# High End and Fragility?



## The Naf (Mar 31, 2012)

Ok guys been meaning to ask this question for sometime now. I often hear experienced owners of "High End" watches complaining of/stating the somewhat fragile nature of their watches. I've always wondered exactly why that is? I know that some people refer to the increased susceptibility to scratches and dings of the precious metal cases or extremely well finished stainless steel ones. But I also know that there are people who are genuinely only referring to the nature of the movement. Why is that? Is it to do with the movement architecture, perhaps thinning of the plates? What are your thoughts? Be specific. If you believe it is the movement architecture an explanation would be great 

cheers


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

Many of the high end watches are Dress Watches. Which the main purpose is to be accurate, have very fine decorations and made of precious metals. Dress watches are usually not shocked proofed, have water resistancy or as robust as sports watches.

High end sports watches, however have no problem being banged around. In fact, I have been ill treating my JLC compressor diver in various extreme activities, and watch still works like a charm.








Some watches even make it their purpose to be used in impact sports..








This is more schockproof than most standard beater watches. But who would wear $500k watch in a sport? It's mostly a show of they did it to prove they could, rather than being useful.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Scholars don't have blood flowing in their veins," said Hamlet. "When they're wounded, they bleed logic, and when all of it is gone, their brains die, and they become ... soldiers.
- Orson Scott Card, _The Ghost Quartet _

Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I have been asking myself effectively the same questions for some 20+ years now. I have one friend who's geeky enough to know the differences that this and that approach to movement fabrication and/or the parts in it make and the one time he started trying to explain it to me I realized I was more interested in watching grass grow than really learning enough about movements to in turn call manufacturers of the watches I was considering and ask the right questions in order to find out the answers.

The other thing about this sort of question is what I call the "more than a mouthful" factor. It's not the sort of thing I really want to discuss with an engineer or watchmaker in a factory somewhere. Such questions are of the type the customer service phone lady/guy won't know the answer to and that an engineer will call me back to discuss. Next thing I know, the answer goes beyond anything I actually understand and then I am no better off, no less confused, than I was before they answered the question(s).

So, what I got out of the conversation with my geeky friend is that unless I am buying a super complex watch, or a watch touting its super bizarre and innovative movement design/architecture, the gory details don't matter. More important, I'm told, are things like how easy and/or convenient it is to get my watch cared for when needed. That is actionable advice that I can relate to. That's really all I need.

I know that's not an answer to the question you asked, and if you are type who need empirical evidence to show you that you don't need to worry about that sort of thing, I'm sorry, but I don't have them outside of this: 

http://www.ieeecss.org/CSM/library/2010/june10/09-ApplicationsOfControl.pdf - probably the only thing I could stand to read that is academically rigorous in its evaluation of one type of watch movement
HSN Entry - a site that has tons of materials that has the sort of content my geek friend was trying to share with me and that I just decided it was TMI that I didn't give a damn about.
Welcome to the NAWCC! - You may find this site also has the sort of scholarly expositions about watchmaking that you desire. They are the publishers of Watch & Clock, which unlike WUS or any other forum I've encountered, is a decidedly non-consumerist publication. In it, you'll find a "Technical Tidbits" column such as this one: Welcome to the NAWCC .

Hopefully the links above along with my anecdotal input will give you some comfort with the fact that you may not easily find such an answer here. I can offer one suggestion to try to direct you toward getting an answer: post your question in the watchmakers forums, not only on WUS, but also on other sites. Also, you might try a couple of the materials and/or mechanical engineering-oriented forums.

I think too that organizations like the Foundation of Haute Horology will also have publications that may assist you. Bear in mind, I mean "may." That organization is an industry advocate rather than an unbiased distributor of facts. It exists solely to promote the interests of its business membership. It does not exist so you and I can cut through the hype and make sound, well informed decisions, aside from being well informed enough to know from whom we can buy expensive watches.

As for sharing the few things I know that are at least directionally like the info you are seeking, I'll offer the following:


Finishing -- This is a wide ranging topic. Most often around here, what folks seem to refer to when they write "finishing" is beveled edges on bridges and plates, anglage as seen on the outermost plates of a watch, and other decorative effects. Finishing actually goes well beyond that, but in most cases you have to get really close up to see it or you just have to know/trust that it's been done. Here I'll try to give you a quick and dirty about why some aspects of finishing make the watch better. There is clearly more to it than what I'm sharing below, but what's below should be enough for you to get the gist of what matters, when and why. I'm focusing on the movement, but the dial, case and bracelet/strap have aspects of finishing too. For more on finishing, you might want to try here -- The A-B-C's of Watch Finish - TimeZone -- along with the sub-articles found at the links at the bottom of that page.
Rhodium plating - Rhodium is an element that is sometimes used to plate watch movements. The functional benefit it provides is that is is very anti-corrosive. It's more expensive than gold, but it provides the non-reactivity benefits of gold while appearing silvery in color.
Beveling, Buffing, Sanding - this is your _anglage, perlage, brouillage,_ _dressage_, etc.
Beveling, buffing and sanding of non-flexible parts that move - On non-moving parts; it's mostly decorative; however, I've seen some discussion (non-WUS) suggesting that even the seemingly decorative treatments provide some "resistance to something" sort of benefit not unlike that of putting a slip cover on a sofa. (If that's durability, or quality, or reliability, or something else in your mind, so be it.) Whether such treatments on stationary parts provide more benefit than "tits on a bull" remains unclear in my mind. On moving parts, or more specifically the contact edges of moving parts, it removes tiny, microscopic burrs and bits of metal from the edges of those parts, thus making the surfaces smoother, reducing friction, and as a consequence, the movement produces less "dust" as its parts abrade each other.

Some of these treatments are preferably done by machine, some can be done by hand or by machine. Beveling has to (currently) be done by hand, some must be done by hand. Beveling must be done by hand (currently). For the ones that can be done either way, I've seen nothing that shows the outcome is tangibly better whichever way it's performed. Regardless of how these effects are achieved, their presence makes the movement cost more.

I've not seen any empirical data providing quantifiable measures of the tangible benefits of things like beveled edges on moving parts. For that reason, it's a theoretical benefit IMO more than anything, but I also have better sense than to refute the theory. I don't doubt in the long run that it'll matter. I just don't have any sense of how long one must run before it does matter.

Lubrication: The less smoothly finished are moving edges, the more lubricant is needed to counteract the impact of friction. It's reasonably safe to assume that the less "smooth" are the contact surfaces, the more lube is needed. Lubricants in your watch behave exactly the same way they do in your car's motor. The better the lubricant, the less often it needs replacing. However, the better the finishing, the less lubricant that is needed. I think you can figure out that watchmakers can vary the proportions of "smoothing" and lubricant applied to achieve, among other things, longer service intervals.
Alignment and adjustment - Part of watch finishing involves things like adjusting the tension on springs, making sure this and that part operate in exactly the same spatial plane and so on. All that stuff incrementally contributes to overall smoother operation of the watch's motor. Think about a car motor's internal parts, or a bicycle and how the alignment of major parts affects its performance and you'll understand this right off. Another factor that one can consider as alignment, or one can call it "tolerance,"has to do with making sure that parts are the correct thicknesses.

(FWIW, this is why I don't really get why folks make fun of bicycle companies that move to also make watches when a bike maker knows as much as one needs to about cog wheels, planes of motion and the affects of repetitive abrasion to make a decent watch. cf. Shinola bicycles.)

Take a look at the movement below. You'll see two primary support structures on it: the half-circle thing in the lower half (A) and the crochet hook looking like thing that runs through the middle and curves up (B). If all the surfaces of those two structures aren't the same thickness, it can produce an imbalance in the movement itself because of the affects of mass and gravity. It might result in one screw needing more tightening than another screw or it might make a moving part bang into it briefly if the watch is jarred or something. I don't know what specific things can/would happen. I'm just trying to give you a sense of another factor that's in play when one is talking about the functional aspects of watch finishing, in particular an aspect of alignment. Certainly, the buffing, sanding and so on also play into the examples I suggested just here.









What's finished and what's not - Some makers finish every stinking edge and flat surface. Some finish none beyond putting a coating over the metal to keep stray bits of metal burrs from coming off. And as you might imagine, there's a full spectrum of places in between those two extremes. Where any given maker falls in that spectrum is all about costs and benefits, what matters and what doesn't. I'll offer one example: JLC is often thought of as a good value among high end watches. Why? Part of it is that they keep the decorative finishing rather sober, particularly on their entry level pieces, but they don't skimp on the ones that affect watch operations. PP on the other hand gives you both. (Well, they don't actually give you anything; you're paying for it.)

Water Resistance -- Outside of the obvious technical value, a case that's water resistant is going to admit less potentially damaging molecules/compounds into the movement area. If one is staying at atmospheric pressure levels that don't require specialized gear, 50 meters of WR is as good as 500 meters, unless one actually is able to dive survivably below 160 feet or so without gear. The main thing one needs to do is have the WR checked periodically.
That's what I have time to offer right now. Hopefully you'll find more of what you seek, or can reason your way to it using the info above.

All the best.

To make a deliberate falsification for personal gain is the last, worst depth to which either scholar or artist can descend in work or life. 
- Dorothy L. Sayers, _The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers. Vol. 1, 1899-1936: The Making of a Detective Novelist_, Letter to Muriel St. Clare Byrne, 8 September 1935


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

tony after the first paragraph, I am convinced by you: I also really do not want to know the answer to that question.


----------



## The Naf (Mar 31, 2012)

Thanks Tony for your thorough reply as usual. I'd always suspected what you have just informed me. It is often suggested that High End watch movements are more fragile yet not much knowledge is contributed as to the cause? Just to be clear I am including High End sports watches such as the AP RO or PP Nautilus though not necessarily Sports watches from the likes of JLC. I've even had a chat with an owner of a ROO who said he had to get his repaired (thankfully under warranty) twice and said he wouldn't own another just because they are so fragile. Also to be clear I am referring to the fragility (real or imaginary) of the movement so case design (water resistance etc) are not necessarily included in my thought process.

As for shock protection, I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that any watch designed to go on a wrist has some level of shock protection. This is part of the problem with converting old pocket watches to wrist watches. They do not have shock protection and would become susceptible to damage from the various forces it would be exposed to flying around on a wrist. Therefore any watch *designed* to go on a wrist *wil* have some level of shock protection. And if a standard 2824 can have decent shock protection why not a High End movement? And is it really just shock protection? Why compromise on this? Does doing so enable manufacturing thinner or more aesthetically pleasing movements?

As for finishing it becomes readily apparent that if anything a High End watch should be *less* susceptible on account of the superb functional finish they no doubt have done on them.

So let's sum up my thoughts and queries (for my own benefit :-D):

*Original Query:*

High End watch movements are often regarded as being more delicate and fragile and therefore more susceptible to damage. Is this really the case? And if so why?

*Some thoughts resulting from original query:*

1. Shock protection has been suggested as a cause. Is this the case? If so why would a company compromise on this?

2. We know that ultra-thin movements are more fragile partly due to the thinning of the plates as well as due to the architecture of the movement. We know why this is. It is to enable manufacture of thin aesthetically pleasing movements.

3. Is the above perhaps true for your average High End movement as well though to a lesser degree?

4. Is it simply the fact that High End cases (often thin and comprising of precious metals) simply do not afford the movement the added protection that say your Rolex of Omega cases can. Therefore it is not necessarily the movement that is more fragile but rather the fact that it is more exposed to shock.

5. Is it a combination of the above and are there additional factors?

*Or...
* 
are High end movements really just as robust as non-High end movements?

Anyway those are my thoughts. I'll have a go at some of the Links that Tony posted although I suspect I may end up just as dis-interested as Tony :-D


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

The Naf said:


> ...
> 
> So let's sum up my thoughts and queries (for my own benefit :-D):
> 
> ...


Let me say that everything is relative. I only buy simple watches. Even the lamest Chinese clone movement that does no more than tell time and/or date can be sufficiently well made to get the job done. I'd be more interested if I were seeking to buy a perp cal with a minute repeater under the hood. You know what I mean?

*Some thoughts resulting from original query:*

1. Shock protection has been suggested as a cause. Is this the case? If so why would a company compromise on this? 
For exactly the same reason you or I might choose an M3 over a Porsche 911 or a Porsche Cayman over a 911. It's all about costs, benefits and where one thinks one will get good value versus simply wanting the penultimate "thing," regardless of cost.

2. We know that ultra-thin movements are more fragile partly due to the thinning of the plates as well as due to the architecture of the movement. We know why this is. It is to enable manufacture of thin aesthetically pleasing movements.
No. It's to make aesthetically pleasing whole watches and to demonstrate a level of proficiency by making a super thin movement.

3. Is the above perhaps true for your average High End movement as well though to a lesser degree? 
Is what true? There was a lot "above."

4. Is it simply the fact that High End cases (often thin and comprising of precious metals) simply do not afford the movement the added protection that say your Rolex of Omega cases can. Therefore it is not necessarily the movement that is more fragile but rather the fact that it is more exposed to shock.

5. Is it a combination of the above and are there additional factors?

*Or...
* 
are High end movements really just as robust as non-High end movements
My experience -- PP Calatrava, Piaget Altiplano, AP RO, JLC Duo -- has been that they are neither better nor worse than anything else I own. I cannot emphasize enough thought that mine are simple movements. These companies have been making them for over 100 years; they've worked out the kinks.

I know recently Abu mentioned that FPJ's movement is more delicate. I can see that to a point. It's a gold movement. Gold is a soft metal and as such it's subject to wear more so than steel. In that sense, I can easily see it as being more fragile.

Outside of that, or super complex watches, I don't see any reason to be concerned about durability. If anything, I'd advise focusing more on service than on whether the thing will break. It's very unlikely to break, but it's quite likely to be an expensive PITA to get service if you buy an arcane enough watch. 

All the best.

If a problem is fixable, if a situation is such that you can do something about it, then there is no need to worry. If it's not fixable, then there is no help in worrying. There is no benefit in worrying whatsoever.
- Dalai Lama XIV


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

Great post Tony!


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

mpalmer said:


> Great post Tony!


TY. I appreciate your having taken the time to read it and that you found something of value in it. It's kind of you to publicly say so and I am grateful for that as well.

All the best.


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

I think part of the reason why people assume that "high-end" watches are more finicky and more fragile is because, in a lot of cases, "high-end" is also associated with "complicated".

If you compare a basic Rolex movement with, say, a Lange Datograph movement, it's pretty clear to see that the Rolex, with its sturdy balance bridge, no-nonsense layout based on having as few parts as possible and favoring easy assembly, and basic, "tractor-like" functional finishes to most components is going to be more robust. There are simply no delicate parts to be knocked about, shaken out of adjustment, etc. I think much of the same could be said of the 4130 Rolex chrono movement, which although more technologically advanced than basic movements (like the 3135), is still robust, made of as few pieces as possible, and designed with durability and ease of service in mind above all else.

Compare it to the Datograph, with its horizontal chrono engagement mechanism, many intricate levers of all kinds of shapes and sizes, often long and thin, and multiple superimposed levels of components layered on top of one another, let alone the parts count that has to be a multiple of those in the Rolex 4130 movement, and it falls within reason to assume that this movement requires much more careful assembly, adjustment and tuning, and must be more sensitive to shocks, vibrations and abuse than its Rolex counterpart.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are "high-end" watch movement that are very sturdy. I was browsing the Web and watching a few videos made by Roger Smith regarding his Series 2 movement. It's a bare-bones simple time-only movement (with power reserve indicator), and his design absolutely emphasizes durability. When you look at how sturdy the main plate, three-quarter plate, and balance cock all appear to be, and all of the care that goes into the engineering and refinement of every little piece, spring, and bushing inside, I would have to think that this movement has to be as robust as anything out there, while still offering a degree of finish and refinement that isn't offered anywhere else.

In other words, I think one has to consider the physical attributes and merits of a particular piece to gauge how "fragile" or "finicky" or "robust" it is, as opposed to drawing a generalized conclusion on a whole category of products. (Which "category", as we have seen from the numerous posts as to whether such and such brand is high-end or not, the list of "high-end" brands, etc., isn't even well defined to begin with!)


----------



## Alexvlad (Mar 16, 2014)

Wow thanks Tony for the very detailed post. For me the fragility of the high end watches comes also from the specific material and of course of the manufacturer. It is not all high end watches are fragile per se.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Something I didn't expressly state earlier but, given your follow on questions, seems worth stating is this: the durability of a machine, a watch, depends on materials, construction methods, and the degree to which actual use differs from intended use.

My sense is that what interests most folks, even though they say "durability," is reliability, that is the extent to which the watch won't break, become radically inaccurate, or die on them in the absence of extraordinary factors. The two attributes are, of course, related; reliability depends on durability to some extent. 

A spring may be made from a more temperature sensitive metal and as a result, not wind/unwind properly at the top of a mountain, for example. If that happened, would that make the watch not durable or not reliable? Not necessarily. If the watch is constructed with the thought that it would likely be used on high peaks, yes, it's fair to say the watch isn't reliable, or one might even say it's not durable enough for extreme cold. If the spring/watch is made such that it's possible to over-wind it and cause the spring to disconnect, that would be a durability problem but not a reliability one. 

There are many more examples and scenarios that lean one way or the other. What's important is that one recognize that basic watch movement making is a very mature skill. Outside of the very cheapest and most haphazardly built built "junk mechanicals," any watch will be durable enough for routine use that corresponds to what the typical person does, even playing sports aside from really tough contact sports. Moreover, those "junk mechanicals" (JM) as I call them are hard to come by. 

What is a " JM?" I've only seen one. It was a Chinese fake that was sold for $5 by a dude who approached a colleague and me inside a subway station. The guy had some 40 watches dangling from a string and asked for $15. My colleague offered $5 and the guy agreed. It worked fine that evening and for the next few days, but two weeks later the watch was gaining 10 to 15 minutes every few hours. The very same guy, however, has similar watches from the high end knock-off shops and for which he paid about $30. He's had them for over two years with no trouble.

The point isn't about the fakeness of the things, the point is about the fact that a very cheap watch can work just fine. The point is that what can accurately be called a JM is so super cheap it's one's own fault for expecting anything more than the worst. The point is that the price that distinguishes a junk watch from just an inexpensive one is so low that it is very hard to compare durability or reliability in the short term (3-5 years or less). 

Will a typical affordable or even mid-range watch work reliably for 20-30 years? Probably, so long as the case and WR are in good order and it's serviced periodically. Will it still be working 75 years later, or 100 years later? I don't know for sure, but if you don't service it consistently, it won't. My sense is that those factors I described earlier will come into play in the overall scheme of things, but that's not going to be something I care about. Watches get passed on to other folks, but check out the vintage forums; plenty of non-high end watches are still around and working fine. Yet like old cars, sooner or later the "motor" will need some major fixing, regardless of how durable it was to start. That's physics; it's the way of mechanical machines.

I know that's not a lot of facts, but hopefully it's enough perspective so that you realize that if you are buying a high end watch thinking it's going to be materially more durable, more reliable than just a regular, good watch, the let down later will be your fault, not the watch's.

All the best.

Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.
- Alexander Pope


----------



## Shane94116 (Sep 8, 2013)

tony20009 said:


> Scholars don't have blood flowing in their veins," said Hamlet. "When they're wounded, they bleed logic, and when all of it is gone, their brains die, and they become ... soldiers.
> - Orson Scott Card, _The Ghost Quartet _
> 
> Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I have been asking myself effectively the same questions for some 20+ years now. I have one friend who's geeky enough to know the differences that this and that approach to movement fabrication and/or the parts in it make and the one time he started trying to explain it to me I realized I was more interested in watching grass grow than really learning enough about movements to in turn call manufacturers of the watches I was considering and ask the right questions in order to find out the answers.
> ...


Tony if your friend was long winded enough to bore YOU he must be a very detailed person...


----------



## HPoirot (Jan 31, 2011)

My very very layperson take on this. 

It seems to me you're inferring the fragility on reports of watches breaking down. 

1. Could it be, that given the smaller pool of higher end brands, every single complaint seems to be revolving around the few brands? 

2. When a person pays the prices that HE watches command, there's generally a higher expectation of the watch, and therefore when any issues come up, they're less tolerant (and also more vocal about) of it? (eg, if my 100$ watch loses 1 min in a day, i doubt i'll notice. But when my $10k watch does that i'll kick up a fuss)

3. Along the same vein, when a non-HE watch breaks down, i'll just shrug and start looking for a new one. When a HE watch break down, i will want the whole community to know about it!

4. Most HE watches are dress watches, and therefore not as rugged and hardy as your non HE offerings, which tend towards 'beater' watches. 

I won't be surprised if there were conclusive evidence that movements that focuses on aesthetics are less resilient than most ETAs which are referred to as 'workhorses'. 

Personally, i've had rather good experiences with mine, and i assure you i do not baby my watches. I wear them to swim, jog, and a couple of them have completed a marathon.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

Shane94116 said:


> Tony if your friend was long winded enough to bore YOU he must be a very detailed person...


In all fairness, technically I found the topical content boring, but then I thought algebra was boring too and yet I use it daily. It was and is more that even if I'd paid attention to all the details, I knew I would never have used the information to any good effect. The subject matter itself is indeed interesting, or at least more so than growing grass. <winks>

All the best.


----------



## johnperregaux (Dec 6, 2012)

I sometimes wear a jaeger lecoultre dress watch when I drop the kids off at the pool. Has not stopped yet


----------



## BusyTimmy (Jul 24, 2009)

johnperregaux said:


> I sometimes wear a jaeger lecoultre dress watch when I drop the kids off at the pool. Has not stopped yet


Um.


----------



## tony20009 (Sep 25, 2013)

johnperregaux said:


> I sometimes wear a jaeger lecoultre dress watch when I drop the kids off at the pool. Has not stopped yet


ROTFL


----------

