TAG Heuer Microtimer price.

[Huertecilla]

I know, I know; what the punter wants to pay but...
thís punter cannot find a ballpark figure to start from.

I can buy a used 2008 TAG Heuer Microtimer with b&p and would like to get a bit better informed about what thye ´going´ price is.

As it is a digital watch....
What would be a reasonable* price?

I am quite aware that high end digitals do not do well pre-owned and that ´TAG-Heuer´ has a complicated price tag; quite an added value when new, not so much used.
This makes the Micrograph/Microtimer a bit of a for me.
The custom to delete asking prices from sales topics on watch fora does a power of no good

*by all means express you opinion about what it shoúld be worth, either a lot of not much, provided you have an argument for that

Thank you.

[rewolf]

I have no idea about it's "market value" but personally I wouldn't pay more than 300€ for it. It is nothing special, neither in materials not craftsmanship, looks a bit ugly, has only a rubber strap, and a 1/1000s hand-operated stopwatch is so ridiculocus that they must be punished for it.
(Says me who owns +1k€ Venturas )

[Huertecilla]

I have no idea about it's "market value" but personally I wouldn't pay more than 300€ for it. It is nothing special, neither in materials not craftsmanship, looks a bit ugly, has only a rubber strap, and a 1/1000s hand-operated stopwatch is so ridiculocus that they must be punished for it.
(Says me who owns +1k€ Venturas )

Thanks for the .... clear perspective.

It is indeed just about the reverse of a V-tec Ventura. That one has a a case and a neat but not more module.
The Microtimer has a module and case that admittedly is up from Fossil/ Diesel / DNKY but not 10 times and a piece of sapphire cristal cannot be worth thát much.

About the module I agee BUT the argument goes for just about all limits of horologic technology.
Anything beyond basic quartz is

I think Ventura is the wrong comparison. That is top notch made and finshed signed design.
The Diesel et al is a better comparison. There are several Diesel models that come quite close in design.

The new price of a lookaline is roughly 140 Euros. The RLP of the Microtimer is núts in that perspective.
The greatest of deminishing return does not make a three time nicer case 10 times more expensive.

The module is a different story but how much in coins
The added functionality is
So it is about the subjective appreciation of the aesthetics of technology.

Yes and then Diesel versus TA-Heuer brand. I know it has NO intrinsic value BUT...
neither does Omega versus Pulsar versus Hamilton or JLC versus Wittnauer versus anything US with the same Hughes module yet there are multiplication factors in there too.
Brand doés have value but how much is

Right. I am going to mull this over.
Diesel digital versus Microtimer; hardware & module & brand.

[Old Tom]

Are you thinking of buying the Microtimer (bit cheap & nasty IMO) or the Micrographer (much nicer, "limited" edition)? Seem to have been two versions of the Microtimer- one with standard grey LCD and one with reversed black LCD- Be very wary of the standard LCD ones- extensively faked (like many, many Tag Heuer watches- you wouldn't believe how many I have had people ask me "is this real?").

[Huertecilla]

Are you thinking of buying the Microtimer (bit cheap & nasty IMO) or the Micrographer (much nicer, "limited" edition)? Seem to have been two versions of the Microtimer- one with standard grey LCD and one with reversed black LCD- Be very wary of the standard LCD ones- extensively faked (like many, many Tag Heuer watches- you wouldn't believe how many I have had people ask me "is this real?").

Thanks for the warning.
The fakes are quite easy to spot. Most fotos of internet sellers are of the real thing.
The fake has:
- a frame matching the display up with the case opening and a cheap window.
- the brand on the face in a field
- sloppy non-fitting pushers and - surrounds
- buckle

The Micrograph and Microtimer are identical. Nó difference save for the performance.
The Micrograph was the introduction model for the digital module in 2002. Indeed ´limited´ to 1000.

The Microtimer followed in 2004 and has the module upgraded to /1000th whereas the Micrograph has 1/100th.

THe Microtimer was superceeded by the ´69´ in 2003.
The two Micrometers seem to have been testbeds for the ´69´. Both marketingwise and in technology.
The Sixtynine is not different really from the Omerga Reverso. Costs the same too in today´s money. At the time the Omega had cheap Japanese digitals as perspective and the price difference was again the same.
The crucial difference is that the digital watch was not looked down upon in the eighties as the marketing ploy to revere the wiggly spring movement as a desireable luxury had only just been conceived by Biver & Hayek.

Today the digital watch is generally seen as not high end technology and the whole thing about ´value´ of a luxury watch is thus enlarged in digital watches.
Why would a GP casquette be worth so much more than a Bulova driver or a Diesel DZ7079 or a chinese ´homage´?
Look at a Rolex Submariner versus a Vostok Amphibian. There is a factor 1000 in the price of thóse two. Used even more
Why are high(er) end digital watches not desireable? They have a far, fár superior time piece inside and the hardware is the same
Look at the Ventura range with both mechanicals and digitals. The digitals have far more special technology and have the same SLoP yet the mechanicals outsell them at double the price.

The clasp:




I think this shot ilustrates the issue.
It is a very well made and functional clasp. Far removed from a $4 buckle.
Yet the finish looks.... cheap. Almost chromium.
Same thing the case. That too is not a cheap thing. Very well fitting and véry smoothly pollished.
It has a liquid metal look that quite difficult to produce actually as the rounded corners are consistent but somehow the thing lóóks like it was haphazzardly buffed for hoúrs.

I find it frustrating that the module is NOT to be found on the web
The display has a cool ´stealth´ function btw. ánd good lighting.
TAG Heuere realy did make an effort with this proprietary, ´in house´, module.

[Huertecilla]

Oops I omitted the starting point....

The european Retail List Pice (in today´s exchange rate) was:

GBP 1825,-
EUR 2075,-

It retailed in the US for just under 2K$.
This is a bit distorted as that was under RLP and incl. european taxes that would be 1800 Euros which is what they sold for in europe too.

Stupid policy of standard discounted RLP

[Huertecilla]

Found a Basel 2003 text:

´Le «Concept Watch Microsplit» par TAG Heuer

TAG Heuer présente en avant-première à la Foire de Bâle 2003 un concept novateur à la pointe de la haute technologie: le Microsplit.

Deux innovations majeures dans ce concept:
– Le Microsplit est le premier produit de l'histoire horlogère à intégrer du Liquid Metal™. Utilisé jusqu'alors dans l'aéronautique, ce métal amorphe rend la boîte du chronographe presque aussi inrayable que la céramique.
– Ce concept watch est le premier instrument de chronométrage de poignet suisse de prestige au 1/1000e de seconde.

Après avoir été à l'origine du Micrograph, le premier instrument de chronométrage au 1/100e en 1916 puis du Microtimer en 1966 qui était le premier instrument de chronométrage portable au 1/1000e, TAG Heuer poursuit sa quête de l'innovation en intégrant le millième de secondes dans un chronographe de poignet. Que les amateurs d'horlogerie patientent, ce modèle n'est encore qu'à l'état de concept watch...´


It may have been the first watch in the world to be made with the ´Liquid Metal´ technology but the method must have gone back to the think tank as this first effort left the metal still a bit amorph; it is a scratch magnet if there ever was one

[ronaldheld]

I am unaware of a commercial Microtimer with liquid metal case. I was trying to have my AD upgrade mine for years, to no avail.

[Huertecilla]

I am unaware of a commercial Microtimer with liquid metal case. I was trying to have my AD upgrade mine for years, to no avail.

It seems the 2003 Basel show announcement stayed a prototype only.

I interprete your writing as that you have a Microtimer.
Please share your experience with it.
It is one of very few high(er) end digital watches.
Also I am curious to know how the time keeping performances is and wether it can be regulated.

Do you have a photo of the innards with the back off perhaps?
It is frustrating me to no end that I can find nóthing on the module and a peek at it would tell us a whole lot!

Since the SixtyNine shares this identical movement it is easy to sssúme the quality but for me the ´TAG Heuer´ banner needs a bit of a backing up with physical selling points.

I really hope you can provide same fact beyond the sales brochure text.

[rewolf]

The T1000 was (will be?) made of liquid metal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-1000

[ronaldheld]

Huertecilla, I have not worn it in a while. I believe that after a trip to the factory for calibration, is gains about a minute a year. Sorry, no movement pictures.

[Huertecilla]

Thank you.

It is most telling that it could be adjusted.

[Huertecilla]

The T1000 was (will be?) made of liquid metal.

The thing is best understood starting from glass.
Glass is an amorph and amorhous metal is also called glassy metal or metallic glass.
I understand the properties and why thhis has advantages but I fail to see those for a watch case as the loss in ductileness creates a greater problem than the increased hardness solves.
It ís however a good solution for surface hardening where other methods are not applicable or give unsufficient result.

It is p.e. the answer to what is the ´glass´ surface of the Ventura case in titanox. That is ´liquid metal´ created at the surface by extreme cooling.
The Mircothingies would have greatly benifited from thát as now they are scratch magnets.
I am assúming the design was meant to have the glassy metal surface and for some reason this was not realised.

I was told that my artificial hip uses Ti40Cu36Pd14Zr10 ´liquid metal´ although I do not to what extend, -how.
It needs replacing and I intend to take it home when it has been

[Huertecilla]

This one went for a good price:

http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie ... K:MEWAX:IT

Seems that some 850-1000 Euros is the ball park.

[retroleds]

The T1000 was (will be?) made of liquid metal.

I understand the properties and why thhis has advantages but I fail to see those for a watch case as the loss in ductileness creates a greater problem than the increased hardness solves.
It ís however a good solution for surface hardening where other methods are not applicable or give unsufficient result.

It is p.e. the answer to what is the ´glass´ surface of the Ventura case in titanox. That is ´liquid metal´ created at the surface by extreme cooling.
The Mircothingies would have greatly benifited from thát as now they are scratch magnets.
I am assúming the design was meant to have the glassy metal surface and for some reason this was not realised.

I'm guessing a few years from now people will be cursing those liquid metal cases because they will be almost impossible to refinish by conventional methods. Stainless is bearable because most grades are really quite soft, as far as metals go. Get into something like tool steel hardness and it becomes almost impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_metal

[Huertecilla]

I'm guessing a few years from now people will be cursing those liquid metal cases because they will be almost impossible to refinish by conventional methods.

The hardness equals that of synthetic sapphire. In other words; the whole watch and bracelet is as scratch resistant as the sapphire window.

The sapphire cristal has the exact same advatgae being a disadvantage; hard to scratch, hard to refinish.
Untreates stainless steel is like an acrylic window; easy to scratch, easy to refinish.
Pick your choice.

As I am in favour of letting a watch develop and keep it´s sabi, I can see the advantage of scratch resistance and I would not have it refinished anyway.