Watches - another OCD problem
-
It may have ;). Mine is not new, so will have travelled a bit before getting to me.
I simply won't wear the Rolexes. I love them both, but they sit in the safe not being worn. Well, I'm actually not that disciplined, they live in this box, which is currently on my desk…..
-
As long as it doesn't turn up looking like this poor Speedy!
And make sure that the GMTs aren't sitting on the desk next time I visit.
-
Since bezel screws always mess with people's OCD, here's another article on them.
https://timeandtidewatches.com/the-problem-with-bezel-screws/
We can detect gravitational wave perturbations that are less than the width of a proton. I don't understand why aligning screws is such an engineering challenge. That screed would have been much more interesting and productive had it explained why that challenge is so insurmountable.
-
I agree with @mclaincausey . Given the tolerances required to make tourbillons, bridges, etc, I don't see why the screws can't be timed.
-
To be clear, I'm strictly speaking of case-constructional screws, particularly if they are part of the watch's aesthetic, and to a lesser degree screw-down crowns. Movement screws being aligned? Not so much, I understand why that would be very difficult and not worth the effort.
-
Exactly–and to people who deride or dismiss this as a pointless conceit (as if a flying tourbillon is comparatively tame) or OCD (if they're highly visible in the case, why wouldn't you want them aligned?), we're talking about watches with highly, intricately decorated movements, oftentimes not even made visible through the case and dial, so not paying similar attention to exposed elements doesn't make sense to me. To others who say it's too labor-intensive or time-consuming to do it, that's a slap in the face to someone paying 5, 6, or even 7 figures for a timepiece.
Richard Mille's approach of a proprietary star-shaped screw is an interesting fix, reducing the visual jarring of independently-adjusted screws. Countersunk bolts is another way (Royal Oak) way to solve it that I find a bit goofy (why make it look like a screw when it's countersunk into a bezel and thus couldn't rotate in the first place?).
I'm a bit surprised given the attention to detail, precision, and general engineering achievement in the industry that no one has solved for this–at the least as a differentiator against the status quo, since novelty sells at all levels of horology.
-
Oh, and if I told you what it cost me, none of you would ever talk to me again….
I’m sure I’d forgive you… That bezel looks amazing. The contrast of the notched metal (steel?) ring and glazed (enamelled?) top is wonderful. It’s beauty and function in perfect harmony.
-
Congratulations! That's a perfect watch for everyday IMO.
@neph93 the original had an acrylic bezel. When they rebooted it, they moved to a sapphire, lumed bezel that, as @Giles referenced, has the loudest, most solid and satisfying ratchet action in the biz. This to me is a perfect way to honor the design of the original, but to modernize it.
Well-played, Giles
-
@Giles amazing pickup. I tried a regular FF on not long ago and was blown away by it. Its on my list for sure.
I believe that edition was limited to 500? So great you got the grail you gave been after for a very long time.
Congrats!
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
Lovely watch @Giles
-
Really fantastic. I'm happy you finally managed to get one, since you've lusted after it for years.
I'm looking forward to checking it out in person eventually…
