From the mags

[Goodwatch]

Just a couple of watches from a recent Dutch watch magazine but the watches have been around some time:

Jaeger Le Coultre Regulateur and movement:





Eberhard Scafodat dive watch, guess where the (automatic) helium valve is?



Omega Rattrapante:

[C.J.]

Very cool, Frans The JLC movement is amazing I don't know about the Eberhard though, I wonder where that valve could be

[padi56]

Originally Posted by C.J.

Very cool, Frans The JLC movement is amazing I don't know about the Eberhard though, I wonder where that valve could be

The big crown Craig is to rotate the internal divers bezel.
and valve is on end of large crown.



Well get rid of that big carbuncle useless Tourbillon on the JLC,and change metal to SS, then for me you would have a very nice watch.Not sure about the Omega or the Eberhard but get rid of those lume triangles a maybe.

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well get rid of that big carbuncle useless Tourbillon on the JLC,and change metal to SS, then for me you would have a very nice watch.Not sure about the Omega or the Eberhard but get rid of those lume triangles a maybe.

Don't be shy my man, speak up and give us your opinion! I Don't like tourbillions either, to me they are as usseful as a Coca Cola in a fine old malt. But for a dress watch, the gold case is just fine

[JJ Irani]

Great pics, Frans. I think that JLC looks terrific....wow, what a movement!!!

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by padi56

The big crown Craig is to rotate the internal divers bezel.
and valve is on end of large crown.

Peter, you really know your stuff! Every self respecting watch company is hopping on the 'hefty diver' bandwagon, look at Oris. I see these more as 'collectibles' not as only and everyday watches.

Originally Posted by padi56

Well get rid of that big carbuncle useless Tourbillon on the JLC,and change metal to SS, then for me you would have a very nice watch.Not sure about the Omega or the Eberhard but get rid of those lume triangles a maybe.

Although completely useless I think the tourbillon still serves to illustrate the level of the watchmaker. Yes, there are Chinese versions, but really just copies of other people's work and substandard in terms of quality and finishing, which is common in Chinese products (compared to the originals).

Having said that, many features in modern mechanical watches are completely useless. In fact, one could argue a watch itself is useless in this day and age. Therefore I certainly do not knock companies or people who would develop/purchase a tourbillon watch. It may be "useless" in technical terms, but it is useful in terms of "horological art" in my opinion, which is what many of the higer end mechanicals are these days.

The JLC Master Tourbillon (Tourbillon Regulator) is quite an impressive watch. See this link for a detailed review:

http://www.tp178.com/wsw/jlcforum/mas_tourb_02.htm

The price, for a tourbillon, is quite reasonable and it comes in a variety of metals unlike other makers who do tourbillons.

All on straps:

Stainless - 35,000 euros
Rose gold - 42,000 euros
Paltinum - 59,000 euros

Big money by most of our stanrds, but I've had tourbillons on my wrist costing well over $100,000 so really these are quite "reasonable" in a relative view. As always, you get great vlaue for your money in a JLC!

[padi56]

Well on this we will beg to differ Al, Tourbillons serve no real purpose in a wrist watch at all,only the fact the watchmaker can make them.And you would be quite surprised how many a brands Tourbillons are made in china.And know matter what the metal,still expensive for what it is.Why is there so much admiration for the tourbillon,perhaps the unquestioned and deserved prestige of Breguet, the inventor.But the tourbillon works best in one position and in theory the tourbillon is always modifying the slight timing errors in the vertical position.The tourbillon does not correct position variations; it only prevents them being detected in the usual testing conditions. But when placed on say a vibrograph, the tourbillon reveals its weaknesses immediately.IMO the admiration given to the tourbillon is of the same nature as that given to a very clever magician.Who for instance makes a large object disappear its just a optical illusion,and looks good at the time.The tourbillon does not correct anything,in wrist movements, it only prevents the detection of an error that still exists in natural gravity with wrist movement.The tourbillon is in fact an additional mechanism that consumes energy without producing anything except misinformation.The energy it consumes is taken from the reserve destined to the regulator. As a result, the balance with less energy will have reduced advantages.Now I agree totally the skill needed to make the cage plus tourbillon etc is a horological skill.But in reality the watch is no more accurate that several other non tourbillon watches.And even todays modern watches,with or without tourbillons are not so accurate as one produced almost 300 years ago.Gravity is one of the main causes of rate variations in watches. By creating the tourbillon,when Breguet thought he was eliminating its effects,It looks like it was an big error on his part.He only masked them like tourbillons do.Now if someone could come up and counteract the effect on gravity on a wrist watch.Now that would be a big break though but until then tourbillon IMO are just good to look at,and they make them because they can.But again looking at the other side of the coin,in Breguet day when he invented the tourbillon and the tools he had then.Now today with modern machines and computers puts a different perspective on the making side of things today.

[mailman]

Is there anything you don't know Padi?

Originally Posted by padi56

Well on this we will beg to differ Al, Tourbillons serve no real purpose in a wrist watch at all,only the fact the watchmaker can make them.And you would be quite surprised how many a brands Tourbillons are made in china.And know matter what the metal,still expensive for what it is.Why is there so much admiration for the tourbillon,perhaps the unquestioned and deserved prestige of Breguet, the inventor.But the tourbillon works best in one position and in theory the tourbillon is always modifying the slight timing errors in the vertical position.The tourbillon does not correct position variations; it only prevents them being detected in the usual testing conditions. But when placed on say a vibrograph, the tourbillon reveals its weaknesses immediately.IMO the admiration given to the tourbillon is of the same nature as that given to a very clever magician.Who for instance makes a large object disappear its just a optical illusion,and looks good at the time.The tourbillon does not correct anything,in wrist movements, it only prevents the detection of an error that still exists in natural gravity with wrist movement.The tourbillon is in fact an additional mechanism that consumes energy without producing anything except misinformation.The energy it consumes is taken from the reserve destined to the regulator. As a result, the balance with less energy will have reduced advantages.Now I agree totally the skill needed to make the cage plus tourbillon etc is a horological skill.But in reality the watch is no more accurate that several other non tourbillon watches.And even todays modern watches,with or without tourbillons are not so accurate as one produced almost 300 years ago.Gravity is one of the main causes of rate variations in watches. By creating the tourbillon,when Breguet thought he was eliminating its effects,It looks like it was an big error on his part.He only masked them like tourbillons do.Now if someone could come up and counteract the effect on gravity on a wrist watch.Now that would be a big break though but until then tourbillon IMO are just good to look at,and they make them because they can.But again looking at the other side of the coin,in Breguet day when he invented the tourbillon and the tools he had then.Now today with modern machines and computers puts a different perspective on the making side of things today.

It is clear you didn't read what I wrote. I am well aware of everything in your post. If you actually read my post it's pretty clear we share the same view on this topic.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Avalon

It is clear you didn't read what I wrote. I am well aware of everything in your post. If you actually read my post it's pretty clear we share the same view on this topic.

Yes Al guilty as charged did not read your complete post and apologise.But still cannot see why even at 35000 euros the need for a Tourbillion,when in-fact does little or nothing for accuracy.The only thing myself can see in them is perhaps the prestige of being able to afford one,if someone is in to this prestige sort of thing.But again now they have watches with four Tourbillons so I have to ask the question why.Perhaps its because they can,and for nothing else but show.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by padi56

The only thing myself can see in them is perhaps the prestige of being able to afford one,if someone is in to this prestige sort of thing.But again now they have watches with four Tourbillons so I have to ask the question why.Perhaps its because they can,and for nothing else but show.

Well if it is for prestige one would buy a Patek where the Tourbillion doesn't show - if you can afford a 35,000 Euro watch the last thing I'd want for that price is a hole in the dial but that's just me as such I'd get a Patek or a JLC but the JLC would cost me less and be the Reverso Grande Date, so if I want to see the innards of the watch I'd just flip it it is not like I'd go play polo with it... But then again that's just me and I know for a fact that a Reverso Grande Date is attainable in my case so there, you have it.

Sheeeeesh for 35,000 euro you'd think there'd be no hole in the dial and a Regulator with both a main minute and hour hand errrr okay

Originally Posted by padi56

Yes Al guilty as charged did not read your complete post and apologise.But still cannot see why even at 35000 euros the need for a Tourbillion,when in-fact does little or nothing for accuracy.The only thing myself can see in them is perhaps the prestige of being able to afford one,if someone is in to this prestige sort of thing.But again now they have watches with four Tourbillons so I have to ask the question why.Perhaps its because they can,and for nothing else but show.

No worries Peter, but keep it up and I'll have to start calling you JJ.

You seem to have a particular distaste for tourbillons but as I tried to point out, if we look at most anything in terms of haut horology it's all pretty much useless. I see a tourbillon as just another complication, nothing more. Does any watch (or any person) really need one? No, not really. But then again how many people need a moon phase, or an equation of time complication, a minute repeater, a split second choronograph, etc.? The list of truly "useless" compications is a long one in fact, so I can't really understand why you make such a big fuss over one of them?

I guess once again I am a "live and let live" type of person who, although unlikely to ever own a tourbillon, have no issue with anyone that does own one or any watch company that produces one. In fact, with a company like JLC I expect that in the process of developing a watch such as the Master Tourbillon, or even the Gyro Tourbillon, they probably learned some things along the way that will help in the design/production of the "regular" watches.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Avalon

No worries Peter, but keep it up and I'll have to start calling you JJ.

You seem to have a particular distaste for tourbillons but as I tried to point out, if we look at most anything in terms of haut horology it's all pretty much useless. I see a tourbillon as just another complication, nothing more. Does any watch (or any person) really need one? No, not really. But then again how many people need a moon phase, or an equation of time complication, a minute repeater, a split second choronograph, etc.? The list of truly "useless" compications is a long one in fact, so I can't really understand why you make such a big fuss over one of them?

I guess once again I am a "live and let live" type of person who, although unlikely to ever own a tourbillon, have no issue with anyone that does own one or any watch company that produces one. In fact, with a company like JLC I expect that in the process of developing a watch such as the Master Tourbillon, or even the Gyro Tourbillon, they probably learned some things along the way that will help in the design/production of the "regular" watches.

Al, as someone who had made a few watches himself, wouldn't you just love to put together a tourbillon? Just for the challenge?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Avalon

No worries Peter, but keep it up and I'll have to start calling you JJ.



You seem to have a particular distaste for tourbillons but as I tried to point out, if we look at most anything in terms of haut horology it's all pretty much useless. I see a tourbillon as just another complication, nothing more. Does any watch (or any person) really need one? No, not really. But then again how many people need a moon phase, or an equation of time complication, a minute repeater, a split second choronograph, etc.? The list of truly "useless" compications is a long one in fact, so I can't really understand why you make such a big fuss over one of them?

I guess once again I am a "live and let live" type of person who, although unlikely to ever own a tourbillon, have no issue with anyone that does own one or any watch company that produces one. In fact, with a company like JLC I expect that in the process of developing a watch such as the Master Tourbillon, or even the Gyro Tourbillon, they probably learned some things along the way that will help in the design/production of the "regular" watches.

Well Al in some ways I admire the Tourbillon when Breguet invented it some feat of pure engineering skill, with then quite primitive tools.Makes me wonder if the likes of Breguet and John Harrison were alive today.And with todays modern technology what they could have achieved today.But all these complications like tourbillons,are in reality just like big boys toys.Now complications like power reserve,fine on a manual wind watch.But why on a auto,in todays world, its very much like the Jewels in watches war in the late 50s60s.The bigger or more the better,but the bigger or more is not always better.But I still have to ask myself why do people buy these high priced watches with toubillons.I would seriously doubt if most of them even know what it was.So is it down to the prestige of owning such a high priced watch Or is it purely just the latest fashion that that media dictates you must have because it looks good.Myself admire all brands of mechanical watches no matter the brand. But today seems to me they are just making and adding these complications,just because the can.Reminds me a bit when Saab brought out the first turbo production car back in 78-79 And soon after the word turbo found its way into washing machines,hairdryers and vacuum cleaners etc,perhaps toubillon will be the new in word soon.

[Goodwatch]

The only real issue I have with it is the fact that because many manufactures consider it a great technical feat, they want to show it through a window in the dial. And that’s the thing I don’t like, as skeleton dials.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Goodwatch

The only real issue I have with it is the fact that because many manufactures consider it a great technical feat, they want to show it through a window in the dial. And that’s the thing I don’t like, as skeleton dials.

Now that Frans I will agree 100%,its just for show,or look what I got here. Although there are a few manufactures who put them more discreetly.Now view backs are great,and nothing pleases me more that the watchmakers skill.On a finely executed and decorated well made movement,but on show or like you say skeleton dials a big no for me.I would suppose in very high numbers,if you would cut a hole in any watch and expose the balance wheel.Then say it was a tourbillon,many many people would not know the difference.Even in the fake world and it makes me laugh,when they advertise these watches as toubillons,with just the balance wheel on show,why because it looks good and similar in looks to the tourbillon

[Earl]

Love this discussion! So the Tourbillion is more of mark of a watchmakers (or his house's/name brands) skill and not usefulness to the watch?

Originally Posted by padi56

Now that Frans I will agree 100%,its just for show,or look what I got here.

You do realize Peter that (conservatively so as not to piss off too many people) 95% of Rolex watches are purchased for this very same reason, right?

Rhetorical question, because I know you know the answer.

Originally Posted by mailman

Al, as someone who had made a few watches himself, wouldn't you just love to put together a tourbillon? Just for the challenge?

As much as I'd like to think I have some skills after doing a few watches, based on how my weekend went working on one, I think I'll pass. That is unless Padi really goes over the deep end with his hate of tourbillons and sends me one to "fix" so it is destroyed forever.

Originally Posted by Earl

Love this discussion! So the Tourbillion is more of mark of a watchmakers (or his house's/name brands) skill and not usefulness to the watch?

In a wrist watch I would definitely say so.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Avalon

You do realize Peter that (conservatively so as not to piss off too many people) 95% of Rolex watches are purchased for this very same reason, right?

Rhetorical question, because I know you know the answer.

Now you hit the nail right on the head Al,and afraid today that applies to many many other things,and yes IMHO tourbillons included.And sorry Al you would have a very long wait, to get a tourbillon to practice on from myself. Even if I had that sort of crazy asking price money.

Originally Posted by padi56

Now you hit the nail right on the head Al,and afraid today that applies to many many other things,and yes IMHO tourbillons included.And sorry Al you would have a very long wait, to get a tourbillon to practice on from myself. Even if I had that sort of crazy asking price money.

I would personally not see someone wearing a 35,000 euro JLC tourbillon as a poser because most average people have no idea what a tourbillon is, let alone a JLC. In my view not showing off all that much except to the "watch" crowd, which is quite small. Contrast this with say someone wearing a diamond encrusted Rolex Masterpiece while cruising around in their Lambo and you get my point.... : thumbsup:

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Avalon

I would personally not see someone wearing a 35,000 euro JLC tourbillon as a poser because most average people have no idea what a tourbillon is, let alone a JLC. In my view not showing off all that much except to the "watch" crowd, which is quite small. Contrast this with say someone wearing a diamond encrusted Rolex Masterpiece while cruising around in their Lambo and you get my point.... : thumbsup:

Well Al a great debate, how would you feel about a guy who wears gold diamond rings on nearly every finger.But wears a very inexpensive Alpha chronograph, but drives a German superior car.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by padi56

Well Al a great debate, how would you feel about a guy who wears gold diamond rings on nearly every finger.But wears a very inexpensive Alpha chronograph, but drives a German superior car.

I'd suggest he needs to replace those rings with old rusty ones and move his ass into a Lada!!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

I'd suggest he needs to replace those rings with old rusty ones and move his ass into a Lada!!!

WHY./???? would he want to put a ass in a Lada

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by padi56

WHY./???? would he want to put a ass in a Lada

Oh, just to match up with that bloody Alpha, Padi!!

[padi56]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

Oh, just to match up with that bloody Alpha, Padi!!

So what you are saying,now if the same guy had a say Rolex on instead of a Alpha.He would have know need to replace his rings with old rusty ones and move his ass into a Lada.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by padi56

So what you are saying,now if the same guy had a say Rolex on instead of a Alpha.He would have know need to replace his rings with old rusty ones and move his ass into a Lada.

No Padi....I was just kidding....trying to match up his rings and car with his watch....all in jest....forget it!!

[Goodwatch]

Originally Posted by JJ Irani

No Padi....I was just kidding....trying to match up his rings and car with his watch....all in jest....forget it!!

Now stand in the corner for 3 hours and keep quiet JJ!