I take it Kunlun has not read a BC thread before...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SearChart
They are fragile and in reality never run as good as they should. You can say about Rolex whatever you want but the movements keep on ticking and pretty damn accurately.
|
A friend of mine, with whom I studied watchmaking, cannot stand the Rolex style, it just isn't a brand for him. However, after working on a few he has told me that it was certainly a brand with some of the best movements for what they do, very accurate, reliable and easy to work on.
BC, Bas explained it nicely when it comes to the reality of the tourbillon. All in all, you take energy that could go directly in adding power to the oscillation of the balance wheel for a feature that does not help as much as it did anymore. In fact, the tourbillon was more of an advantage in the days when watches were not nearly as accurate as today and where gravity would impact their performance much more because they would remain in one's pocket in the same vertical (this word is important, gravity does not affect a balance wheel in a horizontal position) position, with wristwatches almost constantly moving nowadays the tourbillon is now considered somewhat useless and becomes merely the proof that a watchmaker has mastered his craft by assembling such an intricate cage and mechanism for its regulating organ to the eyes of many enthusiats.
Would I get a grandes complications with a tourbillon? If budget allowed it, probably, I love the look of it but I know it would not add to the accuracy of the watch. In fact, I wouldn't be half surprised if some owners would still forget to wind their watches because they thought that giving it a shake would suffice.
By the way, if you ask me, I prefer a minute repeater or a sonnerie when it comes to more or less useful complications that cost an arm and a leg.