14 May 2011, 09:35
There are few areas where quantified, measurable, objectivated, specified aspects are totally not mentioned, less still factually compaired when judging or comparing products as in horology.
Taste, preferrence and pejudice rule all, even the definition and contents of quality.
This basically means that the word ´quality´can be deleted and substituted by ´preferrence´.
We could better do with only sales brochures since with these we are awáre of the subjectivity of marketing and sales talk.
In 2003 a fellow WIS launched a very good idea for objectivating the level of finish.
I particularly like that since it avoids the mine field of brand and type of engine completely.
It simply measures the quality of finish. Since that is a factor húgely governed by the law of deminishing returns, it is of great value to weigh the price and escalon in the market.
Johannes Schöön uses the magnification at which imperfection in finish/manufacture become visible as a standard of comparison:
0 is visible with the naked eye (20/20 vision).
The maximum is 10 x which corresponds with the diamond industry standard of perfection, meaning that 10+ = not visible at 10 x = perfect.
Maybe for watches a larger magnification is needed and that is obviously no problem. Just skip the 10+ and add any number. If it takes 20x to make the pixels of a display visible then 20 it is.
This means we have the SLoP standard to objectively compare the level of quality of finish and maufacture of watches.
We can compare the level of finish of a Ventura Kappa with a Seiko EPD with a Casio G-shcock. That of a Pulsar Px with a Hamilton MiBII or a Hamilton Pulsomatic.
Ditto the Grand Seiko with a Seiko Spirit with a Seiko Sport.
Ditto a Rolex sub with a Citizen Chronomaster, a Ventura Sigma, Seiko EPD, Vostok Amphibian, or whatever.
It is a criterium that can be used for ALL watches regardless of niche or type of disply or type of engine.
If the E-ink pixels of an EPD watch need 20x magnification to show imperfection, then that is 10+ (or 20) and that cán be, diréctly, compaired with say 5 or 8 or whatever of a Rolex dial/hands.
No more ´I prefer the...´ nor ´In my opinion the quaility is...´ as the only foundations telling nobody anything about the watch but only about the wis writing.
An observation that a Synchonar case is 0, that of a Seiko SBPG is 5 and a Seiko SDGA is 8 (or 10+ or ....) is a factual comparative measure on which we can báse a choice or opinion.
I think ´hail SLoP´
What do yoú think
Taste, preferrence and pejudice rule all, even the definition and contents of quality.
This basically means that the word ´quality´can be deleted and substituted by ´preferrence´.
We could better do with only sales brochures since with these we are awáre of the subjectivity of marketing and sales talk.
In 2003 a fellow WIS launched a very good idea for objectivating the level of finish.
I particularly like that since it avoids the mine field of brand and type of engine completely.
It simply measures the quality of finish. Since that is a factor húgely governed by the law of deminishing returns, it is of great value to weigh the price and escalon in the market.
Johannes Schöön uses the magnification at which imperfection in finish/manufacture become visible as a standard of comparison:
0 is visible with the naked eye (20/20 vision).
The maximum is 10 x which corresponds with the diamond industry standard of perfection, meaning that 10+ = not visible at 10 x = perfect.
Maybe for watches a larger magnification is needed and that is obviously no problem. Just skip the 10+ and add any number. If it takes 20x to make the pixels of a display visible then 20 it is.
This means we have the SLoP standard to objectively compare the level of quality of finish and maufacture of watches.
We can compare the level of finish of a Ventura Kappa with a Seiko EPD with a Casio G-shcock. That of a Pulsar Px with a Hamilton MiBII or a Hamilton Pulsomatic.
Ditto the Grand Seiko with a Seiko Spirit with a Seiko Sport.
Ditto a Rolex sub with a Citizen Chronomaster, a Ventura Sigma, Seiko EPD, Vostok Amphibian, or whatever.
It is a criterium that can be used for ALL watches regardless of niche or type of disply or type of engine.
If the E-ink pixels of an EPD watch need 20x magnification to show imperfection, then that is 10+ (or 20) and that cán be, diréctly, compaired with say 5 or 8 or whatever of a Rolex dial/hands.
No more ´I prefer the...´ nor ´In my opinion the quaility is...´ as the only foundations telling nobody anything about the watch but only about the wis writing.
An observation that a Synchonar case is 0, that of a Seiko SBPG is 5 and a Seiko SDGA is 8 (or 10+ or ....) is a factual comparative measure on which we can báse a choice or opinion.
I think ´hail SLoP´
What do yoú think
´Design oder nicht sein´