The watch industry has been experiencing a notable shift, characterized by a departure of skilled watchmakers from commercial brands. These qualified individuals are either being replaced by less experienced personnel, pursuing independent ventures, or retiring. This trend is apparent in prestigious brands opting for cheaper labor over seasoned expertise, with experienced watchmakers being supplanted by assembly line workers colloquially dubbed "hairdressers" in the industry. Consequently, many products are now designed to require minimal watchmaking skills, diminishing the prevalence of intricate craftsmanship such as inward angles in even the most revered brands, unless priced exorbitantly.
Chronometry, reliability and thinness are still some of the pillars in historical horology. Despite being today purposely overlooked by manufacturers to suit their commercial needs. Pillars gradually being replaced by bling, hype and FOMO. The fact is that despite all the investment in engineering to cancel the human factor, the human factor still plays an important role in implementing that engineering. A human factor that is still hard to dispose of as long as it’s deemed relevant by collectors. Chronometry, reliability and thinness remain three horological concepts heavily reliant on engineering as well as human experience. They can certainly operate separately yet they are most effective when combined.
Chronometry
Chronometry, recently overlooked yet without a doubt the true “raison d’être” in horology. As much as many have attempted to make it redundant, accuracy is and should be an important pilar in watch making. Even today, no mater if you have access to atomic time in your pocket (cellphone). Never loose track of the fact that you are purchasing an item that is meant to hold a minimum timekeeping standard. Before the times of GPS and radar, your only means of reaching your destination at sea or not was precise timekeeping.
Accurate chronometry is a race that began centuries ago making or breaking countless watchmakers along the way. Those that succeeded in surpassing boundaries while setting higher standards are celebrated to this very day. After centuries of evolution, despite the enormous improvements in micro-engineering, the final human touch is still paramount for the perfect adjustment. Unlike cars that can be assembled by the thousands in a single day, supervised by a staff of six (Homer Simpson style…), watches have tolerances ranging in microns. At least until now an assembly line won’t be able to adjust and tweak an individual watch movement when necessary.
We need to consider that “Chronometer” certification values have not been revised for over five decades. Those values have today become nothing other than an achievable target for an assembly line. COSC tolerances currently still are -4 and +6 seconds per day. So after 50-years and the considerable improvements in machinery, metallurgy and movement architecture we need to ask ourselves… are these requirements still acceptable in 2024?
Without getting into complex dissertations, there are two approaches when it comes to achieving acceptable chronometry on a finished movement. Precision through engineering and the other is the skill and patience of the watchmaker. The first is headed by behemoths such as Seiko, Rolex and Swatch Group. The second can be found at most indies. Taking things further, there is a micro-brand like TYPSIM that bases much of its philosophy on precision through human adjustment (as well as confirmation through certification). As with all others, if you add the “human” factor your accuracy will improve two or even threefold. I myself own several non-COSC certified timepieces that run between 0 and +2 seconds per day. The most accurate is a Dead-Beat seconds by Habring² that keeps +1 second per week. The only thing these watches have in common is that the human factor has been VERY dominant at the moment of assembly.
Reliability
Not to be mistaken with chronometry. Instead think of “reliability” as in a measure of “robustness”. A property that addresses questions like: Can the watch withstand daily average active wear (within reason) without any issues? How well is it shielded against temperature changes, magnetism, dust, and water? How do its components hold up over an extended period of time? Here is the place where engineering has a crucial role. Possibly. Yet proper and precise assembly is paramount to ensure that all advances in engineering, metallurgy and physics do not go to waist. A slight misalignment and what is supposed to be a 5-year run without the need for service might be downsized into several months. All the advances of engineering are many times lost if not perfectly executed.
As of late, we have seen a considerable increase in the extension of warranties and recommended service periods by commercial brands. There is no doubt that there is not only a marketing strategy behind it but also an operational factor to take into consideration too. Lengthening the needs for service will reduce the workload and require fewer experienced watchmakers. Most worrying is a plan by many commercial brands to replace the movement of a serviced watch with a previously serviced/refurbished movement. Then that movement is serviced by watchmakers to be refurbished and reinserted in the next watch for service. This undoubtedly saves a considerable amount of time for the owner as well as service centres yet opens a very troubling can of worms. From a personal perspective, not even as a collector, I find that practice even if it saves time absolutelly unacceptable for so many reasons I would not even know where to begin. Maybe a reason to discus in another article…
Thinness
For many that have ever worked in watches, thinness or ultra-thin could be understood as a complication in itself. It is undoubtedly an engineering challenge. The difficulties of a thin or ultra-thin movement are not only in where to generate enough force/torque in a very limited space to drive the movement or diferent complications. The laws of physics are unavoidable. In the case of thin movements the challenge begins at the very first stage of manufacturing the brass mainplate. Allow me for a blunt analogy; think of it as having to make three round holes in a stick of butter. Take your finger, push it in thereto make have a hole. Do the same for the second hole. Well… it won’t take long for you to realise two things. As much as you were careful, due to the very soft nature of the butter the position of the first hole has shifted. Second, the shape of the first hole has also warped. Needles to say that the thirds time to insert your finger will only worsen the result. In short, this is what happens when drilling/machining holes in a relatively soft metal like brass. Now make that bras main plate half as thick as your standard movement. See where I am going?
So why insist in making thin movements when they are so misunderstood and unappreciated? Well, the thinner the movement, the easier it will be to design/create an elegant watch around it. It’s true that a skilled designer will be able to find ways to make a thick watch look elegant despite the handicap of a thick movement. Double domed sapphire crystals, strategically placed angles, case shapes… However, there are limits. A thin movement will allow for a smaller watch to remain elegant in its proportions while achieving an acceptable level of protection. Something much harder to do with a thick movement from the get go. If there is one quality that needs experience and skill when assembling, that is without a doubt ultra-thin. The hand-staking alone requires a certain level of dexterity. A perfect example would be AP’s Jumbo. It’s safe to say that the original Royal Oak would not have seen the light as we know it today unless the 2121 calibre existed. It was equipped with the thinnest automatic movement with central rotor for decades. The first series Jumbo was 7.9 mm thick and waterproof to 50 meters. That was over 50-years ago…
In an ideal world the industry would be able to combine development and experience. Unfortunately we are seeing how influencers take centre stage instead. The emphasis is today on fabricated narrative and not on the product. It is very unfortunate that pillars such as these are systematically pushed out of existence by a part of the industry. It’s understandable that investors are more concerned about figures than horological values. What they don’t seem to understand is that this is only a short term strategy and at a point down the line one will be accountable for those decisions.
Fortunately, we have experienced a similar attempt by the industry when they attempted to do away with finishings. For many decades, nobody was even remotely concerned with finishings. Only an insufferably grumpy old man (Philippe Dufour) kept the light on in his atelier night after night. Then… one day, the public set its sights on the grumpy old man. The rest is history.
Now the tables have shifted to an excessive prioritisation of the finishings. Many leaving chronometry, reliability and thinness as secondary. Perhaps this is a discussion for another time…
As much as I would think otherwise, a“ ❤️ Like” is a big deal – it serves as a proxy to new visitors of this publication’s value. If you enjoyed this post and since it’s free content, please let others know and do not hesitate to share.
Cheers!
Shit! Did I post this???
It was a draft FFS!!!