Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt
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. |
Agree that Chronergy is basically stupid. Maybe clever in theory, but in my mind, there were two way, way better options:
1. Forget about gimmicks and just do a better finished version of the Tudor MT movement. The specs are awesome, and any reported systemic issues seem to have been ironed out long ago. They could have changed enough to avoid the perception they were the same.
2. Keep the 31xx for the 36mm pieces and do a proper long-PR movement for the 40mm+ pieces. The vast majority of manufactures do exactly that; look at VC, Chopard, Zenith, Omega, Blancpain, etc. The midsize pieces all have shorter PR than the largest.