Comparing Various Aspects Of Movement Quality

[WillFly]

I've been reading the forum posts about various movements such as ETA and Seagull, and equivalents of this and that, and I wondered idly what criteria we use to assess the worth and quality of a movement - from cheap to expensive - perhaps from under-rated to over-rated.

 

So, I'm sure we all want a degree of technical excellence - steady, reliable timekeeping as a given. We want a certain degree of ruggedness so that, should accidents happen (don't drop that Hamilton!), the movement will stand a bit of roughness without collapsing into pieces.

 

Apart from basics like that, what else turns you on? Could it be the sophistication of the design - like co-axial escapements - tourbillon - twin barrels - power reserve indicator, etc?

 

One of the initial things that interests me when I get the back off a watch - first impressions, if you will - is the overall quality of the basic engineering. For example, are the cocks and bridges nicely finished and chamfered, is the balance wheel nicely made, are the wheels and cogs of good quality, etc. Does it all look solid...?

 

When I look at the backs of some of my Roamer watches from the 1950s and 1960s, I can see a real difference between the earlier movements like the MST 370, for example, and a movement from the 1970s like the MST 420. When I look at the movements in my railroad grade watches, the damaskeening - which was rarely seen - is often stunning. Damaskeening adds nothing to the timekeeping, but it's an indication of the care and time spent on producing that movement.

Edited February 24, 2014 by WillFly

[autowind]

An interesting question,  if it was just on practicality and function then it would have to be quartz,  I have a quartz with a 10 year battery life,  it's almost outlasted me on a couple of occasions.  For mechanical excellence it has to be a wind up or auto,  I would say the American railroad watches reached the pinnacle of mass production excellence.  I am watching this item but think it might go for more than I want to pay,  but it ticks all the boxes.  

 

 

[ianmedium]

I think for me there are two lines to follow with the quality of a movement. First would be the combined timekeeping and fit and finish of a movement. A well thought out design put together well and finished well always appeals. I love the extra level of finish on the vintage pocket watches or newer ones like Patek or VC but that extra does not matter as much as a simpler finish done well. Perhaps some geneva stripes but more that the edges of the plates are nice and tidy and all the wheels nicely finished. The decoration as I say does not need to be over the top. just nicely executed. For instance Marks Seamaster is a classic Omega movement like that. Just nicely solidly finished.

My Archer is like that. I am not normally one for clear case backs. I always found the novelty of looking at the movement wore off after a while but with this one it is different. Perhaps because I know he took a brand new movement and stripped it down and put it back together again with all best practices taking place like you see in Marks work.

The movement is a bog standard high grade ETA 6498-1 with Rhodium plating but everything looks nicely finished, it just looks right. In particular my eye always goes to the polished teeth on the winding wheel and the heat blued screws, just simple engineering and with Al's attention to detail the thing runs consistently at +1 second a day.

So there is that aspect and then comes the horological excellence, Things like minute repeaters, Tourbillions and such. I particularly am enamoured with Breguets Fusee movement. Everything in that watch screams tradition but with bang up to date materials. It is a watch one can imagine Breguet himself making if he were alive today.

 

This is the movement on my Archer to give you an idea of what I mean about my first thoughts.