-
Why have an electronic watch when for a mere $800,000 you can have a mechanical one that keeps time to an amazing accuracy of better than 1 second per day!
http://www.manufacturing.net/videos/2014/08/an-800000-watch-that-tells-near-perfect-time?et_cid=4113236&et_rid=459286138&location=top
-
Sorry, but for $800,000 I'd want Sigourney Weaver whispering the time in my ear whenever I wanted to know.
-
no stopwatch? no alarm? no night light? no day no month? i'm sorry carry on with your stuffs. how dare they claimed "near perfect" when the subject matter is (relatively) inversely proportional to brain function?
-
Near perfect time...on an analog face?
-
No Bluetooth and only 10ppm accuracy - fail.
-
Lads, you're inability to see the intrinsic beauty in a mechanical movement is, frankly, troubling.
-
The tourbillon made sense on a fob watch, always held in the same position, in the pocket. On a wristwatch, it is impressive but doesn't do much to improve the functionality of the timepiece.
-
I find your abuse of the humble apostroph'e troubling
My question is - did they have to make it so fugly? (I guess the answer is yes, or there's no point in having such an expensive watch.)
For that price, though, I'd be wanting something funkily vernier going on with the hands.
Hmm, could you build a watch with a single vernier hand/disc thing, with minutes given by the vernier movement, and hours by the gross position of the disc? Back in a bit...
Edit: Ah, there you go. Beaten to it.
http://www.gizmology.net/watch.htm
-
I find your abuse of the humble apostroph'e troubling
Yeah that was a bit bad eh? -
It's probably a marvel, under a mechanical point of view.
It's definitely NOT apreciseaccurate watch, under a realistic point of view.
It's only a status symbol and a total waste of money, under all points of view.
But it could be only a huge mistake during the video editing text...
-
It's definitely NOT a precise watch, under a realistic point of view.
The second hand sweeps so it is more precise than a digital watch which moves in discrete steps, one per second (as opposed to the more numerous steps of the sweep). Did you mean "accurate" instead of "precise"?It's only a status symbol and a total waste of money, under all points of view.
You're not thinking like someone who can afford to pay that sort of money for a watch. -
OK the mechanics are impressive but it's a ridiculous waste of technology & money when an electronic solution is cheaper, more accurate, smaller and more reliable.
It's just pure wankery
-
I'll stick to my DCF77/MSF-receiving WaveCeptor with practically *) atomic clock precision, thank you
*) yes, I know, I said "practically", right?
-
Did you mean "accurate" instead of "precise"?
damn, yes!
QuoteYou're not thinking like someone who can afford to pay that sort of money for a watch.
1 second a day is not an accurate watch. Be rich doesn't mean necessarily be stupid, don't you?
-
Again, you're not thinking like someone who can afford such a watch. You think a watch is for telling time. Some people see it as an investment. Google "watch as investment" for info.QuoteYou're not thinking like someone who can afford to pay that sort of money for a watch.
1 second a day is not an accurate watch. Be rich doesn't mean necessarily be stupid, don't you?
-
OK the mechanics are impressive but it's a ridiculous waste of technology & money when an electronic solution is cheaper, more accurate, smaller and more reliable.
It's just pure wankery
No doubt it makes your stereo sound better, so from that perspective it's actually a bargain! However, I believe you need two (one for each channel) to get full benefit. -
You think a watch is for telling time.
QuoteSome people see it as an investment.
Indeed!
But in this case, since they're claiminig the amazing accuracy of their watch (while my grandfather €100 automatic watch can offer the same performance of 1s/day) they're probably doing some kind of mistake in advertising. They should claim its design, its mechanical engineering, but definitely NOT his accuracy
-
Again, you're not thinking like someone who can afford such a watch. You think a watch is for telling time. Some people see it as an investment. Google "watch as investment" for info.
Fools and their money, all scrambling for some ROI no matter how unsustainable.
I imagine anyone who can afford a watch like this is a little smarter than that ... purely a fashion accessory for people who simply don't care about money at all. -
Yes, I will agree that there is a certain "intrinsic beauty" to the watch, but---
Sorry, but for $800,000 I'd want Sigourney Weaver whispering the time in my ear whenever I wanted to know.
And Jennifer Anniston to put it on and take it off my wrist whenever I want. -
no, even if i have the money i'll spend on something more usefull, such as that stupid solid shiny transparent stone or that yellowish metal for the "wifey", or if its for me, a ferrari or a 1THz scope. as for timekeeping, i still more prefer my $100 1/1000 whatever dual time casio chronograph, if its broken i'll buy again, if its not accurate i'll go to site such as http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=1440 to synchronize, but i teel you i hardly need calibration in few months time. something stupid like this as an "investment" is pure lunacy and marketing hype or simply as said... is a pure phoolery, you want real deal investment? you buy that stupid solid shiny yellowish nondegradable metal, however big and piling up you can afford. imho.
Again, you're not thinking like someone who can afford such a watch. You think a watch is for telling time. Some people see it as an investment. Google "watch as investment" for info.QuoteYou're not thinking like someone who can afford to pay that sort of money for a watch.
....(whatever)...Yes, I will agree that there is a certain "intrinsic beauty" to the watch, but---
not again, who sigurney weaver? who jennifer aniston? damn do they have 100x more pussies than the normal female? do they have calf that you can see the bone from outside? can you see the water flowing inside when they drink? no! i prefer at least 10 nude virgin marry at my command rather than this sigurney aniston whoever.Sorry, but for $800,000 I'd want Sigourney Weaver whispering the time in my ear whenever I wanted to know.
And Jennifer Anniston to put it on and take it off my wrist whenever I want.
-
If you can afford to spend that much on a watch, you probably wouldn't ever need to be anywhere on time anyway.
-
Apparently the Tourbillon is an old invention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourbillon. Reminds me Dave's recent video about the effect of gravity on crystal clocks.
-
Yes, it was designed for pocket fob watches, where it may actually have improved accuracy, but overall turned out to be a pretty bad idea. In a fob watch, it's dubious, but in a wristwatch, it's pointless and downright bad engineering.
Now I do appreciate the craft of watchmakers, and the way we can have a fully mechanical device that tells the time reasonably accurately. I also like the idea of "vanity engineering", where the idea of cost optimization is thrown to the wind, and one sets out to create "the absolute best possible", resulting in a ridiculously expensive device that is both a status symbol for rich people, and a museum piece of engineering as art.
But a bloody tourbillon in a wristwatch is not "vanity engineering". It's bad engineering, plain and simple. It's something like a challenge for watchmakers to prove their worth, by building something extremely complex, hard to maintain, and utterly pointless. In Greek mythology, the gods punished the rebellious titan Sisyphos with something like this.
It may be attractive to moneyed individuals in need of an outlet, but to me as an engineer, it's an affront to everything just and right in the world. It's like eating food and then throwing it up so you can eat more. The height of decadence and moral putrefaction.Apparently the Tourbillon is an old invention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourbillon. Reminds me Dave's recent video about the effect of gravity on crystal clocks.
-
Tourbillon movements aren't even all that expensive now that precision machining equipment (CNC) is relatively cheap... and they're "blingy" so the Chinese like that. There's tons of "fake tourbillon" watches on Alibaba which just mean "exposed balance wheel", but there are real ones too:
http://sfjldz.en.alibaba.com/product/1620867932-220349102/Tourbillon_skeleton_automatic_mechanical_valentine_flying_tourbillon_watch.html -
Tourbillon movements aren't even all that expensive now that precision machining equipment (CNC) is relatively cheap... and they're "blingy" so the Chinese like that. There's tons of "fake tourbillon" watches on Alibaba which just mean "exposed balance wheel", but there are real ones too:
http://sfjldz.en.alibaba.com/product/1620867932-220349102/Tourbillon_skeleton_automatic_mechanical_valentine_flying_tourbillon_watch.html
Having the mechanism that implements the feature visible from the outside is big part of the attraction. Imaging if Fluke DMMs haver their TRMS chips exposed through the case.