What is the problem with high(er) end digitals?

[Huertecilla]

I find it flabbergasting that the last perfected bit of deminishing returns is thé grail thing with high end swiss analogue mechanicals and that it is the basic value for money end of the same that is applied to electronic digitals.

The price of the Vostok Amphibian is not related by anyone to that of a Rolex Deepsea whereas they are identical save for the lével of quality. The Rolex even adopted the Vostok´s case back design
A price difference between 45$ and 4500$ = a factor 1000 is seen as móre than acceptable since the latter is a lot more hallowed than the former despite the ludicrous price difference.

Why is it that a beter made analogue is appreciated as much as a better made electronic digital is depreciated?
It can NOT be the presence of cheap digitals as there are a lot very much more crappy cheap mechanicals on the same market too.

It is very much illustrated by watches in 18K.
There is a plethora of mechanicals in all colours and varieties of gold, platinum even.
There has not been a single electronic digital watch in gold for 35 years. After the LEDs in gold it stopped.
Yet, the electronic digital is a só much better timing device
It cannot be taste either since the gold cólour digital watch is VERY popular and the superiority of the electronic clockwork in it very much appreciated.
There has been only ever been óne jewely maker who produced véry few LED watches and those are simply drop dead gorguous so what is the problem

I dont´t get it.
Why does the law of deminishing return not apply to digital watches
Why are there no higher end jewelry digitals

[rewolf]

The price of the Vostok Amphibian is not related by anyone to that of a Rolex Deepsea whereas they are identical save for the lével of quality.

Water vehicles? Submarines? If these are watches, their pretentious names alone put me off.

It is very much illustrated by watches in 18K.
There is a plethora of mechanicals in all couours and varieties of gold, platinum even.
There has not been a single electronic digital watch in gold for 35 years. After the LEDs in gold it stopped.
Yet, the electronic digital is a só much better timing device
It cannot be taste either since the gold cólour digital watch is VERY popular and the superiority of the electronic clockwork in it very much appreciated.

Ventura made a 'Vermeil' (925 sterling silver clad with 18 or 22ct gold) version of the 'Miss V'.
Titanium? There are lots of digitals in Titanium. Titanium is the best watch material: more durable, more scratch resistant, lighter, MUCH more comfortable on the naked skin - and it even looks better (IMVHO).
Maybe wearers of digital watches are too rationally-minded for gold?

Why are there no higher end jewelry digitals

Because people don't buy them. And why not? Maybe because most people with enough money to buy such watches have a rather conservative attitude or are not open-minded, or ... ?

[Huertecilla]

Ventura made a 'Vermeil' (925 sterling silver clad with 18 or 22ct gold) version of the 'Miss V'.

Underlining that even as jewelry for ladies they are not in 18k.
Heck, basic quartz is put in ladies solid gold with piles of real diamonds!
Even Róóólex offers a quartz in the lady´s solid gold Cellini and Chopard has a broad range of pretty basic quartz in such.

Maybe wearers of digital watches are too rationally-minded for gold?

Then why the plethora of different gold LED watches during the first half of the seventies?
An emperor, a sjah, several royalty, a few heads of state and several sheikhs wore them!

Also, a red glass cristal in yellow gold is a very popular jewelry combination so the time piece element can be ideally hidden.
Garnet and gold has been thé classic combination for some 3000 years now.
That is just LED.

Since higher end watches are very much male jewelry I just don´t get it why electronic digital has been tainted with a ´cheap´ image.
It is the high tech clock version of the third world technology mechanicals that are widely availeable in crappy made versions

Yor mentioning of titanium is a likewise enigma.
Yes, titanium is a very suiteable material for watches.
In a functional way for watches as tools it is just as much the optimum as gold is for watches as jewelry.
Yet somehow, because of it´s ´plasticky´ light feel, titanium is a very much depreciated watch material.
It is more expensive and far more difficult to machine than steel. Superior in just about everything yet pre-owned sells for léss

[rewolf]

Maybe things will change a bit soon.
Returning from lunch break today I took a different way than normal just to pass a jewellers shop window: about 25% of the watches there are digital - Diesel, Fossil, even some "binary" LEDs and LCDs (bargraph display etc.). Okay, it's the most "progressive" jeweller in town, and not exactly hig-end (he wouldn'd sell the Seiko EPD), but not the cheapest either.
These Diesel and Fossil digitals are all in the 100-200€ range. Junghans is selling the Mega 1000 for 300-600€ depending on material.
There IS a digital renaissance in the mid-range. Give it some some time and this trend could progress into the high-end range. Maybe this is the reason why Pierre Nobs recently found new investors to revive Ventura.

[retroleds]

I think part of the reason digitals don't end up in high end items is a fight between visual aesthetics and perceptions. A digital display has a visual aesthetic (my thinking), of mechanical, cold and angular. The case shapes of most high end watches are much more organic(smooth curves and transitions) or circular in shape. ?Gemstones and gold - I'm thinking again, those both are "man-formed", but natural or organic in our visual perceptions.

So what's my theory on why they could put those(according to my thinking) dissimilar materials and displays together in the '70s but not now? Business decisions[now] being made by people with no passion for the market, so they take the safest road. Dull, boring. If they aren't creative, they could at least consider polling some of the collectors & enthusiasts on what they think would be killer features and material combinations. I personally have a journal full of watch designs I would love to see made. If only I had the means.

I'm glad the designers and engineers of the '70s were a bit stuck with what they had material and display-wise: the results, APPARENTLY, are interesting to some people.

[Huertecilla]

I think part of the reason digitals don't end up in high end items is a fight between visual aesthetics and perceptions. A digital display has a visual aesthetic (my thinking), of mechanical, cold and angular.

Put a dot LED under a garnet red sapphire in an organic shape in a pleasantly shaped 22 carat watch case and there you have a royal designer watch.
You can even make an artifical ruby, sapphire or emerald set in a watch case of ány metal light up with the time.
Or an amber watch face with orange display inside in an 18K ´organic´ casing on tan Shell Cordovan.

Ditto a jet or onyx organic case combined with a white gold accent and a soft font white on black EPD.
What about exotic blackwood and EPD? or a swirl beech for case and cuff-like bracelet?

The electronic digital display technologies have far LESS restrictions than analogue dials and EPD least of all as the display can have any shape, does not even have to be flat and can display any font or other representation like the deck of cards.

There is nó reason why digital representation of time is not used in high end watches or juwelry watches save for some strange preconceptions.

[Huertecilla]

Give it some some time and this trend could progress into the high-end range. Maybe this is the reason why Pierre Nobs recently found new investors to revive Ventura.

Yes, I agree.

It is a clear sign too that Hamilton has a line of Pulsomatics.
The Swatch group has thé best marketing there is, so there must be at least a niche above 1K Euros already and a rising trend.

[retroleds]

I should have qualified my statement that digital displays are mechanical and cold. I should have said "modern digital displays". The leds of old ARE like little fires. I had an occasion to tease an older lady recently, by holding the Pulsar I was wearing up next to the large garnet ring she had on. I think she was a little jealous of the glow coming out of my "pretty".

[Huertecilla]

I should have qualified my statement that digital displays are mechanical and cold. I should have said "modern digital displays". The leds of old ARE like little fires. I had an occasion to tease an older lady recently, by holding the Pulsar I was wearing up next to the large garnet ring she had on. I think she was a little jealous of the glow coming out of my "pretty".

Yes, that captures it exáctly and EPD offers a totally new dimension.

[rewolf]

I should have qualified my statement that digital displays are mechanical and cold. I should have said "modern digital displays". The leds of old ARE like little fires. I had an occasion to tease an older lady recently, by holding the Pulsar I was wearing up next to the large garnet ring she had on. I think she was a little jealous of the glow coming out of my "pretty".

Yes, that captures it exáctly and EPD offers a totally new dimension.

Only EPD doesn't glow

[xevious]

The time keeping construction of a mechanical watch requires significant human skill that takes many years to acquire.

The time keeping aspect of a quartz digital watch is far simpler. The cost of the parts is cheap. Manufacturing is automated. The module, if made efficiently, is relatively inexpensive to replace.

Because of this distinction, there isn't as much glamour about the digital watch. I think a lot of people with much disposable money will be driven to a mechanical watch because they greatly appreciate the human aspect, the skill involved in making it. This is enough to override the fact that a quartz digital watch will usually be more accurate and reliable, even incorporate features the mechanical watch will never have (like atomic synchronization and solar power).

Now today, I'm sure that the human hand is generally much less involved in making the mechanical watch than it was back in the mid 20th century, but the perception is still there. Of course, some higher end brands haven't changed their processes much and the human hand is greatly involved. And this contributes greatly to the appreciation of the watch. Again, something the digital watch design can't really claim in the same way. If one opens the mind, you can see the fantastic human imagination that goes into making something like the EPD display. I appreciate it a lot. The mechanical watch fanatic arrogantly turns his nose up at it.


To me, I appreciate both. I have an old Omega Seamaster that keeps pretty good time. The fact that it gains about a minute every couple of weeks if I don't adjust it is irrelevant to me, because I wear it for short periods. It's a stunning looking watch and I love the nostalgic feeling of the human skill that went into making it. On the other hand, I have several quartz watches (some analog, some digital) that I appreciate for their sheer technical prowess. I'm a big fan of harnessing solar energy and most of my quartz watches are solar recharged. Yes, in a pinch I'll choose the digital watch over the mechanical one. But I still enjoy the both for different reasons.

[rewolf]

The time keeping construction of a mechanical watch requires significant human skill that takes many years to acquire.

The time keeping aspect of a quartz digital watch is far simpler....

I don't agree. Looking at the WHOLE process, building a quartz watch involves MUCH more skill than a mechanical watch.
This is the reason why mechanical watches were invented many centuries before the quartz watch.

What is easier to think out: a mechanical geartrain (for a simple movement, not something deliberately oversophisticated for marketing reasons), or a circuit on transistor basis that can be put into an IC, plus some sort of display technology?

Raw materials: silicon (plus several other elements) vs. metal. Which is more difficult to obtain?

Then bringing it into "shape" - you can basically do this with some primitive tools for a mechanical watch. For a quartz watch you need skills in designing semicunductor circuits, machines to make them, and for the display also lots of special knowledge in chemistry.

One single man can build a mechaical watch from scratch if he has only a few pieces of metal and some primitive tools. The first clocks and watches were built exactly this way.

But to make a quartz watch you need the combined effort and knowledge of many engineers, plus huge and expensive machines.
If every chip were baked by hand, every LCD made individually, every quartz sawed and filed by hand, a quartz watch would be much more expensive than a hand-made mechanical watch. It is only the high degree of automation that makes them so cheap, and the fact that semiconductors can be produced cheaper (but not easier!) than tiny mechanical parts.

[Huertecilla]

Well, ....

Amen, +1 to that and thén some.

Oh, and it is superior functionality too in évery aspect by a factor umpteen.

[abem]

Modern watch technology is pretty amazing - both for mechanicals and for digitals. It's a different technology, so I'm not sure that you can say that one is more sophisticated than the other.

For example, below is a photograph of the main index wheel of an Accutron 218. The wheel has 320 teeth each of which is about 10 microns in size - about twice the size of a red blood cell.


As you can see below, the teeth are comparable to the size of the traces on an integrated circuit chip from the 1970s.


So, all things considered, I have about equal respect for the art and craft of both mechanicals and digitals. In both cases, very dedicated and talented people have created some of mankind's most amazing creations.

-abe.

[Huertecilla]

Have a read; http://www.tz-uk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168030

This is a bracelet only just better than the Seiko EPD one and short of the Ventuta Vtecs.
Júst the bracelet costs three Seiko EPDs only because of the overrated mechanicals hype that has led to silly brand values and to the inverse depreciation of electronic digital technology.

That is because wis-dom has bought the swiss pink cow marketing. There is a bulk of wis who even actually think mechanicals are accurate!
Outside of wisdom the digital watch is, like Rewolf observes, taken up on equal terms in the fashion watch trends.
The pink bull hype will delay, maybe even prevent, high end digital wis watches, but the jewely watches have more in common with the fashion wtaches and higher end digital watches in that side of the market are likely.

[Huertecilla]

So, all things considered, I have about equal respect for the art and craft of both mechanicals and digitals. In both cases, very dedicated and talented people have created some of mankind's most amazing creations.

Yes, so do I, so I actaully háve three ´ultimates´ in performance of the respective main technologies: balance wheel/ escapemnt mechanism, tc quartz analogue and solid state electronic digital.



The crux however is that those techologies are valued by the market, in price!, like 5 : 2 : 1 for the sáme level of quality of manufacture.

As a time piece the specs. are 1 : 100 : 1000.
A solid state electronic digital non movement is on average about 1000 times as anything as a movement with balance wheel/ escapement mechanism, mains spring, gear box etc.
This is however not even in the picture. Just look at the quality of manufacture.

All (but the exceptions) high end luxury mechanical watch movements are cad/cam designed, mass procuded by automated machinery.
NO different in that from solid state electronics.
Then these clocks are mounted in their cases and put on a band.
The sáme quality of manufacture and hardware in digital format is ´worth´ a fraction.
The sáme quality bracelet on the sáme case housing an electronic digital is ´worth´ a fraction of when a mechanical is ticking inside.

Bottom line is that you get the same quality made product at a heavy discount because of the vástly superior technology used for the clock.
It is after all only an electronic digital....

[xevious]

What I'm saying is that the human hand required in creating the analog mechanical watch is much more than with a digital watch. Yes, a lot of human work goes into conceiving the design and programming the module with a digital, as well as initial tooling of the construction machinery, but once done most of the watch is stamped out of a machine automatically with final assembly done by hand. And there is very little done by the human hand with regard to time calibration for a digital watch, save the single adjustment screw. And most of the time, it doesn't need to be bothered with.

The mechanical watch goes through an elaborate process for time calibration. A very skilled human being needs to do it. A digital watch can be calibrated by anyone who can hold a small screwdriver steady.

It's the spectacle of the human being able to do so much without any modern machinery to make a mechanical watch that is reasonably accurate that I believe makes up most of the mystique behind it. Pure basic craftsmanship.

Again, this is not to belittle what initially goes into the creation of a digital watch. It's just that the amount of automation involved removes the human being from a significant portion of the production process. The telltale "in your face" proof of this is the fact that a huge number of digital watches made sell for less than $20 (if the human being was involved more, the cost would rise). So for many people, this also contributes towards the reasons why higher end digital watches do not have nearly as much appeal as mechanical higher end watches.

^^^^
Now for me personally, I have great respect for the time honed skills needed to create a mechanical watch. But, I also have a great deal of admiration for the people who are skilled with micro electronics and can create these amazing digital watch modules. Even more so... Because, as time goes forward, the old ways must eventually deprecate.

To be honest, mechanical watches are already obsolete. Why continue pursuing a more expensive, problematic and less accurate form of time keeping when another concept exists that is far less expensive to manufacture, really never has trouble save for a defective part, is definitely much more accurate, and can incorporate advanced features like solar recharging and atomic clock synchronization? Nostalgia. Tradition. Reverence for the masters of old. But as soon as the next few human generations cycle through, this will be left behind for most of the population. I do not doubt that some people will continue an allegiance to the old ways and pass it on. There's something about human fascination that continues on in the face of adversity. But for the majority of people, they'd just scratch their heads and wonder why anybody would bother when a 100% accurate digital "watch" 3mm thick that comfortably sticks to your wrist, recharged by the bioelectric current of your own body as well as rays of light, can tell you all you need to know at the flick of your wrist (date, time, weather, incoming caller, upcoming appointment, outside air temperature, your own temperature and pulse rate, barometric pressure trends, etc).

[Huertecilla]

What I'm saying is that the human hand required in creating the analog mechanical watch is much more than with a digital watch.

I answered that.
It is urban myth.
There is nó difference in that.

Modern luxury mechanicals are all totally automated mass production. All but the exceptions even automated assembled apart from mounting the dial/hands and droppping the assy in the case.
Same thing the digitals that get mounted and receive a battery by hand.

Even the GrandSeikos are only hand assembled. Both the tc quartz, sd quartz and mechanical alike

The crux Í was getting at however is that higher end digitaks and mid range mechanicals that share idéntical case/bracelet/cristal quality are vástly differing in price because of the hands on myth.
Pink bull that is, to sell you lesser technology at a húge premium with stunning profit.

[holly35]

The market place for these items is far to small now, most people associate digital watches with cheap junk,(free with your petrol type of offers) Show most people an led watch ,no mater which brand and the majority would value them very low.Only the die hard collectors appreciate them for what they are. The damage was done years ago when the market was ruined by naff , cheap rubbish selling at £2.99.
Today only specialists would go down the digital road.

[rewolf]

What I'm saying is that the human hand required in creating the analog mechanical watch is much more than with a digital watch. Yes, a lot of human work goes into conceiving the design and programming the module with a digital, as well as initial tooling of the construction machinery, but once done most of the watch is stamped out of a machine automatically with final assembly done by hand. And there is very little done by the human hand with regard to time calibration for a digital watch, save the single adjustment screw. And most of the time, it doesn't need to be bothered with.

Exactly the very same is true for a mass-produced mechanical watch - as Huertecilla wrote.

1. Comparing over-engineered carefully adjusted high-end mechanical watches with mass-produced $20 digital watches is "not fair" at the least - take a simple mass-produced mechanical watch instead.
My grandpa was a hobby-watchmaker. As I child I spent many hours in his workshop. At the age of 12 or 13 I could fully understand how a simple watch movement worked, and I could take it apart and put it together again (I didn't even need a loupe like my grandpa did ). Nothing complicated in such a classic standard simple watch movement.

2. As Heurtecilla wrote, it is the watch companies' marketing that wants us to believe that mechanical watches are so expensive because they are hand-made in hundreds of hours of work by highly skilled, carefully selected and trained personnel. Some (many!) buy this marketing - I do not. It's an assembly process like any other. Yes, the parts are small, but they are small in other industries as well. Everthing has to be small today. Mechanical watches are overrated. But that's ok as long as there are pepole who buy them. It creates jobs for other people and: production of a $1000 watch has much less negative environmental impact than for a smartphone (diposed after 3 years) or even a computer (disposed after 5 years). Mechanical watches are "green" - BTW: is this being used for marketing yet? Rolex' new "green line"

3. At first sight a digital watch has less parts and is less complex than a mechanical watch. But this isn't true - it has "hidden complexity". In fact, the digital watch has many more "parts" that have to fit precisely together to make it work (even if you don't go down to transistor level - despite the fact that the first digital watch chips were actually designed and layed out by hand at transistor level. Yes, the many optical masks required for a chip were drawn/cut by hand, then scaled down).

BTW:
A very interesting article is "The Electronic Watch and Low-Power Circuits" by IEEE fellow Eric A. Vittoz, available for online reading and as pdf download.
It describes in great detail the early development of crystal oscillator and frequency divider circuits for the Swiss CEH (“Watchmakers Electronic Center”). It requires some basic knowledge in electronics to fully understand it. But even if one doesn't understand every detail, it gives a good impression of the problems the engineers had to solve. The first page describes nicely the historical "setting" in which all this happend.

[holly35]

Try setting down on a table a high tech ventura and a comparable costing rolex and ask someone to choose what is the best built, most desirable watch, chances are they would take the rolex.although i would have the ventura. You either love digitals or you don't, manufactures also look on them as "been there done that ,got the tee-shirt"Its unfortunately difficult to hope high end digitals will ever come back as a main stream ,high end offering from well known manufacturers

[Huertecilla]

Try setting down on a table a high tech ventura and a comparable costing rolex

Those do not exist.
A Rolex sub starts close to 4K and the Ventura is short of 1,5K.
Comparable quality with the Vtura having a better bracelet.
You get 2,5K discount for a more accurate, for more rugged digital module.