Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 9/13/00 11:09:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dante@umich.edu writes: << I have a 1998 Swatch Automatic that runs on an Eterna 2xxx 23-jewel caliber (I don't have it in front of me, but I was shocked when I read through an Italian watch book showing all of the calibers and what they went in), which is the same one used in lot of Omegas and other SMH group watches. Only difference is that the Swatch has a clear plastic case and ran (when they made them) $80. The Omega mechanicals start at over $1,000. What's in a name?! The Swiss must be laughing their asses off.>> Actually, depending on the maker in question, that could be very much like saying that a Leica II with 50/2 Summar is the same camera as a IIIg with rigid Summicron. The calibre of a watch movement is roughly analogous to the chassis of a camera. The bulk of the actual timekeeping is done by parts made and/or finished by the named manufacturer, if the watch is considered a high grade movement. Rolex is a familiar example. Its very high-priced Cosmograph is based on the same calibre as dozens of chronographs sold under other names. Another comparison would be between a completely stock auto engine and the NASCAR "stock" racing version, which are nominally the same but internally quite dissimilar.<< I do have a real Omega, too. Lots of cool moving parts, but you end up setting both every week.>> Either your Omega is on the weak side or needs service, or it may have suffered permanent wear from neglect, if it literally needs to be reset every week in order to be within +/- your quoted standard variance, below. Ideally, it should outperform the Swatch, although a strong Swatch could outperform a weak Omega. <<Thestandard variance for mechanicals, or so I read, as +/- fifteen secondsper day. That's a hell of a lot when you compare it to +/- 30 sec/month with a one-dollar Japanese quartz movement.>> I assume you speak of a current Swiss watch industry standard. That would apply to your Swatch Automatic. Check out the Superlative Chronometer standard met by all Rolex Oyster Perpetuals, if you think standards are relevant. That will give you a realistic comparison between your Swatch and the "identical" watches using the same calibre movement. By the way, I have had any number of cheap quartz watches, and most do not meet the above standard, in reality. It is only a standard, not a warranty. <<But nothing beats a good 5hz mechanical tick.>> If one appreciates watches, I suppose any tick sounds good. I'm not sure what a 5hz tick would sound like, though. That would be only 5 vibrations per second. Big Ben, maybe? By the way, I suspect Arthur's Luminor could be quite valuable, especially to an Italian collector. Joe Sobel BTW: how many people on this thread know that the crappy Swatch quartz was what bailed SMH (the Swiss watch consortium) out in the mid-80s? It was designed to be a high-profit subsidizing line. Pretty ironic. >>