What makes a watch "robust?"
*SAFE QUEEN TRIGGER WARNING*
How, as a community, do we decide whether our watch (that's made it to the top of Mt. Everest) can make it through the rigors of a hike/run/bike ride? What makes one movement a workhorse and the other not?
TLDR; Is there a way you decide if a watch CAN mechanically survive an adventure, not just whether we're willing to risk it?
Consider the following about the Timex MkI: "With respect to the robustness (or lack thereof) of the movement — this remains to be seen..., Would I actually take this watch out and beat the hell out of it the way I would its quartz-powered Mk1 cousin (at under $100) or, say, a mechanical counterpart that costs double the money? I probably wouldn't. Despite the field watch look, there are simply better options out there for actual use as a hard-wearing field watch."
Wait...isn't a field watch SUPPOSED to take a beating? Heck, even Jason Heaton's talked about taking a Lange on a run (out of curiosity) and his SMP300m out of a desire to be more analog!
Now consider my Omega Aqua Terra 36mm quartz. I'd gotten it as an "Explorer stand-in," but also because I love the accuracy of a set-it-and-forget-it high-end quartz watch...I want to make memories with it,...and not just "safe" memories. I want go paddle boarding and on hikes, and then I want to wear it out to dinner. I don't mind scratches. It's no 1016--a watch designed to take a beating, but it also doesn't cost nearly as much, nor is it rubber coated like a G-Shock. In short, I don't wanna be "precious" about it it's rated to 150m, so I can take it to the beach,...but should I worry that the hands might fall off if I take a nasty fall?
All of this is to say/ask, how do we know if our watches are up to certain tasks (not just whether we're up to them getting some scratches or dings)? Are there empirical measures? How do YOU determine what watch can take a beating?
Just a humble enthusiast. It all started with a Tissot.
For me it comes down to materials, brand reputation, and apparent build quality.
I know sapphire crystal can take more abuse than other options, and that a steel case is less likely to fail than a plastic one.
Some brands have a reputation for making durable watches like Timex, Casio, Damasko, Marathon, Sinn, Tudor, etc..
Build quality is the most subjective one, but when you have a watch in hand you can get a reasonable feel for the quality of construction based on the feel and visual appearance of the watch.
That said, I suspect that most people underestimate the durability of their watches because they tend to cost a lot of money to repair when broken. We are also exposed to a lot of marketing fluff about durability. I don't care that a watch can survive being run over by a tank, my wrist can't... Durability beyond what the human body can endure is a bit pointless.
For me it comes down to materials, brand reputation, and apparent build quality.
I know sapphire crystal can take more abuse than other options, and that a steel case is less likely to fail than a plastic one.
Some brands have a reputation for making durable watches like Timex, Casio, Damasko, Marathon, Sinn, Tudor, etc..
Build quality is the most subjective one, but when you have a watch in hand you can get a reasonable feel for the quality of construction based on the feel and visual appearance of the watch.
That said, I suspect that most people underestimate the durability of their watches because they tend to cost a lot of money to repair when broken. We are also exposed to a lot of marketing fluff about durability. I don't care that a watch can survive being run over by a tank, my wrist can't... Durability beyond what the human body can endure is a bit pointless.
Whoa...a new dynamic in diminishing returns (though this is somewhat present in extreme WR dive watches already): at a certain point, durability doesn't matter if the wearer can't survive.
All about the price for me,being a tight northerner anything over £100 and I'd cry if it got beat up, a bit of gentle patina ok but no beating up for my best watches. Current beaters are a £65 e Bay seiko 5 and for the really rough stuff a £20 sekonda quartz.
A lot of it has to do with how mindful you are of the watch while wearing it. That goes a long way in avoiding a catastrophic collision with say…a jagged rock while climbing.
Just get a G-Shock for the tough stuff.
Remember this, Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary were lent their watches. Never risk your own watch when you can borrow one from someone.
...suppose I deserve that! I'll pay better attention to my phrasing! 😂
I just take my Tudor BB58. Sapphire crystal, stainless steel, WR of 200m and super accurate movement. I know it can go further than what I can take it so its perfect. Don't be scared to wear your watch
I just take my Tudor BB58. Sapphire crystal, stainless steel, WR of 200m and super accurate movement. I know it can go further than what I can take it so its perfect. Don't be scared to wear your watch
Hi, allow me to introduce myself. I'm Todd, and I like to joke & post funny memes/gifs when I cannot contribute intellectually.
I'd say that the main factor here is the concept of over engineering and the definition of robustness depending the type of watch. On one side of the spectrum you have the G-Shocks by Casio and you find a great deal of over engineering to ensure the watch will work after a long series and multiple, not a single, rough situations. Robustness decreases after time and exposure, thus it is important that by design and from the beginning those watches could stand even the weirdest and most daring situations. On the other side you have mechanical watches that, in order to be robust, also need an important level of over engineering. It's actually not about if you can survive what a watch can survive, but that the watch will survive several smaller rough events that while you can survive and recover from, because, er... you are a living being and can repair yourself a certain level of damage, the watch needs to always keep under control.
I've been fortunate enough as to see the servicing of watches while taking pictures and preparing a documentary about a popular brand. Mechanical watches are very delicate in general as we all know, but there are several ways to, also, over engineer the movements in such way that some not only will allow an easier way of servicing some of the most delicate parts, minimize the clearances and make the wear of some pieces uniform and steady, but also to cleverly stand hits and sudden accelerations in such way that the extreme forces dissipate in a way the damage is kept minimal as is evenly distributed through more stable elements of the movement. This is all about over engineering in such way that some mechanical watches will be able to stand harsher conditions for more time than others. More time here is a key factor.
Also some materials are of higher quality than others, and the general finishing, testing and specific techniques allow them to be able to stand the active lives of certain individuals with a higher possibility of success.
But of course we have our mind set on the price of mechanical watches and the notion that they are inherently more delicate than their quartz counter parts.
At the end of the day, everybody has to really know what they have, and what they can replace in case the watch gets broken, because that can happen when using the watch, no matter which, in certain circumstances. The right tool for the right moment. But it's always good to have robust watches even if we don't put them through too much stress because the way they are built will make them more durable in the long run.
I think the right knock at the right angle and even the most robust, over-engineered watch can break. The question then becomes not so much what watches can handle your intended activities and rather which watches are you willing to risk the repair bill.