Are you a Movement Person

[ap1]

I like to look at them from a clear caseback. That's about it. I know there's a rotor n stuff.

[GB-man]

The movement is a factor for me in any watch purchase but to keep it 100, I pretend to know compared to a watchmaker or even true wis nerd (my heroes)

[cdmorenot]

Originally Posted by cedargrove

Don't know everything, but don't pretend to know the things I don't know, so didn't vote.

I like movements and know as much about them as I do the rest of the watch.

I agree with this to a certain degree.

To OP:

I know the basics and nothing more and I'd like to keep it that way.

I never wanted to be a jack of all trades and a master at none so watches to watchmakers.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[Valencia_]

Not an expert, obviously, but I did a lot of research. I decided I wanted an in-house movement and an in-house manufacture, which eventually resulted in my considering a Rolex. So, I guess I am a movement person?

[HogwldFLTR]

At least once a day...I do know how to look it up however.

[Cru Jones]

For me, a solid, reliable and proven movement is as important as overall design. After all, I like Rolex, and most of their movements are decades old, rather utilitarian and not very innovative, so, I can't be *that* much of a movement person, right? ;-)

[brettpaul]

I learn about the movements of the watches I have or those that interest me....tourbillon, equation of time, etc.

[subtona]

I like movements and put them high on my list of importance.

[Le Chef]

Originally Posted by beshannon

I do not understand the poll.

I place value in movements over cases and metals. I prefer in house movements and try to learn about them.

This. My view is if metal rather than movement is more important to you, go buy an iWatch.

[jatco]

I'm always interested in movements...especially my bm in the morning. ...lol.
No, seriously. ..I think they are a marvel of minute engineering. ..

[SearChart]

I study watchmaking, so yes I'm a movement person.

[Porter]

When I think about watches I think about their movements! I really appreciate the engineering labor and I'm amazed how the watch makers preformed every part of a movement by hand in the earlier last century and had such precision!!! They are my heroes!!
Yes! I'm a movement person!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Samui

I pretend I know but I only buy in-house movements

So what you are saying you would not buy say a Daytona 6263 or say a Rolex moon-phase because they do not have a in-house made Rolex movement inside.And today some of the most collectible and expensive Rolex watches do not have a in-house movement . Now before 2000 Rolex had never made a chronograph movement they relied on ETA Valjoux and Zenith.And before Rolex started to make there own escapement parts every Rolex Oyster had a hairspring manufactured by ETA Nivarox, and Rolex as far as I know they still out source the mainspring manufacture.Over the years there have been quite a few mediocre in-house made movements from some major manufactures so being in-house made is not always best.Even excellent movements by ETA are all in-house made,the biggest cost in any movement is the design, and then tooling up to make the movement,but once thats done you can just churn them out in there thousands.And today many manufactures are very highly automated like Rolex,so in theory all the movements parts should be in general all the same and quite easy to pass the COSC test when fully assembled.But to make a movement totally by hand from just bare metal, then assemble its quite a different story to get the tolerances all correct if you want it certified to chronometer standards and very very expensive and time consuming to do.Remember the RWC were not watchmakers in the beginning,the movements were mainly made by Aeglar and still are, which are now part of Rolex SA.So what is in-house made today, even brands like Seiko every part is in-house made.And today some of the most sort after Rolex and Tudor watches don't even have a Rolex made movement inside.To me if any movement has a reliable track record over many years whether its so called in-house or where ever made.IMHO thats most important factor surely in buying any reliable watch no matter what the brand, because today just having the Rolex name we all pay quite a high price for that privileged.

[Porter]

Originally Posted by padi56

So what you are saying you would not buy say a Daytona 6263 or say a Rolex moon-phase because they do not have a in-house made Rolex movement inside.And today some of the most collectible and expensive Rolex watches do not have a in-house movement . Now before 2000 Rolex had never made a chronograph movement they relied on ETA Valjoux and Zenith.And before Rolex started to make there own escapement parts every Rolex Oyster had a hairspring manufactured by ETA Nivarox, and Rolex as far as I know they still out source the mainspring manufacture.Over the years there have been quite a few mediocre in-house made movements from some major manufactures so being in-house made is not always best.Even excellent movements by ETA are all in-house made,the biggest cost in any movement is the design, and then tooling up to make the movement,but once thats done you can just churn them out in there thousands.And today many manufactures are very highly automated like Rolex,so in theory all the movements parts should be in general all the same and quite easy to pass the COSC test when fully assembled.But to make a movement totally by hand from just bare metal, then assemble its quite a different story to get the tolerances all correct if you want it certified to chronometer standards and very very expensive and time consuming to do.Remember the RWC were not watchmakers in the beginning,the movements were mainly made by Aeglar and still are, which are now part of Rolex SA.So what is in-house made today, even brands like Seiko every part is in-house made.And today some of the most sort after Rolex and Tudor watches don't even have a Rolex made movement inside.To me if any movement has a reliable track record over many years whether its so called in-house or where ever made.IMHO thats most important factor surely in buying any reliable watch no matter what the brand, because today just having the Rolex name we all pay quite a high price for that privileged.

Yesssss!

[peterskinner]

Originally Posted by speedmaster73

movement matters but not the be all and end all as casing, dial, craftmanship, bracelet etc all matter.



when you get to the NEXT level AP PP VC you get the best of both worlds...movement and casing etc

I wonder, do you? I would suspect that the Rolex movements are more rugged, more reliable and probably a bit more accurate. Granted, they don't have all the decorating, if that is what you value..

I'd guess that the new 3255 movement is better , at long-term timekeeping, than anything from the companies you mention. Of course, where these manufacturers do win is in exclusivity. No argument about that. For me, Rolex make better watches, in real world terms of usability, reliability and precision. Just not as exclusive. Or as beautiful.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by padi56

So what you are saying you would not buy say a Daytona 6263 or say a Rolex moon-phase because they do not have a in-house made Rolex movement inside.And today some of the most collectible and expensive Rolex watches do not have a in-house movement . Now before 2000 Rolex had never made a chronograph movement they relied on ETA Valjoux and Zenith.And before Rolex started to make there own escapement parts every Rolex Oyster had a hairspring manufactured by ETA Nivarox, and Rolex as far as I know they still out source the mainspring manufacture.Over the years there have been quite a few mediocre in-house made movements from some major manufactures so being in-house made is not always best.Even excellent movements by ETA are all in-house made,the biggest cost in any movement is the design, and then tooling up to make the movement,but once thats done you can just churn them out in there thousands.And today many manufactures are very highly automated like Rolex,so in theory all the movements parts should be in general all the same and quite easy to pass the COSC test when fully assembled.But to make a movement totally by hand from just bare metal, then assemble its quite a different story to get the tolerances all correct if you want it certified to chronometer standards and very very expensive and time consuming to do.Remember the RWC were not watchmakers in the beginning,the movements were mainly made by Aeglar and still are, which are now part of Rolex SA.So what is in-house made today, even brands like Seiko every part is in-house made.And today some of the most sort after Rolex and Tudor watches don't even have a Rolex made movement inside.To me if any movement has a reliable track record over many years whether its so called in-house or where ever made.IMHO thats most important factor surely in buying any reliable watch no matter what the brand, because today just having the Rolex name we all pay quite a high price for that privileged.

That's easy for you to say

[jatco]

Originally Posted by subtona

That's easy for you to say

X2 ...

[SeaAndSky]

Of course! The movement and the elegant yet robust case it's in are what draws me to owning a Rolex. I still find it remarkable that these things keep time to COSC standards and are usually even more accurate.

[peterskinner]

I suppose that with computer aided lathes, the limits of mechanical movements are being explored now. An accuracy of just a couple of seconds a day is incredible. Is further improvement possible?

[fskywalker]

Don't know every movement, but definitely know the movements on mine!

[Wooddog44]

Originally Posted by jrs146

I know statistics and features. Put one in front of me and point to a part... I get lost


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This would very aptly describe my level of knowledge as well...