Quote:
Originally Posted by Poodlopogus
Oops. For some reason I thought the GMT came before the time-and-date version.
I thought I'd read that they basically had to do this because amplitude was going to be sacrificed to meet the other criteria, and they thought they'd achieved it (indeed they did, but not long-term).
|
Interesting that you think you had read something about the development of this watch calibre. It would be great to know more about it all
We need to be mindful of the fact that watch movements are literally a grab bag of compromises so at all times some criterior has got to be proritised over another and another.
I think this thread has well demonstrated that Amplitude is probably more important in the grand scheme of these things than the mothership had ever appreciated as we know that the 32xx movements were never big on Amplitude.
Perhaps the Chronergy escapement is another mistake in the history of horology?
Also as has been mentioned in theses pages, a dual Spring barrel would be better utilised especially when pursuing much longer power reserves and may be a distinct advantage for a Chronergy escapement.