Tourbillon

[Butchh]

Gang...One of the many reasons I love Rolex is that they have never succumbed to the Tourbillon craze. I really don’t like those so called ‘open heart’ watches that display the Tourbillon. A beautiful, well made, chronometer doesn’t need any enhancement. In my opinion, it’s kind of like a beautiful woman who has resisted getting breast implants. Rolex figured out a long time ago what they did well, and have maintained incredible standards that most companies can only aspire to. Any thoughts on Tourbillons?

[Fenix84]

So you think Rolex is better because they don't make a tourbillon, it sounds to me that you are trying to create excuses for Rolex.

You can argue the real world advantages all you want of the tourbillon but that's not the point. Back in the day it was more about bragging rights to show who the best watch makers were. Why even go as far as a mechanical movement when a simple quartz will do. Mechanical watches are more about art/engineering than function.

[tudorbaja27]

[edyu]

Originally Posted by Butchh

Gang...One of the many reasons I love Rolex is that they have never succumbed to the Tourbillon craze. I really don’t like those so called ‘open heart’ watches that display the Tourbillon. A beautiful, well made, chronometer doesn’t need any enhancement. In my opinion, it’s kind of like a beautiful woman who has resisted getting breast implants. Rolex figured out a long time ago what they did well, and have maintained incredible standards that most companies can only aspire to. Any thoughts on Tourbillons?

It's because it's hard to mass produce tourbillon. I like tourbillon and depending on the style some open heart watches are beautiful. Mechanical watches are a manifestation of art and engineering so tourbillon fits right in. I can use your same argument argument against moon phase which Rolex does have.

I would for a robust Rolex tourbillon. :)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[descartes]

Rolex doesn’t make any high/grand complications. it’s not the point of the brand.

[Butchh]

Originally Posted by Fenix84

So you think Rolex is better because they don't make a tourbillon, it sounds to me that you are trying to create excuses for Rolex.

You can argue the real world advantages all you want of the tourbillon but that's not the point. Back in the day it was more about bragging rights to show who the best watch makers were. Why even go as far as a mechanical movement when a simple quartz will do. Mechanical watches are more about art/engineering than function.

Just better to me. That’s all. Just an opinion. I admire high end horology, but a lot of complications blur the true function of a watch. Just an opinion. Give me three hands and a calendar, but that’s just me.

[ashbaug2]

Historically, tourbillons were created for use in pocket watches that sat only one way (stem up) in someone's pocket, thus having gravitational forces applied on the escapement from one direction only, thus creating inconsistent timekeeping.

Since watches are worn on wrists that are constantly moving and applying gravitational forces from multiple angles throughout the course of their wear, the argument can be (and often is) made that they are not needed.

I'm not sure it's Rolex "opting out" of making one so much as they don't see the need. Plus, there's the mass production aspect, but I could see them designing a special tourbillon movement for use in a Cellini dress watch with very, very limited numbers... But Rolex also isn't "haute horologie" like Greubel Forsey, Patek, or *(insert Swiss brand here)*.

[Butchh]

Originally Posted by ashbaug2

Historically, tourbillons were created for use in pocket watches that sat only one way (stem up) in someone's pocket, thus having gravitational forces applied on the escapement from one direction only, thus creating inconsistent timekeeping.

Since watches are worn on wrists that are constantly moving and applying gravitational forces from multiple angles throughout the course of their wear, the argument can be (and often is) made that they are not needed.

I'm not sure it's Rolex "opting out" of making one so much as they don't see the need. Plus, there's the mass production aspect, but I could see them designing a special tourbillon movement for use in a Cellini dress watch with very, very limited numbers... But Rolex also isn't "haute horologie" like Greubel Forsey, Patek, or *(insert Swiss brand here)*.

Well said! Thank you for your input! I’m not nearly as knowledgeable as a lot of the folks on here, and I enjoy seeing other opinions. What I don’t enjoy is when someone finds it necessary to critique another’s opinion. I don’t think that’s the point. I understand completely what you’re saying about mass production and that makes perfect sense, even to a dullard like me!😜

[Butchh]

Originally Posted by descartes

Rolex doesn’t make any high/grand complications. it’s not the point of the brand.

That makes perfect sense! Thank you 🙏