To those who do not like watch winders...

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Scotswierdo

And...manual winding doesn't cause any wear or have any negative consequences?
Padi i have read you aversion to winders many times but I have to say...this is misleading , please just give me one solitary example of when a winder has caused undue wear ...just one.

I have never stated they cause wear but its a fact if any machine is running 24/7 it will have more wear than one that's not running.And manual winds were around a long time before any automatic was invented.There are thousands possible millions of manual wind watches with screw down crowns Rolex included,they got wound up almost daily.The crown is for winding and setting the watch and these items like crown tubes even crowns are just serviceable parts and are often changed at normal routine service.Now if you have a watch with very many complication then a winder could prove to be a convenience.But watches from Rolex do not have these many complications,so they are not needed unless you are disabled and you cannot wind and reset a stopped watch.

This below is a quote from one of our Rolex TechXpert watchmakers who repair mostly Rolex for a living.

All Rolex automatic movements wind in both directions.
For any non perpetual calendar watch, a watch winder is totally unnecessary.
If you have a choice of watches and do not wear it every day, it is not real chore to reset it and wind it by hand.
If you don't wear it every day you also reduce wear to the movement components, why waste that benefit by having it wound when it is not required to tell the time?

[GTC]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

If you like to see your watches on display on a merry-go-round that's fine, but to me they are nothing more than a handy carrying case for a burglar.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by padi56

I have never stated they cause wear but its a fact if any machine is running 24/7 it will have more wear than one that's not running.

I'd add that being able to associate mechanical breakdowns or worn parts directly to the use of a winder is tough to do because watches don't have odometers to determine how much the watch has actually been "driven" (used by the owner) rather than running on a winder (running while parked in the garage). But it is not unreasonable to assume that along the way a watch that's been run constantly might occasionally require one or two replacement parts at service that one left sitting wouldn't. So the bill from RSC is $750 or $875 or $1,000 instead of the base charge of $600. I'm not talking just about parts that break and the watch requires repair. But at normal service the RSC may require replacement of a part or two because they see some wear and require replacing it to avoid a possible problem occuring during the service warranty.

The fact is a Rolex worn everyday (or put on a winder) should last decades anyway, but parts will likely need to be replaced more often (or sooner) due to wear to keep it in top shape (and for Rolex to offer a 2 year service warranty) that wouldn't yet need to be replaced on one that was left not running when not in use.

I believe if watches did have such an odometer it would become pretty clear that many more low mileage examples that needed earlier parts replacements or repair would be attributed to those left on a winder versus those left idle in a drawer or safe deposit box.

Look, no one needs to defend their use of a winder. For one thing, a Rolex should last decades either way. For another, your wearing habits may be such that your watches would pretty much always be running anyway unless you hack them ( i.e. if each watch gets wrist time every 2-3 days). We're not all into watches because we like to set them and for some it is a downright inconvenience. Fine. But to say it doesn't cause any additional wear over a watch that is sitting idle defies my common sense. If somehow this was true I'd expect Rolex and all the other manufacturers would offer lifetime warranties.

[mjm800]

The only reason I do not like winders is becasue I have spent a lot of money over the years buying winders and all of them have stopped working after about a year or two.

Now I use them for watch storage but I'll never buy a winder again. I'll use my fingers and wrist to wind.

I never thought they hurt or helped my watches. Even in the winder after a week or two when I would pull the watch out I still needed to adjust the time and or date.

[harrjaso]

My 12 cents



Sent from an iPhone on a secluded island

[gerrya]

I use a winder and always have, last thing I put on after getting dressed is my watch. If Im short on time I would have to go for the one thats running, rather than the one I want to wear. Just a convenience thing for me.

[Scotswierdo]

Originally Posted by harrjaso

My 12 cents



Sent from an iPhone on a secluded island

Oh no...This give some here nightmares

[Scotswierdo]

Originally Posted by mjm800

The only reason I do not like winders is becasue I have spent a lot of money over the years buying winders and all of them have stopped working after about a year or two.

Now I use them for watch storage but I'll never buy a winder again. I'll use my fingers and wrist to wind.

I never thought they hurt or helped my watches. Even in the winder after a week or two when I would pull the watch out I still needed to adjust the time and or date.

I bought Orbita's and never had a problem?

[Scotswierdo]

AND...HERE IS ANOTHER VIEW...from a post I read earlier this week


Do We Need Watch Winders?
An often asked question is; Should I buy a watch-winder?

The following discussion summarizes the logic of both the pros and cons and also takes a look at technical and other differences concerning some of the automatic watch winders currently on the market;
_________________________________________________

As the number of watch owners having one or more automatic watches continues to grow, one of the most frequently asked questions is Do I need an automatic watch winder? To begin, I must point out that, despite the fact that my company has been a pioneer in introducing professional watch winders to consumers, I have publicly stated several times on the watch forums that they are NOT an absolute necessity.

Lets look at some concerns watch owners have about winders:

QUESTION: I'm sure there is a good reason for watch winders. But, Im a little puzzled by their purpose other than for testing. It just seems to me that a given watch only has a certain number of hours of life in it before it must be overhauled and serviced, right? So, why not slow the process down while youre not wearing it? Is there a detrimental effect on the watch? What about new watches at the jeweler? They can sit for months before being sold. Ive never seen a winder in the window keeping that new watch wound and waiting for me to buy it.

ANSWER: Watch winders are beneficial for those who own more than one automatic watch. They are particularly useful for automatic perpetual calendar watches which can be complicated and a nuisance to reset once stopped. More important, all watches should be kept wound and running for their own mechanical health to ensure proper lubrication and cut down on wear. If a watch sits still for a long period of time, the lubricant tends to clump. When that happens, it can have an adverse effect on the timekeeping accuracy of a watch with poor amplitude of the balance wheel. The reason that some, even the finest brand, timepieces do not perform up to par is probably due to the effect on a watch sitting in a jewelry store for long periods of time in a non-running condition.

QUESTION: If an automatic watch is not worn for several days, is it better to wind it in a watch winder, rather than manually turning the crown every morning? Or, does it make no difference which way the watch is wound?

ANSWER: Automatic watches are designed with two interacting sets of winding systems, one is the manual winding mechanism and the other the automatic winding unit. Current typical automatics have a sandwiched double reverser wheel which contain miniature clicks inside. These reverser wheels allow the motion of the user's arm to build power reserve from the oscillating rotor through the winding system indirectly to the mainspring which drives the escapement.

Manually winding an automatic mechanism "on a steady basis" can put unnecessary rapid stress on the sensitive auto reverser wheels possibly damaging the tiny internal clicks. The torque pressure resulting from manual winding of automatic watches is not made for, day-in day-out, manual winding, especially if the watch is not in a pristine new or overhauled condition. Also, most automatic watches today have screw-down crowns. Using such crowns on a steady basis for manual winding will result in a shorter life for these spring-loaded crowns. The daily pressure and tension will break the posts off sooner or later requiring replacement of the crown and also the stretched / worn O-ring tube gasket. You then run a greater risk of allowing moisture to penetrate the case without your awareness and knowledge.

QUESTION: Does the way of mounting of the watch on a winder make a difference or is it enough to have a watch turning regardless of the position its in? Why would it matter if all were out to do is to try to mimick the motions of the wrist?

ANSWER: Winders which do not turn the oscillating weight of an automatic watch, a.k.a. the rotor, with at least one full 360 degree turn in a completed revolution may not provide sufficient power reserve to keep a watch going after removal from the winder. I have found that the Bergeon/Cyclotest winders must be wall-mounted to provide optimum winding for all automatic watches. In a hanging position, the carousel-type winder rotates and revolves simultaneously giving the rotor the best opportunity to make one full 360 degree turn with each complete circle. These same winders laying flat on a table will not give ALL rotors enough power reserve since the rotor does not turn on the oscilating weight post. Winders using a cone-shaped mandrel to mount watches in a profile manner have, in my opinion, a drawback because its principle operates similar to a rocking chair or a pendelum. The watch does not receive the 360 degree turns to guarantee a LONG TERM buildup of
power reserve to keep it running long after removal from that winder.

SINCE THERE IS NO WINDER ON THE MARKET WHICH CAN DUPLICATE THE UNPREDICTABLE MOVEMENTS OF A HUMANS WRISTS, IT IS ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT A SUITABLE WINDER CONTROL THE DAILY WINDING OF EXPENSIVE TIMEPIECES. A cheap or improperly designed winder may in fact do more bad for a watch than not winding it at all since it predictably stresses the same parts on a continuous daily basis.

QUESTION: The number of different types of winders on the market today have proliferated to many choices in varying price ranges. Arent I better off just getting the cheapest one and sticking the rest of the money into another watch?

ANSWER: To some degree, watch winders can be compared to WATCHES themselves. We all know that a $10 quartz watch can give you the same or more accurate time as a $10,000 luxury timepiece. So, why would anyone spend (100 times more) $9990 additional if he can get the correct time for so much less money. The answer to this question is it may be a combination factor of design aesthetics, long term reliability and an appreciation of superior quality. The same thing can be said not only about watches but about other consumer products which also includes automatic watch winders. One can spend about $80 for the least expensive plug in type MTE winder up to (100 times more) $8000 for a luxury model Scatola del Tempo. There are professional watch winders far in between in the mid-range price points which have become very popular with watch collectors who want affordable quality made products. These are the ones I personally favor most.

QUESTION: Why are watch winders so expensive?

ANSWER: Quality watch winders are sold through channels from the manufacturer to a distributor to the retail shops and finally to the end-user, the consumer. Unlike computers, electronics and other mass-produced consumer goods, watch winders, by comparison, have a limited small niche market. Research and development, warranty service and marketing (advertising and promotion) add up to the final cost leaving each of the sellers in the pipeline with a small profit margin, far less than what a retail shop would earn on the sale of a brand name watch.

To summarize, while watch winders are NOT an absolute necessity, they are not only a great convenience in keeping watches on the correct time and date but also help to extend the general running condition of them.

Re-printed courtesy of;
Jack Freedman
SUPERIOR WATCH SERVICE INC.
__________________

[Laszlo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Robert

(I wouldn't have my automobile running constantly)

Very well said point!

[Brenngun]

Purely personal choice. No proof one way or another that using or not using a winder will have any impact on the longevity of an automatic watch movement.

I always laugh when the "I wouldn't constantly run my car" analogy comes up. I actually agree I wouldn't run my car 24/7 either. Why? Because unlike the automatic watch movement it's not designed to.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Purely personal choice. No proof one way or another that using or not using a winder will have any impact on the longevity of an automatic watch movement.

I always laugh when the "I wouldn't constantly run my car" analogy comes up. I actually agree I wouldn't run my car 24/7 either. Why? Because unlike the automatic watch movement it's not designed to.

Obviously, an internal combustion engine is subject to heat and pressures not seen in a watch movement. But it isn't about running it 24/7, it's about leaving it running for no reason when you're not using it. I can't think of any other mechanical device that is advisable to leave running constantly IF it's not necessary, but somehow it's supposed to be good for a watch.

[thomaspp]

I don't like them as it's just one more thing I have to deal with. Trying to simplify my life at this point and have too much crap already. The one thing I do need however are more watches :)

[Brenngun]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

Obviously, an internal combustion engine is subject to heat and pressures not seen in a watch movement.

Precisely why it's a ridiculous analogy.

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

But it isn't about running it 24/7, it's about leaving it running for no reason when you're not using it.

But it is about running it 24/7. A watch movement is in fact designed to run 24/7 either by hand winding prior to stopping or the use of a rotor. If not it won't preform it's intended function. Now if you feel your movement will somehow benefit from sitting still while not in use then that's your choice. However there is no empirical data available proving a movement running 24/7 will need any more or less service attention than one that is only wound prior to wearing (unless of course it's never been worn). Anything else is pure hyperbole.

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

I can't think of any other mechanical device that is advisable to leave running constantly IF it's not necessary, but somehow it's supposed to be good for a watch.

You could be quite right but I'm sure the watchmakers at Rolex designed their product to run constantly. Anything less would be a failure. Also I never suggested this was somehow good for a watch. Just that it had no positive or negative effects.

[GradyPhilpott]

I have nothing against winders, but the ones that are any good at all are extremely expensive for what you get in return and their benefits are dubious for most watches.

Certainly none of the watches I own are so difficult to set that it takes more than a couple of minutes to do so, even my GMTII.

No matter how well regulated a watch is, it's accuracy will drift, so that you have to reset it every now and again anyway, so winding it on those occasions or when you put it on after not wearing it for awhile is not a problem worth spending a few hundred dollars to eliminate.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Precisely why it's a ridiculous analogy.




But it is about running it 24/7. A watch movement is in fact designed to run 24/7 either by hand winding prior to stopping or the use of a rotor. If not it won't preform it's intended function...

Yes it is built to run all the time, just like watches have always been. But it isn't ABOUT that in the sense that we are talking about what state to store it in when you are not using the watch, not whether it is capable of running all the time or not.

Did you ever have more than one manual wind watch? If so, did you wind the ones you weren't wearing just to keep them running? If you were to keep any of your collection in a bank vault would you keep them there on a battery operated winder?

It's a convenience - and there's a trade off. If you want to call it just my opinion, fine. Maybe I can't offer you sufficient proof and that's fine too. But it is what my common sense tells me. There's no right or wrong anyway. Each of us can decide for themselves how to handle our investments.

Thank you, I appreciate the civil discussion.

[boogiebot]

personally i have nothing against a watch winder. i just like to play with and wind them up. if i had some sort crazy complications then maybe but all my watches are easy breezy

[Watch Professor]

I have 4 Seikos with the older, non-hacking, no hand wind movements that have to be wound by movement alone. That is a pain, as it takes many, many shakes of the wrist to get them even partially wound. A winder ( I agree, Brookstone winders work very well) is almost a necessity for these watches.

I also keep my GMTIIC on a winder, as setting the time, GMT hand, and date are also a pain. Additionally, if you are as OC as I am, I set each of my watches to the exact second so setting them often by hand takes too much time. (pun intended)

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Precisely why it's a ridiculous analogy.

No, it isn't. The commonality here is the fact (not opinion) that any and all machines, when in motion, incur more wear than when they are not in motion. It is true that watches are designed to be worn and in motion all the time, but this hardly disproves the fact that moving parts wear more than stationary parts.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

But it is about running it 24/7. A watch movement is in fact designed to run 24/7 either by hand winding prior to stopping or the use of a rotor. If not it won't preform it's intended function. Now if you feel your movement will somehow benefit from sitting still while not in use then that's your choice. However there is no empirical data available proving a movement running 24/7 will need any more or less service attention than one that is only wound prior to wearing (unless of course it's never been worn). Anything else is pure hyperbole.

Nonsense. What's pure hyperbole is to imply that a mechanical device that gets more use will somehow magically avoid more wear and tear on its mechanical innards than one that's standing still. I mean, cars are designed to be driven, but all other things identical, one with 20,000 miles is going to require far fewer repairs than one with 120,000 miles. And there is plenty of empirical data to tie wear and tear of machines of any sort to the friction incurred by the motion of moving parts within those machines. Cambridge is a good starting point: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/events/tribology2014/

Originally Posted by Brenngun

You could be quite right but I'm sure the watchmakers at Rolex designed their product to run constantly. Anything less would be a failure. Also I never suggested this was somehow good for a watch. Just that it had no positive or negative effects.

"Design for constant use" does not mean "immunity to wear and tear". Using it more will wear out the innards more quickly, because the friction between the moving parts will incur more wear on them, simple as that. Were this not the case, watches would never, ever, need to have their parts replaced, but of course they do, because they wear out as a function of being used.

Of course if they're used at all, winder or not, eventually they will wear out, but again this wear is directly proportional to use. So as others have pointed out servicing costs will over the long one be higher due to more frequent replacement of parts, although it is not likely to put anyone here in the poorhouse.

There is a whole field of study devoted to this phenomenon, known as Tribology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology

Anyway, as I mentioned nobody here is going to be put in the poorhouse by shelling a bit more for parts every so often, so if people want to save themselves a minute or so of watch-setting time, no harm no foul.

[Scotswierdo]

Originally Posted by improviz

No, it isn't. The commonality here is the fact (not opinion) that any and all machines, when in motion, incur more wear than when they are not in motion. It is true that watches are designed to be worn and in motion all the time, but this hardly disproves the fact that moving parts wear more than stationary parts.



Nonsense. What's pure hyperbole is to imply that a mechanical device that gets more use will somehow magically avoid more wear and tear on its mechanical innards than one that's standing still. I mean, cars are designed to be driven, but all other things identical, one with 20,000 miles is going to require far fewer repairs than one with 120,000 miles. And there is plenty of empirical data to tie wear and tear of machines of any sort to the friction incurred by the motion of moving parts within those machines. Cambridge is a good starting point: http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/events/tribology2014/



"Design for constant use" does not mean "immunity to wear and tear". Using it more will wear out the innards more quickly, because the friction between the moving parts will incur more wear on them, simple as that. Were this not the case, watches would never, ever, need to have their parts replaced, but of course they do, because they wear out as a function of being used.

Of course if they're used at all, winder or not, eventually they will wear out, but again this wear is directly proportional to use. So as others have pointed out servicing costs will over the long one be higher due to more frequent replacement of parts, although it is not likely to put anyone here in the poorhouse.

There is a whole field of study devoted to this phenomenon, known as Tribology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology

Anyway, as I mentioned nobody here is going to be put in the poorhouse by shelling a bit more for parts every so often, so if people want to save themselves a minute or so of watch-setting time, no harm no foul.

Every mechanical device Ive ever had never thrives by being left idle for ages.
If you don't like them...don't use them...I'll happily ignore the scare mongering and carry on using mine happy in the knowledge they do absolutely no harm whatsoever...as my 15 years of using them proves.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Scotswierdo

Every mechanical device Ive ever had never thrives by being left idle for ages.

I don't recall saying anything about letting them sit for ages. In fact you should wind it every so often if you're not wearing it for long periods of time.

Originally Posted by Scotswierdo

If you don't like them...don't use them...I'll happily ignore the scare mongering and carry on using mine happy in the knowledge they do absolutely no harm whatsoever...as my 15 years of using them proves.

It does incur more wear, as stated by Ulyisse Nardin in their faq page:
http://www.ulysse-nardin.com/en/swis...Questions.html

We recommend that your timepiece be serviced every 3 to 5 years. The interval between services is influenced by several factors, including frequency of use and climate. A watch that is worn daily experiences more wear and tear on the movement parts and may require service closer to the 3 year interval, while a watch that is worn on special occasions may require service closer to the 5 year interval.

[Perrinyanna]

i use an MTE 2 & 4 watch winders and also a sinle battery operated Eilux when travelling because i rotate watches daily or every 2 days and i want to monitor the accuracy of a mechanical watch...i hope i dont wear them down..

[ExplorerChris]

I have 6 watches that could benefit from a winder but I'm still on the fence and not convinced that it's a worth while purchase

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Watch Professor

I have 4 Seikos with the older, non-hacking, no hand wind movements that have to be wound by movement alone. That is a pain, as it takes many, many shakes of the wrist to get them even partially wound. A winder ( I agree, Brookstone winders work very well) is almost a necessity for these watches.

I also keep my GMTIIC on a winder, as setting the time, GMT hand, and date are also a pain. Additionally, if you are as OC as I am, I set each of my watches to the exact second so setting them often by hand takes too much time. (pun intended)

Wow, I own a GMT as well and consider it no problem setting. Different perspective I guess.

If you are that OC about accuracy then what does a winder do for you? I mean unless all your watches run at precisely +-0 seconds then aren't you constantly resetting them anyway?

[KINGROLESAR]

I like to see my watches when I'm in my bedroom, I have a watch box and watch roll for my cheaper stuff, but its on a shelf and I barely even remember what is in there.

What's better than seeing this at the end of the day?

[/QUOTE]

I think this is the point of why people like winders. It does look nice in this picture for sure.

[fullcourt]

Originally Posted by Mystro

I am the empirical evidence that a winder doesn't cause any excess wear and tear. I ran my TT Sub non stop for 15 years either on a Orbita winder or my wrist. Watch was just routinely serviced at the 15 year mark. There was nothing wrong with he watch and still kept the same time as it did when new. If anything, winders reduce wear and tear on a divers screw in crown from my observation and water tight Sub. Opinions on the watch winder run deep. I can just give you my positive experience over the last 18 years.
Check out a Brookstone quad winder. Silent, programmable and at a good price for the quality.

been using one for years....never an issue

[Vanessa CW21]

Okay I'm here to give my 2 cents since I was asked to give an opinion.
I haven't read the responses given, since it's late and I plan on going to bed soon!

I don't like winders.
I don't like them for several reasons:
1) Most people assume they actually wind the watch... No, they keep the watch wound, which means it should still have a good amount of power reserve in order to maintain the power. I get plenty of customers complaining that their power reserve is too short "even though the watch was on the winder all day 3 days prior".
2) Cheap winders MAGNETIZE watches! The motors aren't insulated and cause the watches to start running erratically! I just had one two weeks ago, with a 2 y.o. DJII. A complete service of the movement was required.
3) Unless you're too old, or have some kind of medical condition that prevents you from having the feeling in your fingertips to wind the crown, I don't see a reason to need a winder.
4) I don't like the unnecessary wear it causes the movement. Unnecessary because you're putting wear on the watch while you're not even enjoying it.

In the end, it's all up to you and I'm pretty sure all you TRF'ers know what to expect. I'm mostly having a hard time explaining to people who have absolutely no clue about the inner workings of a watch.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by KINGROLESAR

I like to see my watches when I'm in my bedroom, I have a watch box and watch roll for my cheaper stuff, but its on a shelf and I barely even remember what is in there.

What's better than seeing this at the end of the day?

I think this is the point of why people like winders. It does look nice in this picture for sure.[/QUOTE]

Blimey, you're a dark horse! I thought your only Rolex after selling the Milgauss was an Explorer II. Or maybe I've not been paying attention.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Vanessa CW21

Okay I'm here to give my 2 cents since I was asked to give an opinion.
I haven't read the responses given, since it's late and I plan on going to bed soon!

I don't like winders.
I don't like them for several reasons:
1) Most people assume they actually wind the watch... No, they keep the watch wound, which means it should still have a good amount of power reserve in order to maintain the power. I get plenty of customers complaining that their power reserve is too short "even though the watch was on the winder all day 3 days prior".
2) Cheap winders MAGNETIZE watches! The motors aren't insulated and cause the watches to start running erratically! I just had one two weeks ago, with a 2 y.o. DJII. A complete service of the movement was required.
3) Unless you're too old, or have some kind of medical condition that prevents you from having the feeling in your fingertips to wind the crown, I don't see a reason to need a winder.
4) I don't like the unnecessary wear it causes the movement. Unnecessary because you're putting wear on the watch while you're not even enjoying it.

In the end, it's all up to you and I'm pretty sure all you TRF'ers know what to expect. I'm mostly having a hard time explaining to people who have absolutely no clue about the inner workings of a watch.

Have to agree 100% Vanessa and lets be honest aromatic Rolex have been around a long time before the machine winder was introduced.And then they were used and wound up by the crown if stopped.

[viper9669]

I don't like my winders because the spring loaded cushion that holds the watches secure in the winder, stresses the bracelet of my non-Rolex watches.