Friday, September 28, 2018

Bring a Loupe: A Gold Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, An Omega Seamaster Ranchero, And A Jaeger-LeCoultre Triple Calendar

If you’re in the market for a relatively durable, 36mm vintage sports watch, there’s something you should consider before making a beeline for the usual suspects. There are always other pieces out there to be considered, and this one comes from Omega, is considerably rarer than you’d think, and is known by the name Ranchero. 

The ref. 2990-1 Ranchero was introduced in 1958 to suit the needs of those who wished to dress up a capable, sporting timepiece, though it wasn’t exactly met with success, resulting in just a one-year production run. Despite featuring the same design language that made watches like the Railmaster, Seamaster, and Speedmaster so celebrated, the name translates to “ranch hand,” which resulted in poor sales in Spanish speaking countries. All this has effectively made it one of the rarer sports watches around, and a bit of a sleeper hit waiting to happen.



from Best Watches For Men https://ift.tt/2OlLWC6

Marc & Sons Diver Sport | Hands On Review

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

We have reviewed many Marc & Sons watches over the years and they have always proved to be a decent value and good quality for the price, especially the ones with ETA movements. The Marc & Sons Diver Sport is built as well as the others we have reviewed and while it definitely is a familiar style, there are a few differences that allow it to not be a straight copy. Unfortunately though, the color is not what I thought it was going to be.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

Marc & Sons Diver Sport MSD-046-4S Specifications:

  • 42mm by 50mm Stainless Steel Case
  • 22m Lug Width
  • 22mm Non-Tapering Bracelet
  • 15.4mm Thick
  • 244 Grams
  • Sapphire Crystal
  • Ceramic Bezel Insert
  • Seiko NH35 Automatic Movement
  • 300 Meters Water Resistant

Price $335 USD (Approximatley)
https://www.marcandsons.de/en/collection/new-models/marc-sons-diver-watch-serie-sport-msd-046-4s/a-2249/

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

There is no need to beat around the bush here.  The simple fact is that if you go to the Marc & Sons website and look at this watch, it shows the color is an almost chocolate brown. In real life, that is not the case. That is a simple fact. It is also an unfortunate fact. Since I cover this heavily in the video, I do not want to dwell on it here in every paragraph, but anyone reading this or interested in this watch should know that this is the actual color of the brown Marc & Sons Diver Sport. There are other colors available on the website as well and I suggest if interested maybe emailing and asking for a real-world photo before you order.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

In initial postings of this model on social media, reception towards the dial color has been positive and to be honest, I had forgotten what the rendering on the website looked like until I started gathering info for the review. The dial is more of a caramel color and the ceramic bezel insert is almost a dark cherry brown, so there is a definite contrast. Beyond the dial color, I like the choice of hour and minute hand and the applied markers are not only bright white but they have a 3-D effect which is a nice touch. One thing I noticed though is the second hand is a little bit short and also on the thin side as well.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

The bezel of the Marc & Sons Diver Sport rachets firmly but it does have a little bit of back play, but nothing that is severe or gives me pause. The ceramic insert looks nice from a distance but when you get a little bit closer you can see that the lume paint was not applied very well and looks, well it looks a little sloppy. I understand that we are looking at a price of under $350 but it was still a little disappointing. Crown action on this 300m diver, on the other hand, was very nice and I have no complaints in that department.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

It seems that in many models Marc & Sons has started using the Seiko NH35 automatic movement and to be fair, many microbrands in this price range use it as well, so I really can not dog on it for that, especially at the price. If this were $100 more, that would be different. The case back is what I like to refer to as the salt shaker style and while it is nothing special or has no artistic engravings or any other gimmicks, it is a screw down case back and it serves its purpose.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

The stainless steel bracelet is massive and chunky, though, with the case of the Marc and Sons Diver Sport being almost 16mm thick, you need a thick bracelet to balance it all out. Finishing off the bracelet is a nice ratchet style dive clasp with slide out extension, a nice upgrade to previous Marc and Sons bracelets. I took out 4 links for my 7 1/2 inch wrist, and the links are on the larger side, so it should fit much larger wrists out of the box. The bracelet uses friction pins instead of screws which was somewhat of a downer, but I had no problem sizing it at all. Pretty standard. At 244 grams, it is a beast to wear though, at least for me.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

Overall finishing is similar to a Steinhart Ocean model in my opinion. If you are not familiar with Steinhart that puts the Marc and Sons Diver Sport in good company as they are a very popular brand with watch enthusiasts, especially in the homage category. I will say I wish the crown was signed with a logo of some sorts and the case side polishing is a little puzzling seeing as the rest of the watch is all brush satin, including the sides of the bracelet. When it comes to lume, the BGW9 Superluminova glows nice and bright.

Marc & Sons Diver Sport

Color not matching what they show you on the website aside, or if other colors are a little more comparable to what you will actually get, the Marc & Sons Diver Sport is a nice chunky option of the Rolex Sub style case with large legible hands and markers. As I said, the biggest issue for me is the actual dial and bezel color not being accurately displayed on their website, the watch itself is not a bad offering at all, but I would be lying if I did not say the color issue did not sour me a bit on this model.



from Best Watches For Men https://ift.tt/2R5lJGq

Thursday, September 27, 2018

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019 : Shades of Green

Does the use of the color green make for a natural and competitive battle between the Rolex Submariner Hulk and the newly released Seiko SLA019 or is there simply too much that separates these deep water tool watches to make the comparison interesting? Well, since you’re here and because the two watches are pictured side by side, you know that we’re going to take a look. In fact, we’ll spend more than a cursory amount of time with each of these divers because, more than proclaiming one the victor, it’s a nice opportunity to look closely at a couple models that are amongst the most popular within each brand’s lineup.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

Hailing from Geneva, Switzerland, the Rolex Submariner Hulk 116610LV is a watch that took people by surprise when it was first revealed at Baselworld in 2010. It was during this year’s show that Rolex made the momentous move away from its long-running 16610 Submariner Date and replaced it with a new 116610 complete with a ceramic bezel, newly styled clasp, and a chunkier, albeit still 40mm in diameter, “maxi” case. However, perhaps realizing that its prior green bezel, but black-dialed 16610LV “Kermit” was so popular, Rolex threw us a real wild card by coming out with not just a new all-black Submariner Date, but also an all-green version in what almost instantly became known as the “Hulk”. For some, the all-green piece was immediately hated, some loved it for its wild card audacity, and others considered it an acquired taste. 8 years on, you could consider me in the camp of the latter group because it has finally grown on me. Nonetheless, it’s a popular watch and like most other stainless Rolex sports watches, it’s not easy to procure one at your local AD without twiddling your thumbs for weeks or months on a waiting list. Full disclosure: the Hulk is owned by a good friend. He wears it daily as the head of an ER unit at a large hospital. Therefore, my apologies for the scratches and occasional grime.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

The Rolex Submariner Hulk comes in at 40mm in diameter, 48mm lug to lug, 12.5mm thick, and contains 20mm lugs. Water resistance is rated to 300M. It’s constructed from 904L stainless steel and is paired with an Oyster bracelet with Oysterlock clasp and the patented Glidelock extension system that allows the watch to be adjusted to fit anything from a wetsuit to dealing with a changing wrist size during temperature extremes. The bezel is made of green “cerachrom”, is uni-directional and rotates with 120 clicks. Inside, we have the venerable cal 3135 automatic with 31 jewels beating at 28,800 bph. It hacks, features a quickset date and a power reserve of 48 hours. As a plus, it’s chronometer rated. The retail price in Gerany is 8200 Euros.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

In the opposite corner, born and raised in Tokyo, Japan, we have the brand new Seiko SLA019. We first saw this surprise introduction at Baselworld 2018 as one of several pieces issued to commemorate the year 1968 – the year of Seiko’s first Professional diver. When I say it was a surprise, the SLA019 was unexpected because it was clearly an evolution of the famed and recently discontinued Marinemaster 300 (the SBDX017 or earlier reference SBDX001) and it was and is green.   Regarding the 1968 tie, aside from the fact that the Marinemaster 300 style of case has clear lineage with the 60’s diver, the green apparently references the forests of Yakushima island and this locale is a famed diving spot. It’s a reach, but the watch itself is thankfully a real looker. More than this, though, the SLA019 brings two upgrades to the Marinemaster case that collectors have been begging for: a ceramic bezel and a sapphire crystal. Full disclosure: I purchased the SLA019 a month ago from the great team at the Seiko Frankfurt Boutique. A big thanks to them for finding this sought after and soon to be sold-out watch.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

The Seiko SLA019 weighs in at 44.3mm in diameter, contains a lug to lug size of 50.5mm and a thickness of 15.4mm. The watch is coated in scratchproof DiaShield and is a “front-loader” case wise. The watch boasts 300M of water resistance, is made of stainless and comes equipped with both a silicone diving strap and a stainless bracelet complete with a ratcheting wetsuit extension. The bezel is made of green Zirconia, is uni-directional and is of the 120-click variety.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

The Seiko SLA019 sports the handmade 8L35 automatic with 26 jewels beating at 28,800 bph. Like the Rolex, the Seiko hacks, contains a quickset date, but has a power reserve of 50 hours. The retail price in Europe is 3200 Euros.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

Now that we have the basics out of the way, let’s get into the reviews of the Rolex Submariner Hulk and Seiko SLA019. But before we dive into it, a couple points need clarification. First, the Seiko SLA019 is one hell of a watch and for many, it received the necessary upgrades in order to further back up its “giant killer” reputation. Second, and I will explain why, the Seiko SLA019 simply isn’t the Rolex Submariner Hulk despite the color similarity. So, if you were hoping for a major upset, you can stop reading now.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

I’ll be open and honest; I stop just short of despising the maxi-cases that are found on the bulk of the modern Rolex sports watch lineup. We have a legendary brand that could never be accused of making beautiful watches, but the sports pieces that predate watches such as the Rolex Submariner Hulk look positively graceful versus these brick-like structures. Robert-Jan hypothesizes that Rolex gave their watches more visual heft (like, a lot more) to help appease those who complained about Subs being “only” 40mm, while still kowtowing to the faithful. Whatever it is, I’m still not completely sold, but the vitriol doesn’t run quite so hot any longer. This is the first real amount of time I’ve spent with a maxi-cased specimen and I can tell you that, thankfully, it does feel like a real Rolex. Translation: it’s solid and seemss as if it were hewn from a solid block of steel. With its ingenious clasp and solid fitments, the charming rattling that once accompanied Rolex watches is gone (something I love but many hated). Plus, in green at least, I think the chunkiness fades when the watch is on the wrist.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

As mentioned, the Rolex Submariner Hulk feels great on the wrist. With its slim height and great finishing, it’s highly versatile as well. Some might say that it stops just short of being able to function in more formal situations like a traditional black Sub, but I tend to think that the deep green radiating dial exudes a classiness that allows it to play up more than one might think. And even though the bezel comes off as a lighter shade when compared to the dial, it doesn’t necessarily detract from the total picture by making the watch look too casual.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

When it comes to the bracelet on the Rolex Submariner Hulk, I still like the nice lightweight feel of older stamped Rolex clasps, but I cannot deny that this clasp is beautifully crafted. The fliplock is smooth and the “tongue” is hinged to help release the clasp itself. The Glidelock wetsuit extension is something to marvel at, though (yes, this one is dirty). It’s smooth and super easy to use. The bracelet itself is typical Rolex and that means top class finishing and serious comfort combined with screwed-in links that make adjustments a breeze.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

When it comes to the Seiko SLA019, I was turned on by its color in combination with the aforementioned material upgrades. Still, though, I had reviewed the SBDX017 a couple years back and I wasn’t in love. Something literally didn’t sit correctly with me and it came down to the watch having a tall, somewhat narrow look on my wrist. So why did I break down and buy a new watch with the same case? Yes, the color was a difference maker, but what has surfaced from owners is that the ceramic bezel is flatter versus the old 017 and also wider.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

Plus, the sapphire crystal on the Seiko SLA019 is flat. All of this gives the watch a less inwardly sloping look that appeals more to me.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

I disagree with those who say that the Seiko SLA019 can’t be worn on smaller wrists. Despite having a larger lug to lug than the Rolex, the wonderfully executed case feels fine on me.  On the negative side, it is tall and it is heavy.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

These attributes make the Seiko less versatile than the Rolex in my eyes. The Seiko SLA019 struggles to fit under a shirtsleeve and that’s a bit of a shame because it possesses an overall aesthetic that would allow it to function in most environments.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

And then there’s that bracelet. Seiko bracelets are the target of all sorts of venom due to everything ranging from the general design to the finish quality of the clasp. Throwing popular opinion aside, I decided that I was going all in with the bracelet to really put it to the test on the Seiko SLA019. My feeling after wearing this watch for quite awhile is that it’s functional and nowhere near as dislikable as some portray. No, I don’t like the polished strips on the links and the use of pin and collars to remove links is pretty weak, but the finishing is nice enough and it is comfortable.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

The clasp, though, is a bit of a different story. It’s amazingly functional and I actually like how the wetsuit extension works, but it’s just isn’t pretty. From the outer clasp on the Seiko SLA019 to its insides, there’s just too much evidence of stamping for a watch of this price. In fact, someone at Seiko must really be in love with this system or has a case of the “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix its” to keep it in production. I’ll leave it at this by simply saying that I’ve gone hands-on with $500 micro brands that boast a higher end system.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

When it comes to dial quality, it’s hard to find fault with either of these watches. The Rolex Submariner Hulk is a green take on an absolute classic and the Seiko SLA019 is in a similar position. Both dials are perfectly legible and have beautiful deep green color – I do find the Seiko’s to be darker and almost black in some lighting. It’s easy to stare into each trying to find flaws, but you’ll struggle to find them whether you’re looking at the hands, lume, or the printing. Speaking of which, both are also a little controversial as the Rolex contains far too many lines of print for some and many Seikophiles decry the inclusion of the Prospex insignia. Honestly, I’m fine with both. When it comes to the quality of the ceramic, the rolex is hard to fault. The Seiko is almost there, but in some lights, the exposed lume found at 12:00 can show some irregularities. It’s not an obvious flaw as it depends on the lighting, but it strikes me as an oversight from the normally persnickety brand.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

I’m no technical master of movements, but whether you’re considering the Seiko SLA019 or the Rolex Submariner Hulk, you’re getting a respected movement. With the Rolex, the caliber 3135 has been around for roughly 30 years and has seen some improvements along the way – most recently a more shock and temperature resistant Parachrom hairspring. There’s little to say about this movement that hasn’t been covered and I found it to be a smooth operator on winding and date changing. On top of it, using the tactile crown felt solid and it was easy to screw and unscrew with its large threads.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

The Seiko SLA019 is powered by the 8L35, which is an undecorated version of the Grand Seiko 9S55. It’s even hand built in the same workshop that builds all the GS movements. Like the 3135 in the Rolex, the 8L35 feels like quality when winding and changing the date. My only beef, and it has nothing to do with the movement per se, is the crown threading that Seiko uses. They’re quite fine and shallow, which makes it difficult to seat when trying to screw back into the case.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

Regarding the intangibles, the Seiko SLA019 loads up on things like drilled through lugs, the fantastic DiaShield coating that defends against desk diving scratches, the included strap, the fact that it’s limited, and greenish lume on the dial and bezel that makes the blue lume of the Rolex Submariner Hulk want to run home and cry to its Mama.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

With the Rolex Submariner Hulk, you’re getting, well, a Rolex. It’s not a limited edition, but the fact that one can’t easily get a new one makes it limited in nature. Plus, there’s no denying that it’s well made and that its resale value is almost guaranteed to be better than most. If you’re looking sexy packaging materials, both underperform in my view as Rolex sticks with its plastic fantastic wave box and Seiko offers a very cardboard-like container. It’s fine as even the best end up in a drawer in my house, but I know that some put a lot of focus on the whole package.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

We keep repeating it, but the Rolex Submariner Hulk is, like all stainless sports watches from the brand, hard to find at your local AD. At 8200 Euros, it’s also 450 Euros dearer than the black version, but that doesn’t seem to have a damper on demand. In looking at the specs alone, it’s hard to justify the price of a Sub, but when you consider the brand cache, the history, and – sorry to say it – the resale value, the mind can actually be pushed into thinking it’s a relative bargain for being under 10K.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

It’s a funny thing because the Seiko SLA019 at 3200 Euros ticked off a lot of Seiko collectors. After all, the SBDX017 that came before it was about 25% less expensive and the only real changes aside from color are a couple pieces of ceramic. It’s hard to argue with that comment, but like the Rolex, the Seiko has had zero issues in selling out its run of 1,968 pieces.

Rolex Submariner Hulk versus Seiko SLA019

To make things more confusing, there’s no world I know of – unless there’s one I’ve missed where 20 Euro bills are used as tissues – where spending 8200 Euros on a stainless diver such as the Rolex Submariner Hulk can be considered as a good deal. To put that into perspective, I could almost say the same about spending 3200 Euros on the Seiko SLA019. One subtlety, though, is that I don’t find 3200 Euros expensive because the watch says “Seiko” on the dial. No, it’s still a lot of money no matter what brand is featured. But, when I consider that the Seiko is made in-house just like the Rolex and contains detail work that’s at a very similar level, it’s the far saner choice. Furthermore, if we were comparing the Seiko to divers either slightly below it in price or up to 2000 Euros more, I wouldn’t have any issue in calling this piece a clear winner. Of course, there are those who will always favor a Rolex and with its clear advantages as far as bracelet quality and, most noticeably, thickness, I can see why the Sub would be the watch of choice. Also, if we were comparing a Sub to a more expensive diver, I’d struggle to choose anything other than the Rolex.  Either way, it’s impossible lose with either of these high quality choices provided that green is the color that tempts you to part with your green.

For more information on the Rolex Submariner Hulk, head to the Rolex official site.

For more information on the Seiko SLA019, head to the Seiko official site.



from Best Watches For Men https://ift.tt/2R1yuls

Business News: Richard Mille Will Exit SIHH After 2019 (Update: Audemars Piguet Is Leaving Too!)

Citing changes to their distribution and boutique network over the past few years, Richard Mille no longer feels that exhibitions are a good fit for their overall brand and sales strategy. Specifically, Richard Mille cites its move to take more of its retail in-house to mono-brand boutiques, reducing its reliance on the more traditional multi-brand stores. They’re far from the only brand doing this, with loads of other high-end watchmakers having taken the same approach over the last few years in the face of increased demand, grey market woes, and rampant discounting.

This news also comes not long after Swatch’s well-covered departure from Baselworld, and while I think it’s a safe bet that RM and Swatch have made their decision for vastly different reasons, it is another noteworthy move that undermines the traditional thinking around the exhibition, trade show, and retail model in general.



from Best Watches For Men https://ift.tt/2xTvTRL

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

You Asked Us: Should I Keep My Watches Running When I Don’t Wear Them? Four Watchmakers Answer!

One of our valued readers is lucky enough to owe no less than seven watches. Two hand winding, and five with automatic movements. He wears all watches in a rotation, and in short, as far as I understand, his question is:

You Asked Us: Should I keep my watches running, or should I allow them some rest when I don’t wear them?

Here’s the full original text of the reader’s question:

I am a fan of Fratello Watches and I read your articles every day [author: thank you very much!], being a watch enthusiast. I have 2 Speedmasters which are manual winding and 5 automatic watches: a GMT, a Submariner, a Daytona, a Seamaster 300 and a Railmaster.

I wear all of them in a rotation but while they are waiting for their turn for wrist time, they stop. My question is if this starting and stopping would have a detrimental effect on the mechanism of the watches or are they better off, being given “rest” when they are in the safe.

I heard conflicting information about this. Some say you need to keep the watch going always as it prevents drying out of lubricants and increase the longevity of the movement. On the other hand, wouldn’t constant running wear down the pinons on the wheels faster and shorten the life of the movement?

I would be grateful if you could shine a light on this matter and help keep my precious collection with longer service intervals.

Omega Railmaster

As our reader already points out, this is a complex situation, or at least a situation were many different answers can be heard. Before going in-depth into technical detail, I would like to shed my personal light on it.

Here’s The Theory

If the lubrication of a mechanical watch is in good condition no wearing of components will occur due to the watch is simply running. If the lubrication of the running parts is like it should be, there’s no direct mechanical contact between (metal) parts because of the lubricant film between them. No contact means no wear. The trouble is to determine if the lubrication is still in good condition. This can’t be really measured at any time. The age of the lubricant will be important, however, the temperature as well, and certainly, if it’s not contaminated. If a watch gets too cold (say if your safe is in an underground cellar in winter), the lubricant might become in a state where it doesn’t lubricate as it should anymore. The same is valid if there happen to be particles of any kind in the lubricant.

Lubricants

Then there’s the situation that a watch isn’t running. And here’s the conflicting information part which our reader mentions. Some watchmakers say that the lubricants will dry more quickly when a watch movement isn’t running. The lubricant becomes static and might be prone to drying in. Others who deny this or not, are in the opinion that once the watch will be worn again, and the lubricated bearing points come to their operating temperature again, the lubricants will be revived and do their work like before.

We Aren’t Watchmakers, So Let’s Ask Them

We’ll be honest, this goes beyond Fratello’s expertise as well. Because we understand this might be an important point for many of our readers we asked the opinion of a few seasoned watchmakers.

And in this kind of situations, my first stop always is our legendary and in-house Fratello diva watchmaker Paul. After posing the question through one of the messaging systems, he picked up his gold (and diamond paved) Vertu phone and gave me a call. And his answer was as follows:

Picture for imaginary purposes from Pellikaan-Timing website.

Our Watchmaker Paul

If they were my watches I would never let them run while I don’t wear them. The lubricants won’t dry out faster when the watch has stopped than when it’s running. And when a watch is running, there’s always the possibility of wear. If it’s not running there simply isn’t.

Of course, theoretically if all lubricants are in ultimate condition there probably won’t be any wear, but when and in which situation will this be the case. You’ll never know for sure. Lubricants can be contaminated inside the movement for whatever reason, and lose their optimal lubricating values.

Let’s put it this way; if you don’t use your car you won’t let it run as well, do you? In the end, would you like to have a watch, or a car, that has been running for seven years or one that only ran for a year?

Well, that was a clear answer. However, Paul admits that it’s no scientific answer. The chances alone, with a running watch, that at some point something with the lubricants isn’t exactly optimal, make him choose for stopping a watch when not wearing it.

A second opinion comes from Jan Ubels. Jan is the owner of ‘De Klokkenmaker Technisch Uurwerken Centrum’ (ubels-uurwerkreparatie.com) and has been watchmaker for 25 years now. Here’s Jan’s take on our reader’s question:

Jan Ubels

In my personal opinion there’s no need to use a winder, and it doesn’t harm to let unworn watches come to a standstill. Except probably for watches with complications like perpetual calendars [red. which isn’t the case here]. Then a winder will give more comfort and fewer possibilities to damage the setting construction.

Of course, nowadays there are many different kinds of winders. Some rotate all day, some only intermittent which of course is much better. Ever since 2006, when cheap winders were introduced at the HongKong Watch Fair and became a hot item, we see many watches coming in with major wear. And then mainly at the winding construction of the watch.

Using the right quality synthetic oils and greases prevents the problem of drying in. This problem nowadays exists much less than with the use of the earlier non-synthetic lubricants. And then as well, it’s much better to have an undamaged watch which just needs relubricating at a service, than a watch with a lot of wear and tear in the movement because it ran all the time and became badly lubricated in the end.

I don’t know if Paul and Jan often talk to each other, however, Jan as well made this comparison:

It’s just about clever thinking, you won’t let the engine of your car run when you don’t use it, do you?

Jan Ubels in his atelier

Jan Ubels in his atelier

So in total, that was more or less the same answer as Paul has given. Both relying on personal experiences, so they’re real-world practical, more than theoretical, answers. It looks like we know where we’re heading. Just let your watches stop when you don’t wear them.

But here at Fratello, we are keen on good journalism, and that’s why we decided that we need an extra, third, opinion. Therefore we asked one of The Horological Brothers (www.gronefeld.com), Tim Grönefeld, as well. Here’s his take on this question:

Tim Grönefeld

That’s a question of how much time you have in the morning. If you normally get up late for any reason [author: Tim’s version was slightly different, however, didn’t make it through the spell checker] and don’t have the time to wind and set your watch, I would make sure all my watches were running. This is especially valid for watches with many complications [author: again, which seems not the case for our reader who asked the question] like moon phase, perpetual calendar or planetarium.

Besides, it takes some time to set a complicated watch, setting these complicated watches can easily cause damage as well. There are many parts, for instance, the thread and gasket of the winding crown, but as well the setting mechanism, which has to withstand high forces when operated. And then the damage is easily done. So a watch winder mainly means more safety and more comfort.

As far as wear is concerned. On a high-quality watch winder, the watches won’t wear any faster than when worn. And a watch needs an overhaul every 5-or-so years anyhow, worn or not worn. The lubricants just need to be replaced after such a period as they age. Not only by lubricating the movement, however just because of ageing as well. So seen in this light it really doesn’t matter what to do, have them run or not.

For a beautiful automatic watch, which we consider a luxury product, we would always advise a high-quality watch winder. One that doesn’t rotate too fast and doesn’t make too many rotations.

Watchmakers Tim and Bart Grönefeld in their atelier

Tim (L) and Bart Grönefeld in their atelier

Hmmm, that looks like a different take to our reader’s question. In short, a watch will not wear out on a watch winder faster than it will when worn. Tim even added: On your wrist, it will be exposed to greater forces (certainly the winding construction) and larger differences in temperature than on a watch winder. It needs to be serviced anyhow because of the ageing of the oil, so it really doesn’t matter what you decide. For comfort put unworn watches on a watch winder; if this doesn’t matter to you just have them stopped.

That asks for even another opinion. Promised, it’ll be the last one. We asked Andrea van Steijn, she is a master-watchmaker at Steltman Watches (retailer of many high-end watch brands, including Patek Philippe, Breguet, MB&F and Grönefeld) in The Hague, Netherlands. Here’s her reaction:

Andrea van Steijn

I don’t know if there has been official research to this. However, in my opinion, the lubricants will wear and dry out in a certain time anyhow. It’ll be the same for a watch which ran for, let’s say 3 to 5 years as for a watch which did not run at all in the same period of time. Or for a watch was running for this period of time on a watch winder or on a wrist of the wearer. In all cases, the watch has to be serviced because of the ageing of the lubricants.

A watch winder is specifically interesting for complicated watches, like perpetual calendars, if they’re not worn on a daily basis. It prevents the owner from setting these delicate movements. And of course, watch winders are nice gadgets as well. And even if there would be extra wear on the automatic winding construction of a watch because it has been running. This wouldn’t make the costs for an overhaul any different as it’s always calculated for in a regular overhaul.

Inside Steltman Watches' atelier

Inside Steltman Watches’ Atelier

Conclusion

That leaves us with 2 against 2, ‘better to stop the watches when not worn’ against ‘it doesn’t matter they need an overhaul anyway’. This reflects the fact that our reader mentioned that he heard conflicting information about it. But at least we have four well substantiated stories all with clear answers.

Certainly the last part of the question from our reader becomes quite clear. He’s looking for an answer in order to help him keep his precious collection with longer service intervals. And that’s quite clear, neither way – stopping or having the watches running on a watch winder – will result in longer service intervals. A regular watch needs a regular service every 3 to 5 years because of the lubricants ageing.



from Best Watches For Men https://ift.tt/2xGuUVH