# Long term...Quartz or Automatic?



## haik

With proper battery replacement, would a quartz movement outlast an automatic, or vice versa..... With normal usage, ie going to the office and back , which of the two would generally last longer over the years? Any info appreciated.


----------



## Eeeb

haik said:


> With proper battery replacement, would a quartz movement outlast an automatic, or vice versa..... With normal usage, ie going to the office and back , which of the two would generally last longer over the years? Any info appreciated.


With careful maintenance, both should have a very long life, longer than humans.

With poor maintenance (and the battery caveat) my money is on the quartz... It really needs no maintenance. Its inner workings are so much less stressed compared to an automatic mechanical.

Of course, you didn't consider the automatic quartz watches :-d


----------



## haik

Eeeb said:


> With careful maintenance, both should have a very long life, longer than humans.
> 
> With poor maintenance (and the battery caveat) my money is on the quartz... It really needs no maintenance. Its inner workings are so much less stressed compared to an automatic mechanical.
> 
> Of course, you didn't consider the automatic quartz watches :-d


Well thats good to know... I'm way too lazy to fiddle with automatics anyway :-d thanks for the reply


----------



## cbeeches

I have a 20 year old Quartz. Has never been serviced and runs like a champ. For sentimental reasons I keep a good battery always in it. It's a bit out of style now. I think it's a classic. It was a daily wear for about 7 years and yes the strap was replaced many times. How much would I have had to spend on an Automatic for service in 20 years? Quartz rocks!


----------



## KZZN

Hi;

What's generally come to worry me more lately is the long-term viability of a high-end quartz piece from the point of view of servicing. We've recently seen, for example, Omega discontinue servicing and support for many of its 70s and 80s electronic and early quartz pieces, and I find myself wondering if the same might inevitably happen with other manufactures as well.

I suppose at the end of the day, a manual wind or automatic watch is basically a mechanical device which can (barring really serious damage) always be fixed by replacing or repairing the appropriate physical part. Even watches that are many, many decades old can still be serviced by independent watchmakers, even if their own manufacturers have long since turned their backs on them.

An electronic or quartz watch, though....I find myself wondering if in a decade or two things like, for example, my Oysterquartz will no longer be servicable by Rolex, simply because the electronic and computer components from the last millennium are no longer available, and no currently-produced component is compatible. Whereas a mechanical watch, if worst comes to worst, can always be fixed, just by manufacturing whatever comparatively simple physical component needs replaced.

Time will tell, of course - and it certainly won't stop me from buying more HEQ pieces in the future. But it's something to think about, I'd say - in a few decades, we might find that our current cherished HEQ pieces are no longer repairable, if and when they ultimately fail.


----------



## M4tt

This really does come down to how functionalist you wish to be about this. 
personally I would be a lot happier mapping the input/output relations of an old chip onto a new chip of whatever material than I would be trying to reverse engineer a Daniels, or indeed any, escapement.

My money would be on quartz in the long run if it wasn't for one thing...

When it comes to resisting entropy in the long run what you really need is someone looking out for you. It's an evolutionary thing - survival of those most fit to survive in a given environment. In this case the utility function is how well a watch becomes irreplaceable to a a person or a family.

The fact is that currently I cannot think of a quartz which arouses affection in the way that, say, the Omega Speedmaster or the JLC Reverso does. Thus the question isn't about quartz or mech, it's about affection. So, amoung the quartz watches the Rolex is definitely a survivor!


----------



## haik

KZZN said:


> Hi;
> 
> What's generally come to worry me more lately is the long-term viability of a high-end quartz piece from the point of view of servicing. We've recently seen, for example, Omega discontinue servicing and support for many of its 70s and 80s electronic and early quartz pieces, and I find myself wondering if the same might inevitably happen with other manufactures as well.
> 
> I suppose at the end of the day, a manual wind or automatic watch is basically a mechanical device which can (barring really serious damage) always be fixed by replacing or repairing the appropriate physical part. Even watches that are many, many decades old can still be serviced by independent watchmakers, even if their own manufacturers have long since turned their backs on them.
> 
> An electronic or quartz watch, though....I find myself wondering if in a decade or two things like, for example, my Oysterquartz will no longer be servicable by Rolex, simply because the electronic and computer components from the last millennium are no longer available, and no currently-produced component is compatible. Whereas a mechanical watch, if worst comes to worst, can always be fixed, just by manufacturing whatever comparatively simple physical component needs replaced.
> 
> Time will tell, of course - and it certainly won't stop me from buying more HEQ pieces in the future. But it's something to think about, I'd say - in a few decades, we might find that our current cherished HEQ pieces are no longer repairable, if and when they ultimately fail.


Ok...now I'm bummed o| but seriously, your points are right on the money.


----------



## Eeeb

haik said:


> Ok...now I'm bummed o| but seriously, your points are right on the money.


All things are relative to a cost factor... for enough money you can do anything... and a probability factor... worry about stuff that is likely to happen not the once in a blue moon stuff (otherwise you worry about everything).

I just went over this in another post but let me add one point - the worries about non-maintenance by Omega of old quartz. Much of this old quartz is really tuning fork(s) with quartz control. It's a mechanical device with accurate regulation supplied by quartz. The only thing they resemble today is the Spring Drive kludge by Seiko -- a mechanical device with quartz regulation.

From a reliability viewpoint, these are mechanical watches not quartz watches.

I confess, if my GP 'first modern quartz' dies because some cosmic ray fried the IC, I'm not going to pay to have a new IC engineered from modern components. I'll just buy Bruce's -- it would be a lot cheaper :-d.

(But the same thing is true of my old mechanicals once you have to start machining new parts... too expensive to fix.)

However, absent cooking by fried batteries, I don't expect it to die.

I confess I don't get attached to watches like I do people... I have lots of watches and if one dies and it costs 'too much' to fix, oh well, there are others. (In this they are just like cars...) Pets are more important to me than watches. And they come and go too...

Anyway, absent extreme behavior, quartz will outlast mechanicals.


----------



## KZZN

Hi;

Some very good points there, M4tt and Eeeb - and I would certainly agree that, in terms of which is more likely to fail over the long run, the mechanical very probably loses out. Though it could be that, in the event of a failure, the mechanical is easier to get repaired than a quartz. Time will tell, I suppose - and it is indeed a question of trading off one risk versus another.

And M4tt, on the subject of the Reverso - all being well, my next HEQ purchase later this year will be a quartz Reverso Classique  JLC still make an entirely in-house, hand-assembled and hand-finished quartz movement that is available in certain Reverso models, and I've definitely got my eye on it as my next purchase, I think. Unless something else tempts me in the meantime, of course


----------



## RPF

I think the impression that quartz doesn't last as long is mainly due to two problems:

1. It's too trouble-free.
2. It's "not worth" a watchmaker's time.

A quartz watch is so reliable and accurate (yes, even the $2 Mickey Mouse watch) that there's little need to interact with it other than to set the date every other month. The cost of a battery change is also relatively cheap (say under $20). 

Proper maintenance of a quartz is therefore neglected, particularly sealing the movement from the exterior environment. This is more important than in a mechanical watch because a dirty mechanical movement can still function (albeit chugging along), but a shorted circuitry/corroded contacts/leaking battery means death.

There is also a dearth of watchmakers willing to perform routine maintenance on a quartz movement (clean and oil, checking the current consumption etc) Many do not have the proper equipment, much less parts for repairable movements such as coils, steppers, etc. It's usually cheaper to purchase whole movements than performing surgery.

So in answer, I do believe quartz can last longer than an auto, but prevailing attitudes prevent it from doing so.


----------



## Davidtan

just my tho

quartz - very accurate, slightly shorter than automatic (high end quartz)

automatic - not really accurate compare to quartz, but with well maintenance, it could serve you for whole life


----------



## M4tt

I agree that the quartz Reverso looks sweet but I have to admit that I have never found a picture of the movement. JLC are at the forefront of 'deep time' movements at present (in my opinion). Anything by them will last.

The HEQ forum has a tradition of evidence based discussion. This poses an immediate and rather irritating problem for quartz fans.

In 1734 the manufacture that became Favre Leuba came into existance. For convenience let's mark that as the beginning of mechanical watches. That means that mechanical watches have had *274 *years to prove their longevity. The first quartz was 1969; a mere *39 *years to prove themselves.

Now I have happily gone along with the 'multigenerational' argument for mechanicals but when you look at it it really is rather short on evidence.
In fact, I think I would go so far as to say that it is a *myth*.

Yes, a remarkable number or pocket watches from 100 years ago are still around but the majority I see are either hulks or have been rebuilt. The nature or movements of a century ago means that they are comparitively easy to make parts for. This is no longer the case; _a modern mechanical watch is not economically repairable without spares support from the manufacture._ Thus the survivability question comes down to spares support. Not so multigenerational.

And this support is necessary. After twenty years even a immaculately maintained mechanical watch will need spares. If you cannot get them then it is junk.

One of the reasons that I am such a fan of the 2892 based watches is that I know that the spares availability for them is pretty well certain for a very very long time to come. However, this is missing the point.

The same, of course is true of quartz. However, the fact is that as a moderately impecunious collecter I can take a photo like this:









That's three watches from between 1972 and 1974. Two are working perfectly despite never having seen a service (until very recently) While one is in the (gradual) process of repair.

Quartz watches are clearly inherently far more reliable than mechanicals. It would appear that a sizeable amount of thirty five year old watches from a wide variety of makers are still going strong. We are still to see how long a quartz watch can actually go without requiring spares. While we simply don't know the evidence looks good so far...

This means less pressure on the various ways of obtaining spares. and ultimately a longer life.

I don't know how much agreememt I'm going to get but right now if I had to choose an affordable multigenerational watch it would probably have a quartz Seiko 9F movement - it doesn't need love; it can look after itself!


----------



## Ray MacDonald

Let me repeat my "tale of two Omegas" here.
In 1981 I worked for a Swiss flavor company called Firmenich. They gave me a brand new Omega quartz dress watch as a momento when I visited the head office in Geneva.
At the same time, I had the opportunity to buy my wife an Omega at a discount price, thanks to the corporate arrangement Firmenich had with Nicolet - a jeweler in Geneva.
I wasn't too sure about reliability of these new quartz models, so I got my wife an Omega handwind.
The Omega manual wind is now in a drawer awaiting its 4th rebuild. Last time took 6 weeks because a part was needed and the repair place told me it likely wouldn't be possible to get any more parts for it. I know a place where they can likely fix it today but it'll be a costly repair.
The quartz watch has needed new batteries every couple of years, but it still runs and keeps accurate time. I have never had to get service aside from the battery changes.


----------



## KZZN

Hi, M4tt;

JLC actually have a picture of the movement on their Web site - the Caliber 608 (it also features in their catalog as well, if you are able to get a hold of one). If you go to:

http://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/eu/en/watches/reverso-classique

And choose, for example, "Stainless steel" > "Leather" > "2518410 (Q)", and click on the "Details" tab at the top, you should see a fairly close-up image of the Caliber 608. I've never seen one in person, though - yet, anyway


----------



## KZZN

Oh, and nice collection, by the way !


----------



## Bruce Reding

Ray MacDonald said:


> Let me repeat my "tale of two Omegas" here.
> In 1981 I worked for a Swiss flavor company called Firmenich. They gave me a brand new Omega quartz dress watch as a momento when I visited the head office in Geneva.
> At the same time, I had the opportunity to buy my wife an Omega at a discount price, thanks to the corporate arrangement Firmenich had with Nicolet - a jeweler in Geneva.
> I wasn't too sure about reliability of these new quartz models, so I got my wife an Omega handwind.
> The Omega manual wind is now in a drawer awaiting its 4th rebuild. Last time took 6 weeks because a part was needed and the repair place told me it likely wouldn't be possible to get any more parts for it. I know a place where they can likely fix it today but it'll be a costly repair.
> The quartz watch has needed new batteries every couple of years, but it still runs and keeps accurate time. I have never had to get service aside from the battery changes.


Thanks Ray! That story does a great job of grounding this discussion in reality.


----------



## M4tt

Thanks for the compliment and the guidance - that's a nice looking movement.


----------



## clarencek

I hate to say it, but I have an Omega Seamaster Aqua Terra (42mm) - 9 months after purchase the bracelet came apart. One of the pins holding the clasp together fell out and the watch flew off my wrist. 

Even before that, the automatic movement was so inaccurate it drove me crazy - a few minutes a week fast or slow. Sorely disappointed in the watch. 

It's for sale, if anyone wants it.


----------



## M4tt

After you have done such a fine job of advertising it!

Actually The AT is one of my favorites


If you are UK and interested in trades then PM me...


----------



## Eeeb

What movement does the AT have? 

I find it amazing O-MAY-GA ;-) would put something that bad in a watch. It's gotta need service. (2892A2's are spec'ed to 5 sec/day... my experiences are better.)


----------



## M4tt

It is blessed with the uniquely wonderful 2500 movement with the Daniels coaxial escapement.

This takes the already excellent 2892/A2 movement and addresses the three weaker spots with:

A free sprung balance

Upgraded winding bridge

Jeweling to the mainspring barrel

As if this isn't enough, Omega also add the Daniels escapement and finish the movement to a standard which led Walt Odets to comment that:



> this Omega caliber radiates the kind of fundamental quality that Omega has been known for since the turn of the 20th century.


This is a movement that is not only capable of exceeding COSC but doing so reliably for almost twice as long as pretty well any other mechanical watch.

I would be prepared to bet that servicing or regulation is the issue here, not fundamental quality.

The Aqua Terra is the perfect home for the 2500.


----------



## Eeeb

Agreed. I gotta believe it needs to see the doctor... 

(I'm beginning to love the 2892A2... but watches with them are sooooo expensive. Ah well... welcome to the world of mechanicals. :roll: It's sooooo much cheaper to collect significant quartz watches than it is to collect significant mechanicals... and there's only 40 years of them! :-d )


----------



## M4tt

The 2892 is something we can *really *agree on. The 2824 is a super movement too and you can get them for peanuts if you try. The Autoquartz is based upon them too ...


----------



## akit110

Interesting discussion from my pov esp. for a former 'all or nothing' mechanical watch nut. Recently, I have tempered this attitude due to pragmatism. My life has just become too hectic and busy to worry about the servicing of a (mechanical) watch every year or so (who to service? how long will it be away? did they do a good job? how many hundreds did it cost? should I buy a winder?). I still love'm but realize I need no more accumulate them than I would exotic Italian sports cars. I have a couple (mech watches) and that's plenty. The rest I can admire from afar.

But anyway that's a bit OT.

i think the longevity thing gets a bit overstated for mech watches. Yes, you can rebuild mechanical watches indefinitely. But given the increasing expense and difficulty of getting a mechanical watch repaired. Would someone 50 years from now even bother to repair a mid-ranged non-collectible mechanical watch? Certainly, there are buckets of mechanical watches out there - that were considered great 50 years ago - but few want to plunk down $100, $200, $300 or more to fix and refurbish. I think the same will hold in the future. I think the heirloom aspect of watches gets overblown. Most will pass out of the family within a generation even if they retain their value.


----------



## Eeeb

akit110 said:


> ...But given the increasing expense and difficulty of getting a mechanical watch repaired. Would someone 50 years from now even bother to repair a mid-ranged non-collectible mechanical watch? Certainly, there are buckets of mechanical watches out there - that were considered great 50 years ago - but few want to plunk down $100, $200, $300 or more to fix and refurbish. ...


Oh so true. I am buying wonderful mechanicals from the 40s to 70's for less than the cost of just cleaning and oiling and regulating them... And these are good watches... (some even meeting COSC standards!...) so much more watch than present day Invictas or Seagulls... or even better brands. :think:

The ones that need service often go for less than shipping... and I don't bother with them unless they fit in some niche of my collection.


----------



## WX1

akit110 said:


> Interesting discussion from my pov esp. for a former 'all or nothing' mechanical watch nut. Recently, I have tempered this attitude due to pragmatism. My life has just become too hectic and busy to worry about the servicing of a (mechanical) watch every year or so (who to service? how long will it be away? did they do a good job? how many hundreds did it cost? should I buy a winder?). I still love'm but realize I need no more accumulate them than I would exotic Italian sports cars. I have a couple (mech watches) and that's plenty. The rest I can admire from afar.
> 
> But anyway that's a bit OT.
> 
> i think the longevity thing gets a bit overstated for mech watches. Yes, you can rebuild mechanical watches indefinitely. But given the increasing expense and difficulty of getting a mechanical watch repaired. Would someone 50 years from now even bother to repair a mid-ranged non-collectible mechanical watch? Certainly, there are buckets of mechanical watches out there - that were considered great 50 years ago - but few want to plunk down $100, $200, $300 or more to fix and refurbish. I think the same will hold in the future. I think the heirloom aspect of watches gets overblown. Most will pass out of the family within a generation even if they retain their value.


I think you hit it on the nose, akit110.

I think a lot of the thoughts above are valid.

Because lately I, too, have been, well, I'm calling it, "*reconsidering quartz*."

And I'm favoring Citizen Eco-Drive. I got the 2100 and the Eco-Zilla. And they're going non-stop, looking like that Air-Diver I picked up in Japan near 10 years ago (why should I think the two former watches will operate less than that?). And, say they die after 5 years. I'm ready for a new watch by then, and I'm glad I ain't gonna have a closetful (O.K., lemme give it a number, oh, 20+ watches) to make me feel guilty about acquiring a brand-spankin' new watch. 

What are mechanicals' (which, I still love, but, at the same time, considering calling it quits now that I have five of 'em) best arguments? That they can withstand, what is this? An electromagnetic pulse. O.K., O.K. And the most prominent example given is the ol' NUCLEAR ATTACK?!? And when you ask, "well, what other example," you get the other "ol'," the "well, you really don't know WHERE these things'll come from."

And all that's just "in theory," right? I'm wondering if all the driving I'm doing in my car (another love of us watch folk) is doing an electromagnetic number on quartz, automatic, mechnical, whatever. I dunno. I just don't think the consideration of the most disastrous situations you can imagine should be the ONLY thing that factors in in choosing a watch.

I don't see me concerned with being able to tell the time after a nuclear attack; I may have to pawn that auto' diver's for food, you know?

What's another argument? So you can hand 'em down generations; yeah. Just hope they don't pawn it for fast cash or something.

And repair? I dunno about you, but, I feel better if I ever have to send my specialized quartz movements (Eco Drive or Kinetic) that the brand's factory can only resolve. I mean, we're "made" (as much as we doth protest and despise sometimes) to do certain things we'd rather take another route in doing; here's one that's actually inviting in a "from the horse's mouth" kind of way.

That guy who wrote that _Prometheus Bound_ . . . one Carlos Perez, I believe, back in November 2001. He got it right (or at least left me with the impression) that quartz is the "final frontier" for wristwatch movement development (I realize that's probably the simplistic answer, but, hey, I don't mind admitting I'm offering that). We may not see a further development for them (don't tell me "Spring Drive" . . . I'm not quite sure which is the egg or chicken with regard to its auto' or the quartz function).

Maybe just slightly, when it comes to me enjoying HEQ, I resent being viewed upon as unable to give less love to my quartz watches than to my autos or mechnicals. Yeah, I know the latter has gears that are sort of self-sufficient, yes, they need attention on the wrist most of the time. Do you give any less love to your kid who needs less, let's say, maintenance or attention? No, you love 'em both. Or love 'em three, or four, or . . . whatever.

Indeed, we're privy to a technology even the watchmakers back in the teen'd centuries might've been impressed with after all.

I dunno about you, but, that's a good enough reason to embrace quartz ("High-End Quartz," HEQ; isn't that the COOLEST title out of all threads there anyways?) from now on.


----------



## Eeeb

Welcome! There are lots of interesting quartz watches... it's cool to be quartz b-)


----------



## bompi

I'd say, independently from the inherent qualities of quartz and automatic watches, the main issue is always : will I be able to find spare parts, a good service to send it for repair and so on.

For instance, my great-great-grand-father, after returning from California to France a century ago, bought himself a nice gold watch which worked for quite a long time. But now it doesn't anymore and finding spare parts is impossible and the only way of getting it ticking again seems to ask someone to recreate the worn parts again, which is likely to be too expensive for my dad.

In the same way of thinking : how can I be assured I'll find batteries for my quartz watch in the next fifty years ? Will Seiko produce enough of them for their 9Fxx Grand Seiko series ?

That was my two-cents contribution ;-)


----------



## fstshrk

I have a significant mechanical (automatic and manual-wind) mechanical collection. The collection contains pieces from either significant brands that have been alive longer than my grandparents' or pieces that contain ETA/Valjoux movements. When I buy a new mechanical timepiece I follow this basic purchasing guideline. I am pretty sure that 100 years later (if earth makes it through global warming), someone will be able to maintain these.

With quartz, it is a different story. Circuit boards age with time, components age with time, and realistically, only real option for fixing an older quartz watch is to find one just like it and use the parts. Older ICs are becoming very hard to find and even when they are found, they are also subject to the same aging as the parts that have been in use.

Having said this, most of these have a 30-40 yr lifespan anyway, so if you want a maintenance-free ticker, then go with quartz.

For quartz watches, I prefer models that have solar power since I hate changing batteries. Unfortunately, other than the Citizen Exceed line, no-one makes a high accuracy solar powered quartz (+/- 10sec/yr) that I know of unless you count the atomic receiver watches.


----------



## boswell

I too have a collection of quartz and non-quartz watches, though recently have cleared out the non's and reverted to quartz only.
The reason basically as the non-quartz watches I owned invariably and eventually had some mechanical problems - possibly as a result of being stuck in a drawer somewhere for far too long and the oils drying up or whatever, but they always required a full service or/and were simply un-repairable - dead!
The quartz ones fared much better, probably lasting a year or so in the drawer before eventually being seen at some time, quick battery replacement and off they went again.
Now retired I have more time to manage and take care of my collection, so leaving them stuck away in some drawer is not their fate any more. Maybe now the non-quartz's will be worthwhile - time will tell.
There is of course the winding or winder unit to run, which mechanical watches require to stay healthy and I must confess to not really wanting the bother of managing quite that far (I can already hear the comments of the true collector, saying it's NOT a chore, but a love...etc.) - well that may be fine, but I do have other things to do...
Gone off ecodrives as their clarity is often compromised by the translucence of the dial behind the hands, and I need to SEE the time - clearly - I owned a lovely, lovely Citizen ecodrive titaium model and sold it for that very reason.
Trouble is, I've gone through all the phases, hand wind, automatic, ecodrive, atomic, world timers, vibration alarms, tritium, luminous, single handed, multihanded, perpetual calendars, ani-digi's etc etc. and then I see a model I've not come across - and I'm hooked.....don't care what it is - I've GOT to have it.....
Maybe that's what it's all about...


----------



## M4tt

> Having said this, most of these have a 30-40 yr lifespan anyway


I'm just curious - given that quartz watches have only existed since 1969 what is your evidence base for the lifespan you have stated for quartz watches?


----------



## fstshrk

Estimate based on typical lifetime estimates of semiconductor parts.



M4tt said:


> I'm just curious - given that quartz watches have only existed since 1969 what is your evidence base for the lifespan you have stated for quartz watches?


----------



## Eeeb

fstshrk said:


> Estimate based on typical lifetime estimates of semiconductor parts.


Where did you find this data? 30 minutes of googling only found one paper that I found relevant. It predicted one failure in 8 million hours of operation for their particular chip technology (that's about 1,000 years).

My own experience is chip failure is most common in those that are running at very high temps and those handling high power (often those come hand in hand).

None of this is experienced in watch ICs which live in one of the most benign environments an IC can have.

As long as chips in watches don't get irradiated or shocked or cooked or deep frozen or have their wiring eroded by battery acid, they should last a pretty long time. I would expect mean time to failure would be measured in centuries not decades.

I have a basement full of 40 year old computers and I have found it is not the ICs that fail. It's things that move and power supplies and things the power supplies kill as they are dying. And chip fabrication technology has gotten a lot better in the past 40 years.

But maybe I had bad search terms and there are spec sheets out there that say MTBF is 40 years... Did I miss them?


----------



## boswell

Interesting debate re' chip life etc.
Being involved in electronics for more years than I care to remember and with things changing so fast, I'm probably way out of date already...but I also would agree that chip failure is relatively rare and the lifespan of these would easily outlive us.
Perhaps it is more to do with the combination of parts in a quartz watch and how they interact that dictates the life of the particular watch and their relative life must be measured as a whole - basically how well they are constructed and the quality of each component (and their relative compatibility). 
Failure of micro-motors was fairly common at one time and battery corrosion (galvanic effects) was the cause of many a dead watch.
I bought my first quartz watch I think in 1970 or '71 and from memory it was actually a Seiko (I was stationed in the far east at the time and it was VERY cool to own a Seiko and a Yashica (camera). 
The time keeping was OK and certainly better than my Timex but it gave up the ghost sometime around 1976. Mine suffered the fate of many at that time with battery leakage and it never worked again.
Of course for tiny batteries and battery technology it was really early days so hardly surprising. But I think the chip would be working now given half a chance! In todays world though the frequency must have been pretty low.

Mind you I wish I'd kept it now - it would have been a museum piece!

As to 30-40 years lifespan - I would have thought this as a good as any estimate actually, as there are so many variables even in a benign "just wearing a watch" environment. 

My watches rarely last that length anyway - as I see a nice new different one that I've just GOT to have - the old one is ditched....:-d

ps - Forgot to mention my first quartz was LED, so pretty much solid state (no motors).


----------



## bompi

This reminds me something : when I got my Seiko Sportura, I could read in the booklet that the digital display wouldn't last more than seven years ... Quite a disappointment ! Even though I didn't intend to wear it continuously for ten years, I found it was a frustrating statement ...
Hence I wonder how long will my G-Shocks last.


----------



## Eeeb

bompi said:


> This reminds me something : when I got my Seiko Sportura, I could read in the booklet that the digital display wouldn't last more than seven years ... Quite a disappointment ! Even though I didn't intend to wear it continuously for ten years, I found it was a frustrating statement ...
> Hence I wonder how long will my G-Shocks last.


Yes, interesting point. Digital displays tend to be relatively fragile.

Off topic but - this is exactly the point I had in mind when I rushed out and got one of Sony's last widescreen HD TVs that was based on a CRT. Huge and massive, but CRT displays have a much longer life than current LCD or Plasma displays. They work better too.

On topic - G-Shocks do have a lot of material protecting the displays... they will almost certainly lessen shock-based damage to the display... The name means something (they aren't protecting the quartz innards...). They should last longer than your Seiko. But they too probably won't have a lifetime measured in centuries. (I find the plastic gets brittle and the cases begin to deteriorate in older watches of this type.)


----------



## shandy

WX1 said:


> I think you hit it on the nose, akit110.
> 
> I think a lot of the thoughts above are valid.
> 
> Because lately I, too, have been, well, I'm calling it, "*reconsidering quartz*."
> 
> And I'm favoring Citizen Eco-Drive. I got the 2100 and the Eco-Zilla. And they're going non-stop, looking like that Air-Diver I picked up in Japan near 10 years ago (why should I think the two former watches will operate less than that?). And, say they die after 5 years. I'm ready for a new watch by then, and I'm glad I ain't gonna have a closetful (O.K., lemme give it a number, oh, 20+ watches) to make me feel guilty about acquiring a brand-spankin' new watch.
> 
> What are mechanicals' (which, I still love, but, at the same time, considering calling it quits now that I have five of 'em) best arguments? That they can withstand, what is this? An electromagnetic pulse. O.K., O.K. And the most prominent example given is the ol' NUCLEAR ATTACK?!? And when you ask, "well, what other example," you get the other "ol'," the "well, you really don't know WHERE these things'll come from."
> 
> And all that's just "in theory," right? I'm wondering if all the driving I'm doing in my car (another love of us watch folk) is doing an electromagnetic number on quartz, automatic, mechnical, whatever. I dunno. I just don't think the consideration of the most disastrous situations you can imagine should be the ONLY thing that factors in in choosing a watch.
> 
> I don't see me concerned with being able to tell the time after a nuclear attack; I may have to pawn that auto' diver's for food, you know?
> 
> What's another argument? So you can hand 'em down generations; yeah. Just hope they don't pawn it for fast cash or something.
> 
> And repair? I dunno about you, but, I feel better if I ever have to send my specialized quartz movements (Eco Drive or Kinetic) that the brand's factory can only resolve. I mean, we're "made" (as much as we doth protest and despise sometimes) to do certain things we'd rather take another route in doing; here's one that's actually inviting in a "from the horse's mouth" kind of way.
> 
> That guy who wrote that _Prometheus Bound_ . . . one Carlos Perez, I believe, back in November 2001. He got it right (or at least left me with the impression) that quartz is the "final frontier" for wristwatch movement development (I realize that's probably the simplistic answer, but, hey, I don't mind admitting I'm offering that). We may not see a further development for them (don't tell me "Spring Drive" . . . I'm not quite sure which is the egg or chicken with regard to its auto' or the quartz function).
> 
> Maybe just slightly, when it comes to me enjoying HEQ, I resent being viewed upon as unable to give less love to my quartz watches than to my autos or mechnicals. Yeah, I know the latter has gears that are sort of self-sufficient, yes, they need attention on the wrist most of the time. Do you give any less love to your kid who needs less, let's say, maintenance or attention? No, you love 'em both. Or love 'em three, or four, or . . . whatever.
> 
> Indeed, we're privy to a technology even the watchmakers back in the teen'd centuries might've been impressed with after all.
> 
> I dunno about you, but, that's a good enough reason to embrace quartz ("High-End Quartz," HEQ; isn't that the COOLEST title out of all threads there anyways?) from now on.




I have both mechanical and quartz and yesterday stepped into the void that is eco drive, this one,
http://www.citizenwatch.com/COC/Eng...y=COC&Language=English&ModelNumber=BW0072-07P

Not sure if it high end quartz, though I must admit I never thought I would spend over a $100 on a quartz but this one kept calling my name, it reminds me a bit of a JLC or Cartier in style, it looks great on the wrist and the other nice thing is accuracy and never having to service it, I can just enjoy it!
I have mechanical omegas from the 1940's, still going really well but I have to be very careful with them and make sure they are serviced every three to four years, this all costs money. If reliability is judge in never having to maintain then it's quartz every time!


----------



## RPF

Re: G-Shock cases. 

I have seen/owned at least 5 G-Shocks from the 90s with peeling resin cases. 

If used and exposed to the elements, esp. UV (i.e. sunlight), the cases last no longer than 5-10 years. The cases continue to deteriorate once exposed to sufficient sun, even if one subsequently stores it away from the light. 

Maybe the newer resins do better.


----------



## M4tt

Despite my formal training in philosophy I always prefer evidence based in reality to theory. The fact remains that many of us have thirty plus year old quartz and electronic watches. I cannot help observing that it is the mechanical parts, the battery or incompetence that kills them in my experience. When treated benignly (but not even serviced) the majority seem to be soldiering on. 


I suspect that the maximum life expectancy of quartz watches will be far far longer than we expect. I still use my Mac SE30 when I want no nonsense distraction free word processing. I think that the fan failed about ten years ago (it's all got rather quiet in there) and so I wouldn't like think what hellish temperatures that little Motorola chip (from 1987) is suffering.
The bottom line is that it is still running. the IC in a watch is running on the sort of voltages silver foil generates when you chew it!


----------



## tribe125

RPF said:


> Re: G-Shock cases.
> 
> I have seen/owned at least 5 G-Shocks from the 90s with peeling resin cases.
> 
> If used and exposed to the elements, esp. UV (i.e. sunlight), the cases last no longer than 5-10 years. The cases continue to deteriorate once exposed to sufficient sun, even if one subsequently stores it away from the light.
> 
> Maybe the newer resins do better.


G-Shock Moderator here -

Yes, there is such a thing as 'resin rot'. It's hard to say what causes it, although UV and chemicals from the skin are likely culprits. It's possible to buy replacement bezels, although bezels for the early models can be hard to find.

G-Shocks are semi-disposable, you might say. There are plenty of old models around, still working well, but they are also cheap enough to replace.


----------



## BruceS

Interesting thread! I think I'll place my future trust in quartz. Even Rolex isn't supporting some of the vintage mechanical pieces now from what I've read. I suppose that so long as there are watchmakers to work on mechanicals, there will be a source for maintenance, assuming they can get a part, but what if that part is somehow out of production? The same could happen with modern quartz too, but my bet is that it's less likely.

I just wonder about the longevity of a solar system (not just the battery, but the whole system of parts). That's yet to be proven to the extent of regular battery powered watches.

Cheers,
Bruce


----------



## Eeeb

BruceS said:


> I just wonder about the longevity of a solar system (not just the battery, but the whole system of parts).


I have wondered about that myself. I have seen solar cells degrade over time... but that usually takes a while... a decade or two before they can't power the calculator, etc.

I would be disappointed if you couldn't get 15 years of use. I'd be suprised if you could get 50. But maybe Citizen has some statements? .... let me see ...
nope... not addressed in their Eco FAQ... But they do address replacing the solar cells... hummmm


----------



## RPF

tribe125 said:


> G-Shock Moderator here -
> 
> Yes, there is such a thing as 'resin rot'. It's hard to say what causes it, although UV and chemicals from the skin are likely culprits. It's possible to buy replacement bezels, although bezels for the early models can be hard to find.
> 
> G-Shocks are semi-disposable, you might say. There are plenty of old models around, still working well, but they are also cheap enough to replace.


That I fully agree. I don't own any recent (>2001) versions of the Gs. Do you think their cases will resist resin rot better? The newer cases look much better in quality than the examples I have.


----------



## M4tt

Actually, and somewhat tangentially, that suggests a promising approach.

A watch is only going to be as reliable as its weakest component. So rather than talk about quartz watches we should explicitly talk about the lifespan of quartz components...

Quartz resonator? (I assume that, as quartz does age, there will be a point at which aging becomes degrading and fatigue. )

stepper motor? ( Wear on load bearing surfaces, coils going and magnets weakening.)

Circuit boards (substrate crumbling tracks cracking?)

IC (I think we are agreed that Silicon semiconductors are as stable as can be and should remain reliable indefinitely in this sort of environment)

Gear train (all the standard problems)

Have I missed anything?

So do we have any sort of *evidence *base for each of these parts? Can we also distinguish between parts that degrade only when used and parts taht will just crumble left to their own devices (If parts crumble when not in use that has implications for long term spares availability)


----------



## Eeeb

M4tt said:


> Actually, and somewhat tangentially, that suggests a promising approach.
> 
> A watch is only going to be as reliable as its weakest component. So rather than talk about quartz watches we should explicitly talk about the lifespan of quartz components...
> ...
> 
> Circuit boards (substrate crumbling tracks cracking?)
> ...


Let my first remark be confined to something I can claim some professional contact...

Most of the damage to circuit boards is due to external factors. Environments that are unduly hostile contain one or more of the following:
sunlight, heat, corrosive gases, high frequency vibration, high g forces, ... there are others, but either I can't remember them or they aren't very common (extreme cold, for example).

Compared to that, a water resistant watch is a benign environment |>

Substrates generally have a pretty long life nowadays. I have noticed the Eta movements seem to have a different cast to them so I suspect they get a selected formulation.

I have found complex solid-state systems that involve multiple physical modules often fail at the 'attachment' level... but you don't get that in watches... though Eta did use a 2 board 'cpu' on at least one quartz calibre. I believe the boards conducted between themselves via the screws that attached the boards to each other... but that's from a vintage human who is too lazy to dig through the Eta Technical Doc file to make sure.


----------



## M4tt

Ok, so the chip is good, the circuit board is good (can you put approximate figues on your surmise Eeeb?) any other opinions?


----------



## Eeeb

M4tt said:


> Ok, so the chip is good, the circuit board is good (can you put approximate figures on your surmise Eeeb?)


Probably as long as the IC ... radiation is evil to ICs and not the board. But the board is more exposed to atmosphere.


----------



## Ray MacDonald

Gear trains in quartz are under far less tension than in a mechanical watch. There are also special quartz lubricants nowadays that supposedly are less likely to get gummy.
Bits of dirt can stop a quartz movement, whereas mechanicals will normally grind on if wound up sufficiently. Most quartz cases are dustproof enough to avoid major dust bunnies getting in.
I don't see a quartz gear train to be any less reliable than a mechanical one over the years, but I don't have any empirical evidence either way, except my 1981 Omega quartz. It just keeps going...


----------



## tribe125

RPF said:


> That I fully agree. I don't own any recent (>2001) versions of the Gs. Do you think their cases will resist resin rot better?


I honestly don't know, is the only answer I can give, but like you I think the formulation of the resin has changed.

Oh, and I should have said that UV and skin chemicals _accelerate_ the rot. I believe the resin is capable of rotting all on its own, given time.


----------



## M4tt

Right, that just leaves the quartz resonator and the stepper motor.

Any takers?


----------



## Eeeb

M4tt said:


> Right, that just leaves the quartz resonator and the stepper motor.
> 
> Any takers?


What can go wrong with the resonator? The case can deteriorate but modern potting materials are pretty durable. The xtal can break... but that would take a lot of Gs and other things would die too. It can age out of spec, but we all have Thermolines and can correct that :-d

Motors move. Things that move have friction. Then, eventually, the die. No idea on how big eventually is here...


----------



## M4tt

> we all have Thermolines and can correct that


Is that, like, a special sort of slide rule for calculating rate variation due to temperature?

I don't need one: My Citizen Exceed's E501 movement is precisely accurate *twice a day* without any variations for temperature.

Actually I now have a Seiko 7A48 incoming. Not only is it user adjustable, it also has a moon phase! I've never had a moon phase watch before.


----------



## RPF

Nah, it'll be accurate twice a month because the perp. dat's stuck! Good luck if it's stuck on the 31st. Then it'll be accurate only 14 times a year!

And it's the E510 btw.

Any news on the repair front yet?


----------



## M4tt

Why do I always get that wrong? 

Nope, end of term, very busy. I'll get on to it when I'm done.


----------



## hottdogg

fstshrk said:


> For quartz watches, I prefer models that have solar power since I hate changing batteries. Unfortunately, other than the Citizen Exceed line, no-one makes a high accuracy solar powered quartz (+/- 10sec/yr) that I know of unless you count the atomic receiver watches.


Here,casio gshock gw 400j |>
http://www.watchreport.com/2005/06/review_of_the_c.html
https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=139901

solar charged, shock resistant,atomic receiver(us & jpn),vibrating alarms etc.
what else do you want? self-answer: analog display... :roll:


----------



## Eeeb

hottdogg said:


> Here,casio gshock gw 400j |>
> http://www.watchreport.com/2005/06/review_of_the_c.html
> https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=139901
> 
> solar charged, shock resistant,atomic receiver(us & jpn),vibrating alarms etc.
> what else do you want? self-answer: analog display... :roll:


what else... less bulk, nicer look, analog display, and ACCURACY when it can't phone home to momma! ... oh, the Euros in the group might want RC there too...

But a nice watch for the price if that's what you like.


----------



## rex

All I know is I have the piece of mind Seiko will service my 9F when I'm 95 if need be.
Just hope Higuchi is around by then, or I'll probably have to make trip to Japan myself!!!


----------



## M4tt

I doubt it, they should have taken over the planet by then, solving your problem!


----------



## WhtShadow

With care, there is probably minimal difference. Probably mechanical/automatic as there are examples of mechanicals that are very old that still work. I have a 42 year old Accutron that still works, and it has not had any service for at least 25 years. I have a 75+ yr old pocket watch that ran the last time I wound it. I also have a fair number of quartz (both analog and digital) that are over 20 years and no service but a battery change. After long enough it may become difficult to find the right battery. Automatics do wear out and need servicing.

Reminds me years ago of someone that got a Mercedies because "they lasted so long". Then he took it in every year and had several thousand dollars worth of 'maintenance' performed. We had a Chevy that has work done when needed, probably to the tune of several hundred dollars per year. We both gave up on keeping them before they stopped working. Both models have versions that are running 100 years later (albeit with significant restoration rebuilding).

Bottom line. Get the watch you want. Wear it, and enjoy it. Service it if you wish. Replace it if it comes to that. Life is too short to worry much about such things.:-!


----------



## Eeeb

WhtShadow said:


> ...
> 
> Bottom line. Get the watch you want. Wear it, and enjoy it. Service it if you wish. Replace it if it comes to that. Life is too short to worry much about such things.:-!


My correction to the above... "watch" should be in the plural ... :-!


----------



## watchNoob

I agree that the issue is one of cost and time scale. Quartz movements are probably better for the <20 year timescale but their Achilles-heel is the uncertain availability of components. I think this could change in the future if it becomes as cheap to fabricate custom ICs as it is to machine mechanical parts. I'm sure engineers are researching custom IC fabrication for other industries.:think:

In the end though, wouldn't the most long-lived watch just be one with a standard-shaped case and simple 3 o'clock date . . . for which you can order another $10 movement from a supply catalog? ;-)


----------

