|
|
Post by SpinDoctor on Nov 1, 2013 5:25:46 GMT -8
I'm wondering what the opinions are of those here concerning the use of jeweling on quartz movements.
I've read enough forum lore which seems to state that jeweling on quartz is not necessary due to the lower torques involved. While I agree that this may be theoretically true, I'm not so sure about the practicality. I mean it seems like a considerable manufacturing investment for something that isn't necessary.
Early on, Seiko obviously felt jeweling was necessary or at least beneficial and you can see jeweling present even in calibers in the 80's. Modern calibers seem to be a different story with exception for what I consider special calibers like the kinetics and Citizens anlaog chronographs ( E210 and whatever is in the SST chronograph) which are still jeweled and of course so are the luxury quartz calibers.
I was also surprised to find a tiny gilded, 5 jeweled movement inside my wife's Victorinox. I didn't get a good look at it, but I would guess it was a Rhonda inside. A basic 3 hander too. Inside a $200 swiss.
I can imagine the use of jeweling on the quartz calibers of the 70s and maybe even into the 80s could just be carry over from mechanical caliber design. Also perhaps the lubricants of the time required the benefit of jeweling. But I'm curious as to why we continue to see jeweling today if it isn't necessary and the technology of the modern oils is superior.
Is it safe to say that jeweling on a quartz caliber is a sign of something better than a non-jeweled, non-serviceable quartz?
I think the other thing I am getting at is my frustration in the ability of so many individuals to differentiate between different grades of mechanical calibers for various technical reasons, yet somehow consider ALL quartz to be the same with no differentiation in quality or design or construction. How many times do you see the comparison of a beautiful designed and constructed skeleton caliber from Patek or whatever compared to a McDonald's Happy meal watch as if the two exist on the same level playing field. Yet compare that happy meal watch to some shit pin lever caliber and now you have a technological marvel.
|
|
normdiaz
Is a Permanent Fixture
Posts: 6,643 
|
Post by normdiaz on Nov 1, 2013 8:20:29 GMT -8
Some good points you raise, IMHO. Quartz does seem to be underappreciated vs mechanicals.
|
|
cartshed
WIS
Veins of Vodka
Posts: 1,918
|
Post by cartshed on Nov 1, 2013 8:37:00 GMT -8
I don't have the knowledge to really comment too much but having recently stripped a 7546 quartz movement, I was quite impressed by what was inside it. As opposed to some of the cheaper Seiko movements that I've changed batteries on, which seem to contain a battery, a lump of impregnable plastic containing god knows what & very little else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 8:41:50 GMT -8
High jewel counts in most quartz watches is just marketing. There may be some advantage in various chronograph models but for the most part, one or two jewels should suffice for as long as the watch is kept running.
The mechanical watch has stress and tension on all on the train all the time; when the main spring is wound. So jeweling is neccesary for longevity.
The average quartz movement has no constant tension on the train so jeweling beyond the stator/stepper is not really of any big advantage.
There is only a small amount of momentary tension applied to the train once each second then it is released until the next stepper push.
If an analog quartz movement is intended as a throw-away, there is no point in jeweling it. If however, it is intended to be serviceable, then it is reasonable to have it minimally jeweled; ie one or two jewels on the stator...more for kinetics and chronograph complications.
Lumping all quartz together is just the result of ignorance and marketing BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by SpinDoctor on Nov 1, 2013 15:18:35 GMT -8
Some good points you raise, IMHO. Quartz does seem to be underappreciated vs mechanicals. Of course they are. on forums at least. I'm always amazed how some people will gush over the incremental improvements of each level of a ETA2824, yet completely reject every and all quartz. The powers of marketing are amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by SpinDoctor on Nov 1, 2013 15:28:12 GMT -8
High jewel counts in most quartz watches is just marketing. There may be some advantage in various chronograph models but for the most part, one or two jewels should suffice for as long as the watch is kept running. The mechanical watch has stress and tension on all on the train all the time; when the main spring is wound. So jeweling is neccesary for longevity. The average quartz movement has no constant tension on the train so jeweling beyond the stator/stepper is not really of any big advantage. There is only a small amount of momentary tension applied to the train once each second then it is released until the next stepper push. If an analog quartz movement is intended as a throw-away, there is no point in jeweling it. If however, it is intended to be serviceable, then it is reasonable to have it minimally jeweled; ie one or two jewels on the stator...more for kinetics and chronograph complications. Lumping all quartz together is just the result of ignorance and marketing BS. well them maybe it just comes down to serviceability certainly isn't marketing because I don't ever remember a quartz watch with the jewel count identified on the exterior or maybe its still legacy design. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 16:24:43 GMT -8
High jewel counts in most quartz watches is just marketing. There may be some advantage in various chronograph models but for the most part, one or two jewels should suffice for as long as the watch is kept running. The mechanical watch has stress and tension on all on the train all the time; when the main spring is wound. So jeweling is neccesary for longevity. The average quartz movement has no constant tension on the train so jeweling beyond the stator/stepper is not really of any big advantage. There is only a small amount of momentary tension applied to the train once each second then it is released until the next stepper push. If an analog quartz movement is intended as a throw-away, there is no point in jeweling it. If however, it is intended to be serviceable, then it is reasonable to have it minimally jeweled; ie one or two jewels on the stator...more for kinetics and chronograph complications. Lumping all quartz together is just the result of ignorance and marketing BS. well them maybe it just comes down to serviceability certainly isn't marketing because I don't ever remember a quartz watch with the jewel count identified on the exterior or maybe its still legacy design. Likely it is legacy since the new developers of quartz movements back in the day were primarily mechanical guys/gals and didn't immediately understand that jeweling 17 pivots was way overkill. If you look at various calibres over time you can see how the jewel count went from 15 jewels all the way down to zero jewels for movements with the same functionality and found in similar price watches. It's called cost reduction and in this case it was probably well justified :-) |
|
cd_god
Is a Permanent Fixture
Finna set up a HOOD next door to your richie phuk suburban mansion
Posts: 12,256
|
Post by cd_god on Nov 1, 2013 17:06:58 GMT -8
Maybe the advancements in space age polymers and plastics and oils and self lubricating plastic gears have something to do with the no longer need for jeweled movements?
I'll leave the fact up to the experts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 17:14:41 GMT -8
Maybe the advancements in space age polymers and plastics and oils and self lubricating plastic gears have something to do with the no longer need for jeweled movements? I'll leave the fact up to the experts. I suspect you are correct. Synthetic lubricants have the advantage of years of space age research. There is no reason to suspect that Seiko Omega and friends don't pass on what they have learned from these watches and lubricants to even the lowliest 7s26, 2824, etc. Oh ye, I am not an ecspert at anything |
|
HiBeat
Global Moderator
SEIKO Iko Iko GDTRWS
Posts: 8,667
|
Post by HiBeat on Nov 1, 2013 18:57:05 GMT -8
Lots of Seiko quartzes have more than a few jewels. The 99XX old series had 5 jewels. Today's fine 9F62 and the other 9F series have 9 jewels.
I have a Tudor Quartz with 8 jewels. The movement began life as 5 jewel quartz ETA (940.111 or 255.111). Some were sold to Omega who added another to make it into their 6 jewel 1532 movement. Now some of these Omega 1532's were subsequently purchased by Rolex where 2 more jewels were added to create their 8-jewel quartz movement. My point being ETA, Omega and Rolex all saw fit to use more than 1 jewel, and as the caliber went up the food chain the various manufacturers did their thing to upgrade it to their internal standards.
|
|
cobrajet25
Needs a Life!
"Underweared curmudgeon!"
Posts: 3,357
|
Post by cobrajet25 on Nov 3, 2013 1:00:03 GMT -8
High jewel counts in most quartz watches is just marketing. There may be some advantage in various chronograph models but for the most part, one or two jewels should suffice for as long as the watch is kept running. The mechanical watch has stress and tension on all on the train all the time; when the main spring is wound. So jeweling is neccesary for longevity. The average quartz movement has no constant tension on the train so jeweling beyond the stator/stepper is not really of any big advantage. There is only a small amount of momentary tension applied to the train once each second then it is released until the next stepper push. If an analog quartz movement is intended as a throw-away, there is no point in jeweling it. If however, it is intended to be serviceable, then it is reasonable to have it minimally jeweled; ie one or two jewels on the stator...more for kinetics and chronograph complications. Lumping all quartz together is just the result of ignorance and marketing BS. I agree. Early on, quartz movements were meant to be serviced just like their mechanical counterparts.  They need fewer jewels because, as Penguin said, they do not have a constantly-tensioned mainspring, a rotating winding weight, a balance wheel and pallet fork banging around thousands of times per hour, etc. But with a quartz movement that is largely metal, jeweling is still necessary. Movement designers soon discovered that, since metal movements to withstand all the forces exerted by spring-wound watches were not required, the entire movement could be made out of "self-lubricating" plastic or nylon with no appreciable effect on accuracy. These are not movements, per se, but are normally referred to as "modules". Not serviceable, and meant to be discarded when they malfunction. But a good, high-end, mostly metal, serviceable quartz movement? Yeah...it should have between four and eight jewels, IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by SpinDoctor on Nov 3, 2013 6:34:51 GMT -8
^^^
wow the crystal tube is as big as the coil
|
|
