others to ask themselves if an electronic oscillator regulated by a quartz crystal shows any performance differences over a year when harsh real world physical usage conditions are compared to ideal controlled test conditions.
Does temperature affect the oscillator, does humidty, air pressure, accumulated shock forces, etc.
Addendum:
I cant imagine why an instrument that is ~40x less precise would offer more precise timekeeping
~ @dghlsakjg
I'm having some difficulty understanding how [..] will have less of an effect on a fragile mechanical system than a tuned electronic one.
~ @TheOtherHobbes
I've reread both my comments above and I'm having some difficulty seeing they can be read to take away a claim that a mechanical marine clock is more accurate than a quartz timekeeping mechanism. Both comments address accuracy in harsh variable conditions versus stable STP lab conditions.
A mechanical timepiece that calls itself a marine chronometer has to be accurate to +-0.5 seconds per day.
The most accurate quartz wristwatch is certified accurate to +-5 seconds per year.
My experience, in the exact harsh real world conditions that you are talking about, is that is a realistic expectation for quartz watch to accomplish. I cant imagine why an instrument that is ~40x less precise would offer more precise timekeeping
That said, John Harrison didn't have access to Solidworks and 6-axis CNC machines like today's high horology brands do. The final product may still be fully mechanical but the process of getting there has advanced a bit.
They also didn't have the materials we use for springs, or some of the mechanisms we use. The fact that these devices are the same basic tech from the 1700s, while at the same time being much more advanced, is actually part of the appeal for me.
I see your point but this still strikes me as a weak analogy. The purpose of any watch is to accurately tell time more than the purpose of any dress is to protect from the elements.
The purpose of cheap clothing is to protect from the elements (and to prevent other people from seeing your naked body). The purpose of a cheap wristwatch is to tell time.
The purpose of expensive versions of both of those is divorced from their original meaning.
This one I believe is not the collectible one. I think is the marketing one. Is the concept car of watch world. The LaFerrari that makes people buy the expensive but cheaper Purosangue.
Given the price tag, it's surely a custom order and I imagine you can tweak lots of details. That's the case for much cheaper Dornbluth & Sohn and other small boutique watchmakers.
Bartosz links to it in the Further Reading section, but wanted to highlight the Wristwatch Revival YouTube channel[0] as well. Really great content and very understandable after reading the article!
I wonder if a mechanical watch could communicate something via radio with some clever placement of magnets and copper on the movement via Faraday induction. Imagine movement that encodes a simple BT handshake. On the more science fiction side, a very tiny Difference Engine that fits on your wrist (I am reminded of a Young Ladies Primer from The Diamond Age, where the compute was nano-mechanical).
I can nowhere near afford them, but I love most everything about Vacheron Constantin except for that godawful, cheap, brash font they use for their logo. The font on this piece is fine, their overall design and language is great, I'm glad a company like VC pushes the technological limits and industry forward, but that Helvetica-lookin font is visual fingernails-on-a-chalkboard.
I'm impressed, but with my declining eyesight I don't think I could read most of the dials, even with glasses - I can't even read the date on my Timex. I would love to see a copy of the User's Guide for this watch though.
Yes. 31%, at least for now. The administration is...mercurial.
Although one might argue that an additional 31% on a watch that retails for six figures is not going to make a difference to the kind of buyer that spends six figures on a watch. Even if a US watchmaker existed, this kind of buyer seems unlikely to substitute a Vacherin or a Patek for something made in Cleveland.
Not if you wear it on your wrist as you arrive by your private jet to get the personalized immigration and customs service that whisks you through the private areas of the airport to your waiting limo.
Yes but again we are taking about wristwatches, not smartwatches or apps. The features/complications on smartwatches and in apps are different than the complications on wristwatches.
It’s harder to build one smartwatch from scratch - it took decades and trillions of dollars. However, having already built N of the same smartwatch model, it is much easier to build the N+1st than to build a mechanical watch.
A smartwatch in a 45mm case is now pretty easy to build. it won’t be fancy, but an esp32 plus screen in a 3d printed case is something I could make.
A basic mechanical watch movement is something I can’t make. (I have made a case and dial out of aluminium/brass though.)
But, the point I was trying to make is that adding a complication to a smart watch is trivial, something that can be done in a few hours and shipped to everywhere. Adding a complication to a mechanical movement is a lot harder, especially as the iteration time is long.
They are both extremely well-known luxury watch manufacturers. The fact that you haven’t heard of them has nothing to do with them, it just means you’re not into luxury watches.
Indeed. In case I didn't explicitly state it, I was expressing more of a fascination that there are these companies that seem to make high priced luxury items (so they have to be low volume, and likely handmade) but are still large enough in scale to afford these massive fancy buildings, as opposed to be boutique watchmakers, which is how I would intuitively think of this class of craftsmanship.
- A similar Swiss-made dive watch from
a less famous brand costs $2k-4k.
- A similar Japanese-made dive watch from a famous brand costs $500-1000.
- A Chinese-made replica/fake Rolex, mechanically identical to a real one, and only distinguishable by an expert under high magnification, costs about $400-800.
- There are some low-volume watches that are sold for 4-6 figure sums to repeat buyers. Richard Mille in particular has done one-offs for celebrities in the range of 7-8 figures.
As you can imagine you don't need a high volume with margins that large.
That's the price, but as someone ignorant of this area, I don't know enough to even guess margins from that. How expensive are the parts? I would assume that grade of mechanical components aren't cheap. And we should probably price in the labor.
Panerai is a good example to estimate margins. When they were unknown, watches costed $1-2k. This was in the mid 90s. Same models now, distributed by a big luxury conglomerate, cost 5-10x more. Quality and components on comparable models are virtually the same.
Likewise, long ago, Rolex was a toolwatch brand and their products were relatively affordable. They are still great, but prices are insane. Vacheron Constantin is on a different class, though, as they sell lots of watches in the high horology category. Insanely complex and difficult to produce. Some similar brands have had financial issues or gone bankrupt.
I was unsure how to word it, but I think there is a pricesless aspect to the talent that this took. Even though they were probably paid a wage, sometimes outputs by individuals at a company a literally irreplaceable.
> Hopefully steep tariffs on Switzerland will bring watchmaking and watchmakers back to America
It’s actually a good case study. It no longer makes sense to buy a fine watch from an American retailer. The tariffs incentivise a trip abroad. (I’m seeing something similar happen with skis.)
> You risk paying a tariff when you return to the US though
Not really. I’m bringing back a few thousand dollars of mounted, probably lightly-used, skis. Nobody expects to declare random purchases made abroad. Much less an article of jewellery on their wrist.
These are luxury products. That's not the point. They use precious metals when steel would work just as well, and the really high end ones take hundreds of hours of hand labor to very finely decorated the dials and movements. Why? Because it's luxury. It's art.
And let's not even get into how much money they spend on marketing and sponsorships ..
The "dive" part is a red herring these days, as the use of watches to manage decompression strategies has declined since the 90s, and by early 2000s dive computers became the default tool. Use of a dive-watch for diving is almost non-existent these days.
Some example dive computers, for those interested:
It's simply a description of the style of the watch. Just as most people wearing a bomber jacket aren't flying B-52s, and most trench coat wearers aren't fighting in trenches, most dive watch wearers aren't diving. They are still useful terms, despite their relative professions moving on to newer tech.
You’re paying for time. Seiko make great watches with cnc machines under the orient brand. They cost about £150-300.
In terms of watch, it’s the same type of parts and accuracy as a base Rolex.
Rolex you are paying for the name. Yes, they are better quality than an orient, but not much. There is better QC, and more people looking at the watch before it’s sent out, but in terms of precision of manufacturing, or amount of cnc machine used, it’s mostly the same.
There is a thriving scene in small watch producers, spinnaker, holthinrich, de ryke and co, vortic, Weiss, lorier to name a few. Some are sub £300, others not.
I will say there is a easily noticeable jump in build quality from a $300 Orient or Seiko to something like a Tudor Black Bay, or even some of the microbrands in the 2-4k range. You can especially feel it by rotating the bezel and feeling the play in either direction.
But after that tier the quality increase to price ratio pretty much drops to zero.
Richard Mille is well known to anyone interested in watches, especially very rich people. You probably haven’t heard of Jacob & Co? Or maybe you’ve heard of Hublot? It’s the same story with Loro Piana when it comes to clothing, and Koenigsegg or Pagani when it comes to cars.
In certain circles, all of these brands are as common as Nike or Mercedes are to the general public.
Vacheron Constantin is one of the big 3 Swiss watch brands that also include Patek Phillipe and Audemars Piguet. These are a tier above Rolex and Omega and they specifically trade on scarceness and exclusivity. You haven't heard of them because they advertise in very specific places to watch nerds and the very wealthy. Each watch can be like $30,000 to $50,000, or even $120,000 for small run products with unique complications.
There's more interesting brands like Moritz Grossman and Bovet that make even rarer pieces but fewer people have heard of them.
You will notice at Grand Slam tennis matches the first thing the winner does — even before walking out for the interview — is put on the watch made by their sponsor.
I work for a FAANG, I’m in a team that was part of a buyout, I’m surrounded by millionaires. One is wearing a patek phillipe right now. I’ve never seen them be rude to a waitress.
Right, again my point is, if you're charging 500k for a watch, isn't the market for that watch relatively small (people who have the money + people who care about the watch?) Or are they actually selling, say, a thousand of them?
As I'm saying this, I realize selling a thousand of them probably isn't a crazy volume.
* Margin. A relatively low prestige Swiss brand (Tag) has stated they charge 3x bill of materials for their watches. The more exclusive the brand, the higher this number goes.
* Volume might be higher than you think. Popular Swiss models sell in the tens of thousands of units a year. Not bad if you’re charging four or five figures per unit.
* Consolidation. There’s a handful of actual parent companies for watch making that are responsible for most sells. Swatch, Citizen, Rolex. They share resources between each other.
* Common suppliers. Some movements are used in multiple brands, even across multiple parent companies. Sometimes a company will buy a movement, modify the movement, and completely rebrand it. This allows better economics of volume for the most complicated aspects of watches.
* Marketing works. There’s no practical reason to buy a $10k (or $40k) Rolex compared to a $25 Casio. There’s a reason James Bond wears expensive watches and that reason is product placement. Some watch conglomerates are publicly traded, so you can look at how much they spend on marketing.
* The fact that you haven’t heard of the brand is part of the point. If you’re wearing >$100k on your wrist you probably don’t want everyone to know. Even at this price point, it’s a highly liquid asset in some cities.
> There’s a reason James Bond wears expensive watches and that reason is product placement.
Only since Goldeneye when Omega started paying for product placement. Bond had worn Rolex since the original novels, which were written before their big pivot to luxury, so him wearing expensive Rolexes in later films was more of a historical accident. Rolex never actually paid a cent to appear on screen.
The novels always had a lot of wealth signaling from Bond. E.g. in 1953, he ate an avocado, which to British consumers at the time was virtually unknown.
Originally Bond wore a Submariner, which wasn't a wealth signal at a time- it wasn't a _cheap_ watch, but also not the choice of a wealthy person. The Submariner was originally a tool watch, used by naval infantry. The modern equivalent would be wearing a G-Shock DW5600 with a tuxedo. It hints that Bond is a military vet.
It works like any other luxury company, charge an arm and a leg, control the supply so you don’t overproduce, spend a ton on marketing.
Almost all Swiss watch brands (by volume) are owned by either Richemont, Swatch Group, or LVMH. Rolex, Patek, Audemars Piguet, Breitling, and Chopard are the last of the big Swiss independents, but there are smaller ones like Czapek and Cie, H Moser & Cie, Gruebel Forsey, Richard Mille.
At first you think, great, im going to buy a fancy watch and I'll wear a platinum Patek that only a banker will recognize. That's how assholes recognize each other, its all in the watch.
But in the end everyone ends up wearing an Apple watch. Nobody knows how to use an Apple watch. Amazing hardware with the worst software ever developed. But it says that you dont care and at least the watch will tell you the temperature outside.
I’m always impressed by the Swiss. They manage to charge an arm and leg for regular things that a lot of the world makes nearly as well on purely mystique and vibes. Watches, chocolates, diamonds, banking etc.
I don't think "a lot of the world" makes a clock like this.
Also that "mystique and vibes" is essentially "a reputation of quality", which has to be earned, and I'd say they did that. Whether it still holds is another question.
359 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 307 ms ] threadedit a look at their Wikipedia article, tens of millions seems more likely, if they even sell one.
I'd guess this model is somewhere in the $250k to $500k range.
That one was a pocket watch, but I doubt their wristwatch would be that much cheaper. Maybe I'm wrong.
edit the 250th anniversary watch was a wristwatch and went for a million at the time.
[0] https://www.hodinkee.com/
Something to be proud of, for sure.
I realize watch complications are stacked disc segments and not folds, but intuitively if you are dealing with a material in a fixed space you either run up against limits in the stiffness of parts down to sheets of atoms, or some theoretical folding limit relative to the thickness of the case. a watch that expressed the proof might be worth the indulgence.
Everything about the high end "movement" scene rubs me the wrong way (I had a friend into it), but most of all, the pompous terminology.
This might be more like wrist recursion.
EDIT: I wonder if a nixie wristwatch would be a middle ground?
Software with the most integrations and features is usually ends up being the most preferred solution
If you ask someone what a "movement" is, they might well refer to the poop they had that morning, or Eurythmy (which I had as a subject at school!), or almost anything.
That's not a statement about how basic language has become, but rather intentionally lofty vagueness (like "bespoke" instead of custom) people invent for things perfectly well described by expressions anyone can use like "high precision timekeeping", but not-so-subtly signaling a higher price.
They were the normal words for the items described. They only sound fancy now that they have fallen into disuse.
Actually, ditto for bespoke, now that you mention it.
There's an easy parallel to make with the audiophile industry, which uses all kinds of colourful but ultimately vacuous language.
You’re reverting to your priors despite evidence to the contrary.
Eh, I don't think what he's saying now is unreasonable.
Certainly no one feels a pressure to use a modern term that might have less perceived value-- to say "functions" or "features" instead of "complications."
A big part of the product of a fancy watch, or a bespoke suit, is the traditions. When tradition or sounding fancy is opposed to accessibility, the former will win.
Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming. Rolex does a little bit of the Apple game, renaming jargon. But the watch industry mostly uses the term the first person to use it deployed. (“Complications” makes more sense than “features” when working multilingual across French, German and Italian.)
I’d also argue that “features” is a bit misleading. Complications aren’t about utility. They’re about art. It’s intentionally overcomplicating something.
This is not the original usage; "complication" does not imply "grande complication."
> ..."features"...
None of your criticism applies to "functions" which is the first term used.
> Methods in OOP. Every term in functional programming.
Yes... I'm saying in a niche, luxury industry based upon exclusivity and tradition, the marketing pushes towards old, foreign, and exotic language. All these things in commodity digital watches are "modules" and "functions" instead of "calibre" and "complications." (With Apple, on the high end, choosing "complication" for some reason ;).
>people invent for things perfectly well described by expressions anyone can use like "high precision timekeeping"
What is "high precision"? Why are you using engineering jargon when you could say something simple like "accurate"? Why are you using such lofty elitist language?
It's one thing if your software vendor writes the software in Haskell, but if their pitch to you is that the software has 40 patent protected monads and is entirely dotless and lambda lifted, you're probably being taken for a ride.
Amateur radio software would win:
https://sv1cal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/image.png
I agree, you could have an Apple-like interface that lets you tune a single frequency with a particular modulation, but nothing there seems like it's a constellation viewer that has almost no practical use.
https://www.xnec2c.org/#Nec2Treeview
But after a while I realized that's because it's essentially a graphical wrapper around a punched card program.
For me, this feels like one of the less harmful things rich people do. Ultimately you're paying a bunch of skilled labor in a developed state to maintain an artistic craft that uses very little energy and material, for a device that has worse functionality than one under $100. The only issue is where you got your money I suppose, and whether that money would have been better spent elsewhere.
They serve the same function as a designer handbag - although you can at least put things inside a handbag and carry them around.
Keeping EU trade imbalances from getting too far out of whack?
I mean, I think you're right in that watch nerds usually have more domain knowledge, but I don't think it's inherently dissimilar.
This is an item of jewellery, not a high-end custom PC.
For virtually any other watch, not so much as to the normal person they are just a watch
It's a fully programmable ARM microcontroller. You can write "watch faces" for it. There's a 2nd factor codes face that lets you log in like you're James Bond on the Nintendo 64. One of the coolest projects I've ever worked on. I made it possible to calibrate the pulsometer, a feature I use frequently at work.
https://www.sensorwatch.net/
They even developed a custom LCD that's even more awesome than the original.
If it fits within a size and power budget, then you essentially described sizecoding. In its extreme form, it is not practical, but it is an art form.
See you at Revision next week? :)
Why? I’m not a watch guy. But I think the engineering is beautiful. It’s also super niche, so there isn’t a financing model outside this to fund it.
The market in which it needs to exist is exclusive, arrogant and elitist. So there is a bittersweet response to it. Makes me think of Royal arts of the past, made to adorn the palaces and display wealth. beautiful, but they're better now at museums. I believe this watch shall too.
Strongly disagree. Pilfered artefacts are usually safer in a Western museum. But they’re more beautiful when left in their natural environment. In any case, if there is one thing sillier than someone with no respect for fine watches treating them as a status symbol, it’s getting upset about it as a bystander.
Hell, even _inside_ the software development "scene" you can easily find similar cases. Like when web developer who builds (relatevily) simple web apps on top of Rails earns notably more then someone who works with a complex hardware.
The mechanical marine chronometer challenge is a tough one.
> A bit LARPy, I would think.
That's all relative - I worked global exploration geophysics for a decade, worked with folk that developed sapphire oscillators for use in gravitational wave detection, dabble with SKA data, etc.
What's role play to some is just a job to others.
I'm having some difficulty understanding how g shocks, temperature variations, and barometric changes will have less of an effect on a fragile mechanical system than a tuned electronic one.
That said, I have used a quartz watch (mid level Citizen) for actual celestial navigation at sea. It is, for all intents and purposes always going to be more accurate than mechanical (mine typically is good for ~1 second per month, and always in the same direction) Certified mechanical watches typically vary more than that in a day, I believe the standard is 2 seconds per day. I don’t know what a proper marine chronometer is certified to, but it is worth pointing out that a marine chronometer is typically not exposed to the conditions you describe at sea. The official ships chronometer is always kept down below, protected in what is effectively a gimballed humidor. For the purposes of navigational measurements, you use your wrist watch at the time of sighting on deck and add or subtract the difference between your watch and the chronometer. To add on to all that, if a ship is rolling and pitching like you describe your chances of an accurate sight are very low. Even in perfect conditions, it is hard to call the exact moment of alignment to within a second.
If I placed my quartz watch in the box with the official chronometer, I am perfectly willing to argue that if there is a discrepancy in the times shown, the quartz watch should be trusted.
You as a human wouldn't shoot a line in those conditions, no.
The point is that mechanical clock mechanisms endure those conditions .. the rise and fall of tempreture, the rise and fall of air pressure, the shock of acceleration (even when sharply reduced by a gimbal mount).
The error bar over months at sea is the tension betwen the drift effect of all those conditions and normalising complications - gimbal mounts, the use of bimetallic strips to counter tempreture change expansions, etc.
In dead calm conditions a mechanical clock at sea carries the accumulated drift baggage of past storms and heatwaves.
Circling back to quartz oscillators, my question above goes to prompting others to ask themselves if an electronic oscillator regulated by a quartz crystal shows any performance differences over a year when harsh real world physical usage conditions are compared to ideal controlled test conditions.
Does temperature affect the oscillator, does humidty, air pressure, accumulated shock forces, etc.
Addendum:
~ @dghlsakjg ~ @TheOtherHobbesI've reread both my comments above and I'm having some difficulty seeing they can be read to take away a claim that a mechanical marine clock is more accurate than a quartz timekeeping mechanism. Both comments address accuracy in harsh variable conditions versus stable STP lab conditions.
See also: Precision vs. Accuracy - https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/wor...
A mechanical timepiece that calls itself a marine chronometer has to be accurate to +-0.5 seconds per day.
The most accurate quartz wristwatch is certified accurate to +-5 seconds per year.
My experience, in the exact harsh real world conditions that you are talking about, is that is a realistic expectation for quartz watch to accomplish. I cant imagine why an instrument that is ~40x less precise would offer more precise timekeeping
Most are +-5 or 10 seconds a year.
The problem for me is the citizen isn’t that pretty to my eyes.
It's basically the same technology that John Harrison used to win the Longitude Prize in the 1700s, revolutionizing navigation on the high seas.
When you get into some of these luxury brands they pride themselves on not using CNC machines. See for example "Machining a 0.6 mm Screw":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVqLTzh_z4
The purpose of expensive versions of both of those is divorced from their original meaning.
https://ciechanow.ski/mechanical-watch/
Previously on HN in 2022: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31261533
Mechanical Watch (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38591084 - Dec 2023 (163 comments)
Mechanical Watch - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31749299 - June 2022 (1 comment)
Mechanical Watch - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31261533 - May 2022 (413 comments)
https://watchesbysjx.com/2017/05/portrait-masahiro-kikuno-ja... ("Masahiro Kikuno, Japanese Independent Watchmaker")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14610110 (108 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19011880 (98 comments)
0: https://www.youtube.com/c/WristwatchRevival/videos
Haha yeah I like to have this on it the background when I’m doing other things.
Although one might argue that an additional 31% on a watch that retails for six figures is not going to make a difference to the kind of buyer that spends six figures on a watch. Even if a US watchmaker existed, this kind of buyer seems unlikely to substitute a Vacherin or a Patek for something made in Cleveland.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/workplace-switzerland/adding-up...
A beatboxer can’t really do two “voices” at once. When they do, it’s impressive because it’s hard.
That’s the point, making stuff purely mechanical is hard.
A basic mechanical watch movement is something I can’t make. (I have made a case and dial out of aluminium/brass though.)
But, the point I was trying to make is that adding a complication to a smart watch is trivial, something that can be done in a few hours and shipped to everywhere. Adding a complication to a mechanical movement is a lot harder, especially as the iteration time is long.
How do these economics work? I’m guessing they’re a maker of very expensive low volume products. But are there that many buyers?
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/video-vacheron-constantin-...
Same with Richard Mille. Never heard of them but they’re rich enough to sponsor the Ferrari F1 team.
- A real Rolex dive watch costs $5k-15k.
- A similar Swiss-made dive watch from a less famous brand costs $2k-4k.
- A similar Japanese-made dive watch from a famous brand costs $500-1000.
- A Chinese-made replica/fake Rolex, mechanically identical to a real one, and only distinguishable by an expert under high magnification, costs about $400-800.
- There are some low-volume watches that are sold for 4-6 figure sums to repeat buyers. Richard Mille in particular has done one-offs for celebrities in the range of 7-8 figures.
As you can imagine you don't need a high volume with margins that large.
Likewise, long ago, Rolex was a toolwatch brand and their products were relatively affordable. They are still great, but prices are insane. Vacheron Constantin is on a different class, though, as they sell lots of watches in the high horology category. Insanely complex and difficult to produce. Some similar brands have had financial issues or gone bankrupt.
The actual raw material has to be a fraction of the worth.
It’s actually a good case study. It no longer makes sense to buy a fine watch from an American retailer. The tariffs incentivise a trip abroad. (I’m seeing something similar happen with skis.)
Not really. I’m bringing back a few thousand dollars of mounted, probably lightly-used, skis. Nobody expects to declare random purchases made abroad. Much less an article of jewellery on their wrist.
Hypothetically, one could simply wear the watch on their wrist on the flight home. Personal jewelry is not subject to duties.
And let's not even get into how much money they spend on marketing and sponsorships ..
They make the parts.
Some example dive computers, for those interested:
- Suunto Zoop [1] - Shearwater Perdix [2] - Garmin Descent [3]
[1] https://www.suunto.com/en-gb/Products/dive-computers-and-ins...
[2] https://shearwater.com/products/perdix-2
[3] https://www.garmin.com/en-GB/p/632320
You’re paying for time. Seiko make great watches with cnc machines under the orient brand. They cost about £150-300.
In terms of watch, it’s the same type of parts and accuracy as a base Rolex.
Rolex you are paying for the name. Yes, they are better quality than an orient, but not much. There is better QC, and more people looking at the watch before it’s sent out, but in terms of precision of manufacturing, or amount of cnc machine used, it’s mostly the same.
There is a thriving scene in small watch producers, spinnaker, holthinrich, de ryke and co, vortic, Weiss, lorier to name a few. Some are sub £300, others not.
But after that tier the quality increase to price ratio pretty much drops to zero.
In certain circles, all of these brands are as common as Nike or Mercedes are to the general public.
There's more interesting brands like Moritz Grossman and Bovet that make even rarer pieces but fewer people have heard of them.
I'm assuming the two latter categories are sponsored to get the first category to buy?
I just know these brands from F1 where the drivers are sponsored, which is very obvious from the way they wear them.
However, richard mille owners on the hand…..
As I'm saying this, I realize selling a thousand of them probably isn't a crazy volume.
* Margin. A relatively low prestige Swiss brand (Tag) has stated they charge 3x bill of materials for their watches. The more exclusive the brand, the higher this number goes.
* Volume might be higher than you think. Popular Swiss models sell in the tens of thousands of units a year. Not bad if you’re charging four or five figures per unit.
* Consolidation. There’s a handful of actual parent companies for watch making that are responsible for most sells. Swatch, Citizen, Rolex. They share resources between each other.
* Common suppliers. Some movements are used in multiple brands, even across multiple parent companies. Sometimes a company will buy a movement, modify the movement, and completely rebrand it. This allows better economics of volume for the most complicated aspects of watches.
* Marketing works. There’s no practical reason to buy a $10k (or $40k) Rolex compared to a $25 Casio. There’s a reason James Bond wears expensive watches and that reason is product placement. Some watch conglomerates are publicly traded, so you can look at how much they spend on marketing.
* The fact that you haven’t heard of the brand is part of the point. If you’re wearing >$100k on your wrist you probably don’t want everyone to know. Even at this price point, it’s a highly liquid asset in some cities.
Only since Goldeneye when Omega started paying for product placement. Bond had worn Rolex since the original novels, which were written before their big pivot to luxury, so him wearing expensive Rolexes in later films was more of a historical accident. Rolex never actually paid a cent to appear on screen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richemont
It works like any other luxury company, charge an arm and a leg, control the supply so you don’t overproduce, spend a ton on marketing.
Almost all Swiss watch brands (by volume) are owned by either Richemont, Swatch Group, or LVMH. Rolex, Patek, Audemars Piguet, Breitling, and Chopard are the last of the big Swiss independents, but there are smaller ones like Czapek and Cie, H Moser & Cie, Gruebel Forsey, Richard Mille.
What I love about it all is that whatever arguments are made for or against these sorts of things, I think people are just into it because it’s fun.
But in the end everyone ends up wearing an Apple watch. Nobody knows how to use an Apple watch. Amazing hardware with the worst software ever developed. But it says that you dont care and at least the watch will tell you the temperature outside.
Also that "mystique and vibes" is essentially "a reputation of quality", which has to be earned, and I'd say they did that. Whether it still holds is another question.