[Gedanken]

Originally Posted by Moto

Padi you sound jealous, you should just go get a watch with a parachrome hairspring and be done with it.

Also, I am one of those people that appreciates precision in a fine timepiece. It is the foremost task of a watch, remember, to keep time? Explain again your reasoning as to why Rolex should not be expected to accomplish what John Harriman managed to do alone in a candlelit basement 250 years ago?

No, +2sec/day is not good enough. A man's reach should exceed his grasp, and the art of timekeeping has ALWAYS evolved around accuracy. The parachrome hairspring, which you denounce at every opportunity, is a small part of that evolution. At WORST it is the equal of the previously used component, at best (and in reality) it is indeed measurably better, even though this might not translate directly to "more accurate" by itself. In any case, it's a significant step forward for Rolex that should be appreciated for what it is. Not villified because of some perceived need to defend the fact that there are many fine timepieces that don't have it.

Finally, no I don't want a quartz, despite your frequent recommendation of this to anyone that dare mention Rolex accuracy in any capacity. I enjoy the tiny machine for what it is, what it has been, where it has come from, and for what it can be. For me the quest for excellence/precision is an integral part of the enjoyment of horology. I'm not going to throw my Rolex in the trash if it runs +2sec/day, but at the same time I enjoy bringing that spec as close to zero as possible.

What's with the attitude, tiger?

Wind your neck in before I wind it in for you. I'm only in the habit of saying things nicely ONCE.