We respect each other because we've both been in and around the world of high horology for many decades, either as an industry observer and active collector, or as someone who has built a hundred million dollar business in the industry. Both of us have handled the very best ever produced from the industry; the very worst flea bitten dogs that were flogged and put away wet; and most everything in between.
Everything from industrially produced, human hands hardly touched the final product, pieces, to the most bespoke, hand made timepieces, where even the individual gears, tourbillon cages, springs, case, were hand cut or hand stamped (manually operated case stamping machines)
We were celebrating together the amazing growth of the market for fine mechanical timepieces, but also commiserating about the relative lack of improvement, even degeneration, of reliability and functionality.
The pursuit of complexity naturally leads to increased likelihood of problems with functional reliability; this is almost a basic axiom of mechanical design.
But what about, ceteribus paribus, everyhing else being equal, the short term, and long term, reliability, longevity, of a given function set?
Comparing basic time only to time only, or perpetual to perpetual, or high complication to high complication, it seemed to both of us, based upon personal experience (me in the hundreds per year, him in the thousands) that todays timepieces seem more problematic, more prone to failure or adjustment issues, than in the decades before, where the golden age seemed to be the 1930's, 1940's, and early 1950's - nearly EVERYTHING during those periods, from the lowliest Cymas and Midos, Gruens, Doxas, et al (lowly is not a pejorative here, just a relative term) to the most exalted Vacheron Constantins, highest grade Longines, and everything in the middle - Omega, Movado, Record, Universal Geneva, et al, all worked beautifully, and if not abused, still tick merrily away today.
Even the legendary Philippe Dufour, in speaking about the philosophy, the concept, behind the Simplicity, stated that
"The idea for the Simplicity is based on watches from the 1930s and 1940s, which were well propo-rtioned and which were basically problem-free, with extraordinary reliability, showing hardly any wear and tear. I planned everything with this in mind. I use 18,000 vibrations per hour and not 28,800 since that number requires more torque. In the same spirit, I use a Breguet spiral system without a regulator. The calibre is water-resistant to 30 metres and has a working reserve of 53 hours. All these choices were made in order to guarantee that the Simplicity will not wear out."
(Pierre Maillard, April 1, 2004, Europastar Magazine)
So what has changed?
Among many other speculative reasons, my friend and recognized world wide authority in the world of fine timepieces, proposed an idea I had heard before, whispered between old timers for years, in this niche, curtained world of magic and mythology that is Haute Horlogerie - "modern movements are designed on, by, and for computers and automated production, and thus, leave no room for the world of true skilled manual watchmaking. The world where an experienced, gifted watchmaker adjusts, files, polishes, tunes, something that was conceived with more 'human, real world' tolerances."
Is there room for traditional watchmaking, in a nano-meter world, or are classic watchmakers doomed to become merely technicians, much like many great car mechanics and tuners of yore are increasingly being replaced by diagnostic computer jockeys who change out computer chips, and don't really "fix" anything anymore?
Are the previous the whinings of a techno-phobic pre-LSI/ASIC luddite, or do they touch upon the heart and soul of mechanical devices?
