# Quartz.why I Love It.



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Some of the posts I read about quartz watches and how bad they are compared to mech,sadden me deeply
















Quartz is ace,you heard it from me first









All you collectors that are forever removing the backs on your mech watches to try to shave 0.5 of your watches timekeeping,I know you are out there.

Do you place your watch in different positions overnight?

Does +6 secs a day give you sleepless nights?

Do you ask how a watch is keeping time before you buy it?

Does your mech watch really have a soul??

Do you enjoy having to wind a watch just before leaving for work,because you own more than two mech watches?

Do you hate having to explain to people what an automatic is,and why it does not have a battery like theirs has?

Does it have to be decorated?

Incabloc?Antishock?









Inhouse?Outhouse?

Chronometer a must have?

All the above solved with quartz























All the above comments are fictional and are not connected with any persons I know of


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Alex,

Get a G10.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Had one Stan,a couple of years back,one of the new ones,no issued.Nice watch,but I traded it














Would buy another if one comes along


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I'd love a Hamilton Ventura quartz if I could bloody get one in the UK.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Will have a new gadget quartz arriving from a nice man very soon


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Can't you buy from abroad?and accept the VAT?

Is there no dealers in the UK that has one?


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Yep,

I could get one from the States but the duty on a Â£250 watch would be stupid.

No one in the UK stocks them.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Would not be too bad,about Â£60?Depending on courier.If I wanted one as bad as you wanted one then I would get one,if I were you


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

I know what you mean Alex.









I have to be a good lad this year, can't be selfish.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Good for you Stan









Having had to sell of 90% of my watches.I feel I can afford a couple of quid on a new un


----------



## MIKE (Feb 23, 2003)

Hi Alex,

My next two watches (in transit) are both quartz, granted not very dear, but they make a couple of intresting aditions to my collection









MIKE.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Nice one Mike.Price is not important


----------



## rodiow (Nov 6, 2004)

Some comments kinda sounded familiar in there so had to add me tu penith worth,

.. I cant do without a quartz watch they all have their place, I don't remember slagging them all off its just a personal admiration kinda thing I have for all that's mechanical ,

just knowing that inside that little case having all those moving parts all working together when you turn that crown, each part is doing its own little job relying on each other... end result hopefully actually measuring the elapse of time.....fascinating!,

I guess its a visible thing why I like windups so much,seeing all this happening, even if you don't fully understand what each part does its amazing to see,

What do you see when you look into the back of a quartz watch ?,it may interest some people but all I see is a lifeless unmoving piece of circuitry ,

you know it does the job by some means of witchcraft or satanic magic cell but you cant See what's going on......er ..I think Id better lie down now


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

All comments were tounge in cheek


----------



## rodiow (Nov 6, 2004)

AlexR said:


> All comments were tounge in cheek


 ....oops irony I remember ....sorry..









mental note to self -must not take drugs whilst on forum.....


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

My love for quartz is real enough,but everything else is just waffle


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

I must apologise,for my corny love of quartz line in previous post


----------



## Sargon (Feb 24, 2003)

I've got nothing at all against quartz. There just not any good to wear on the outside of my space suit while going EVA







. I'd like them more if they could make one with a smooth second hand. I don't know why I just enjoy watching that.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Let's go back to Accutrons then.


----------



## hakim (Sep 13, 2004)

Yup quartz works for me too. I find it very convinient as an everyday watch. Pick it and go.

However if I had to go on safari or something then a dependable auto (Seiko diver or similar on a Rhino) would be my first choice.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

To me, the technology that makes quartz watches work is just as fascinating as that behind mechanical watches. Although around 70% of my collection is made up of mechanical watches, I wear quartz watches most of the time. I love 'em


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Just the battery change puts me off, so solar or kinetic suits me best


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2005)

Quartz watches are fine by me and if they had come out first no one would bother to invent a mechanical watch.









However talking points on quartz movements are virtually nil and if it wasn't for mechanical watches there would be no watch forums IMO.

I post on a number of forums and quartz watches are rarely talked about.

Without the resurgence of the mechanical watch in the 1980's watch interest would be very sparse IMO. Even with all the benefits of quartz people still wanted mechanical watches and the manufacturers some of whom had virtually gone completely over to quartz started to build mechnicals again.

I personally find quartz watches very efficient but rather dull and would always rather wear a mechanical although I own some nice quartz driven watches.............and as for quartz chronographs, the buttons (switches?) don't feel as pleasurable to use as a nice clunky mechanical pusher.


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

I think there is plent to talk about regarding quartz movements,its just most of us dont know what they consist of.There are some nice quartz movements out there.

They are rarely discussed on some forums(TZ,cough)because no one understands or gives them a second thought,as most collectors are wrapped up in mech.Collectors of most things always hark back to the good old days,but in reality they were never that good.If you could jump back in time and offer a person a quartz instead of something they had to wind every day,would they take it?IMO,yes.

A lot of the renewed interest in mech is sales talk.We build them as we did 50 years ago,and so on.









Give a die hard collector a choice of a really nice looking quartz or a not so nice mech,which will they choose?Most would take the mech,because the quartz has no soul
















Most forums do not talk movements as much as other factors.looks gets discussed more than anything,and straps :lol:There are a few quartz forums that gets lots of traffic










Quartz chrongraphs are very efficiant things,but people still want mechanical.Pilot this and military that.No one uses mech except for watch fans,most pilots and military use quartz because it does the job better,so a lot of it is sales talk









All IMO only,I am stating my opininons and do not mean anyone any disrespect


----------



## ETCHY (Aug 3, 2004)

Hi

For my 2p's worth, I just like watches, I do tend to favour mechanical ones over quartz ( I ain't got one that hum's yet) but for me that's just 'cos all those little moving wheels & springs etc just inspire me a bit more.

However a good quartz watch such as the RLT15 & my dear old G10 still 'float my boat' & after a while of wearing a good quartz I sort of get used to the lack of hassle & their inherent accuracy - they're good interesting watches just 'different' to a mechanical one.

It's a very subjective thing, if I looked at it calmly & rationally i'd only ever need one watch (pause whilst I cross my self & wait for the true terror of that prospect to sink in) irrespective of movement, it's not likely to happen though .

We all enjoy & appreciate watches & that's the important part.

Dave


----------



## normdiaz (May 5, 2004)

Like quartz, hate battery changing. Possible quartz (or partial quartz) solutions:

solar

kinetic

electromagnetic induction (requires separate recharger)

springdrive

thermic

(probably others I'm unaware of)


----------



## DavidH (Feb 24, 2003)

There is a site recently opened with lots of stuff re. OYSTERQUATRZ


----------



## 036 (Feb 27, 2003)

Two quartz watches in the little collection now. Here is my Zenith, can't get more 70s than this:



















I do like that watch I must admit - I think because when I was 10 to 14 or so that is the sort of stuff you looked at in the jewellers on the way to get the bus home.

The reason I prefer mechanical watches to quartz is that cogs and gears will always be economically feasible to repair. While I am sure it is possible to repair coils and printed circuit boards etc, unless you can do it yourself it is too expensive, it seems. The only repair solution, effectively is to change the movement. So long term mech is the way to go.

Anyway, I recently felt the urge for a gadget watch so bought this Casio:










Confession: much as I love my mech watches I have to have at least one known-to-be-accurate timepiece around.

Not a bad little watch actually, looks rather different from Roys pic as the bezel is in fact polished. Bored with the buttons already though, and the night light effort is much less entertaining than this:










Cheers

Si


----------



## 036 (Feb 27, 2003)

> The reason I prefer mechanical watches to quartz is that cogs and gears will always be economically feasible to repair. While I am sure it is possible to repair coils and printed circuit boards etc, unless you can do it yourself it is too expensive, it seems. The only repair solution, effectively is to change the movement. So long term mech is the way to go.


It's a sad day when you have to quote yourself isn't it?









The other reason why I prefer mechanicals is that you get bits and bobs like this in a mechanical watch:










Or this:


----------



## 036 (Feb 27, 2003)

With a quartz you get this:










With notable exceptions of course:










Si


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

I been thinking about this ever since Alex posted 3 days ago







but I can now give you my considered, and probably irrelevant, opinion









In this discussion, you must also consider the display.

At one end of the scale, you have a mechanical chrono married to an analogue display with hundreds of sub-dials, hands etc etc and internally with tons of cogs, wheels, springs etc. I think we all love these









At the other end of the scale, you have a quartz movement with a single digital LCD. i.e this watch has no moving parts whatsoever other than the odd pusher to set things. OK, the Ventura has a wheel







. This is the type of quartz watch I have problems with







I really do what some level of mechanics.

In between, there are hundreds of hybrids. Mech with digital displays (Damas or Dumb Arse depending on what you think of my recent purchase







) Quartz with analogue displays and dual digital/analogue displays. The Citizen Ana-Digi-Temp watches I used to have were amazing things with at least 2 analogue displays and the mechanics to drive them. Do you remember those pictures of my Seiko 7T59 chrono from the early '90s? (here) This quartz movement has no less that 4 stepping motors --- that red hand rotates 10 per second and the movt has become a classic. No problem with these hybrids; I just bought an o.d.m. but an ana-digi one.

So for me at least, the only thing I wish didn't have moving parts, is my washing machine









Cheers

Paul


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Nice post Hawkey


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Forgot to add,what do you think of the O.D.M?There are a couple I want.I hear the build quality is very good











> At one end of the scale, you have a mechanical chrono married to an analogue display with hundreds of sub-dials, hands etc etc and internally with tons of cogs, wheels, springs etc. I think we all love these


Do we?


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Jason,whilst straying into online list







I notice you have been posting in this thread for a few minutes.I hope you post is going to be a good one


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

I suppose I have no strong feelings either way...If I like a watch then I like it









If I do have a preference for mechanical watches then one of the reasons is to be a bit different than the crowd....

Just been counting up my quartzes.....G10, Tuna can, G-Shock, Traser P6500 with Yao dial / hands, Accurist ana-digi chronograph, Casio Triple sensor,

Yep....I like em too....


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> notice you have been posting in this thread for a few minutes


OOoo Ya bugger!!!











> If I do have a preference for mechanical watches then one of the reasons is to be a bit different than the crowd


Dont worry Alex...Your different in lots of other ways


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Nice one Jason :


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Editing your post with comments about me being different just for cheap laughs in below the belt Jason


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Alex, O he of lightning wit and posting skills.....How often do you get caught out with the 'flood control' thingy?...Or dont Mods get subjected to that?


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

All the time Jason,it gets in the way all the time,me being on dial up does not help either.But I do my best


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

I prefer my all analogue watches to be mechanical; if I had a choice between say, a quartz Seamaster Pro and a mechanical Seamaster Pro I would always choose the latter. Why I don't know, except for the second hand jumping and not sweeping there isnt a lot of external difference.

I have several analogue quartz watches that do not have a mechanical equivalent and I have no problem with that, they are still good watches. I don't hold with the "I could never wear quartz" view.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

SilverHawk said:



> At the other end of the scale, you have a quartz movement with a single digital LCD. i.e this watch has no moving parts whatsoever other than the odd pusher to set things...This is the type of quartz watch I have problems with










I guess you don't like my o.d.m. Mysterious I then? Doesn't even have any visible buttons to press




















> Do you remember those pictures of my Seiko 7T59 chrono from the early '90s?. This quartz movement has no less that 4 stepping motors...


But you must love the VDB Chronorace 1! 4 stepper motors and 7 hands


















Come on admit it, you love it really don't you?









Oh, and before anyone says anything, that's _red_, not pink, or cerise or...


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> Come on admit it, you love it really don't you


Er...I quite like the pushers....


----------



## AlexR (May 11, 2003)

Ace Chronorace







I like it very much


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> SilverHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I like VDB watches - almost bought one myself once. Wasn't as jazzy as that though.

The O.D.M. is very interesting. You may have explained before Rich, but how's it work?


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Mrcrowley said:



> You may have explained before Rich, but how's it work?


If you hold the watch at a relatively horizontal angle it displays the time. If you rotate it towards you a switch (it's one moving part I guess







) operates inside and the display flicks over to show the date. Rotate the watch back to a more horizontal position and the switch operates again so the display reverts to showing the time. The system works really well.

I'm wearing this one today:

*o.d.m. Visionary*










Beautiful, but not as clever as the Mysterious I. This has a recessed button on the back to change the mode of the digital display, but of course you can't get to the button unless you take the watch off







I think it's fabulous though


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

OK, but not as nice as the Mysterious though.

So It may change with wrist movement? So if not in a mode you want you just have to wave your hand till you get it


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Indeed. But even rotating your wrist gently is usually enough to make the display change. Little more than gravity is required to operate the internal switch.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> Indeed. But even rotating your wrist gently is usually enough to make the display change. Little more than gravity is required to operate the internal switch.


I may be able to get away with buying one of those.

I said no more watches, but that's more of a gadget.

Is it bright enough to use as a bedroom clock?


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> I may be able to get away with buying one of those





> Today I retire from watch buying




























Restistance is futile....Must....Buy ....New...Watches....


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

jasonm said:


> > I may be able to get away with buying one of those
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Maybe


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Mrcrowley said:


> I said no more watches, but that's more of a gadget.
> 
> Is it bright enough to use as a bedroom clock?


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

pg tips said:


> Mrcrowley said:
> 
> 
> > I said no more watches, but that's more of a gadget.
> ...


 Well - then it has another purpose


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Well - I shall dash your hopes!

It would be almost useless as a bedroom clock. It's not bright enough, or big enough, and if it's upright it will only show the date and not the time - although this might be handy if you only want to get out of bed on certain days of certain months







Could be useful for bears and other hibernating mammals perhaps









And there's no backlight so you would only be able to see the display in daylight hours anyway.

I'm afraid you will have to think of another excuse


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> Well - I shall dash your hopes!
> 
> It would be almost useless as a bedroom clock. It's not bright enough, or big enough, and if it's upright it will only show the date and not the time - although this might be handy if you only want to get out of bed on certain days of certain months
> 
> ...


 OK. It's still a gadgety thing though...........


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

Why I don't like qtz can be summed up in two points.

Sound : Just listen to them, either nothing at all or that relentless thud... thud... thud.... they don't sing like a ticker

Sight : No sweep just 60 jumps a minute, even the minute hands jump it aint smooth, I like smooth sweepy things.

The only thing I like about digital qtz is (if it has a stop watch) playing at how fast you can start / stop it. I think .07 of a second was my best although it's been a few years since I did this. A useful game when your having a really troublesome dump!









Anyone gonna post a pic of one quicker?


----------



## namaste (May 8, 2003)

I don't have a digital chronograph but the main reason one for having one was to play start/stop!

I think I've been under .5 secs but it depends on the watch/pushers model... My first casio lcd was very fast. The next one (seiko sports 200) had tougher pushers because of the water resistance, .8 would have been best as far as I can remember...


----------



## adrian (May 23, 2004)

From start I don't rule out any watch but as a quartz watch goes I have few points:

Most of the quartz mechanisms are stamped circuits, very easy to make in large numbers and not very expensive. This is why I think the watch will depreciate faster on the market, comparing with a mechanical. There are exceptions like SuperQuartz or OysterQuartz who are innovative, but the price difference between the quartz and mechanical models are not so big. Another exceptions are high-end brands like Cartier whos quartz watches tend to keep their value but this is because the brand doesn't depreciate, not because the watch has something truly amazing inside. Sure thing I expect to find the best quality movement available in one of those watches; jeweled movements and gold plated contacts but if you come to think about it, a computer motherboard costs about 250$ (the best grade), so if you buy a high-end quartz you will heavily pay the brand.

I like sport watches and I like all my watches to have a reasonable WR. With a quartz you cannot keep this unless you will have the battery replaced by an authorised dealer or someone who can guarantee that after the service he didn't altered the WR. This is why I would prefer a (very) long life battery watch or a model without any WR to ease my mind I cannot swim with it anyway.

Bottom line I own a PRS11 with a 10 years batt life and it wasn't quite expensive. I can swim and do whatever I want with it without worrying that it will stop if I don't wind it. It is also my "chronometer" because I verify my mechanicals against it. As for the future goes I will someday buy a Tissot T-Touch because it is a very original watch with a unique nice movement or a Rado/Ventura not because I like what is inside but because the idea of having a full scratch resistant watch thrills me and I think my investment will be preserved because of the special materials these watches are made of.

I do not consider quartz watches lifeless, only that when I buy a watch I try to get the best price/value without overpaying the brand and considering how the market for the watch will go in the future because maybe someday I will try to sell it or trade it.


----------



## USMike (Mar 16, 2003)

Here is an impulse buy that is only my 4th non-mechanical watch. I'd seen pictures and comments on a forum and was able to get my hands on one. This quartz has so many complications it would probably take well into 5 figures to equal it in a mechanical watch. It is small (38mm case) compared to most of my other watches which makes the dial hard for me to read but so far it's been worth it. If the novelty wears off I can probably sell it easily since it cost under $300.00 Besides, I'm guessing it will take me a couple of months to figure out how to work and read all the functions.

IMHO, if you like the looks and features of a watch, it shouldn't matter if it's mechanical or not. I bought a Timex electric because I liked the dial, a Citizen Eco drive because the case was octagon shaped and the dial was red, white & blue and the Seiko Kinetic chrono with the 45 minute retrograde counter because it was only $225.00 at the Seiko store. The 4th is an Accutron and everybody should have at least one of those.

Yes, I know the plastic cover is still there and yes, I do have to work on the lighting


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Not sure what happened Mike, but in your post I only see the red x. Anyway, here's the picture


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

There something spooky going with this picture, I got a red x with both versions.

Let's see if this works.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

I now see yours Stan, but mine has disappeared. I'll show you mine if you show me yours


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Rich,

We have gremlins, sponsored by Micro$oft at a guess.


----------



## USMike (Mar 16, 2003)

THANKS for the picture help. It appears that Webshots picture links don't always work. They have super pics for wallpaper & screen saver but it looks like I'll have to go back to one of the other pic hosting sites. I have some pics on Nikon net but I can't even see those in Preview mode when posting. Guess I should have spoken up to put pics on here.

If I right click on 'viewer posted image' in the post and click 'view image' the picture shows up.

It's probably happening because of the not-so-nice comment I made on another thread about the MS spyware beta.

Here is a link to a few other pics I have of the watch & packaging:

Webshots.com photo album of Bulove repeater


----------



## mach 0.0013137 (Jan 10, 2005)

for years i`ve been a luddite where,quartz watches were concerned Roy my remember my comments "cold souless things,won`t have one in the house"or words to that effect.Then I saw a Rotary Elite (Panerai style)on sale Â£50 off and thought oh well one will be alright







then a few months later came the awesome Citizen Eco-Drive 300m Divers on s/steel bracelet,would have loved the 1000m Titainium automatic but couldn`t afford one.Now am considering either a CWC or Precista G10(I`ve read that the fat case model has differant circuitry does this matter which is best/most reliable)Then theres that rather interesting Citizen Nighthawk,dam







I`ve caught another collecting bug.Doctor can I get some antibiotics for it


----------

