-
If looked after the mechanical will work forever.
Quartz when it dies, it dies. And you basically need new innards.
-
To use an analogy that may not be the best fit for this forum; for me it's no different than attempting to compare carburettors favourably to fuel injection systems. While it's nice to watch the mechanical parts at play, ultimately it's less able to carry out its role (assuming the role is to keep accurate time.)
I'm not trying to stir up a debate, I realise that my metrics for valuing a watch are very different to many of the folks here. I'm just curious as to what it is that's deserving of the significantly higher value that mechanical watches are given.
If you don't rely on your car for work then you can have a 1970's 911 running on carbs.
I'd have one over my 996 if I could afford one - but the 996 is £15k and the long-hood is £150,000.
So I have the Swatch, as it were.
I don't rely on my watch for work, either - so I can have the carb'd version.
You are reading a single comment by @mmccarthy and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ChainBreaker
Dammit
@mmccarthy
I still don't get the mechanical > quartz thing, and the higher value given to mechanicals.
I realise this is probably opening a giant can of worms, but why is that the case?
I understand more labour can go into a mechanical movement, but why does that make it worth more?
To use an analogy that may not be the best fit for this forum; for me it's no different than attempting to compare carburettors favourably to fuel injection systems. While it's nice to watch the mechanical parts at play, ultimately it's less able to carry out its role (assuming the role is to keep accurate time.)
I'm not trying to stir up a debate, I realise that my metrics for valuing a watch are very different to many of the folks here. I'm just curious as to what it is that's deserving of the significantly higher value that mechanical watches are given.