Talk:Watch

Untitled

Also there is no section on turbillons. The complication paragraph needs to be expanded to include grand complications and other variations, jewels etc. There is so much more to watches than this article. This is very dissappointing.

What is the etymology of the word 'watch' (as in "a small portable timepiece"?) How do self-winding mechanical watches work?

---

I removed this sentence, "About 4 times per day a radio wristwatch will check this radio signal and reset itself to the exact time." My Casio G-Shock only resets once per day. Is 4 times a day normal and the G-Shock is the exception to the rule? It seemed like this was at least an overgeneralization.

---

I don't know but my G-shock also only resets once a day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:45:501:BBC0:55A:6565:61A0:43E7 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Waterproof watch available

Just letting you all know that MTM has legally been allowed to call their watch waterproof.

http://www.specialopswatch.com/cart/products.cgi?category=7

Somebody with more experience should maybe edit the entry?

Rykoshet 12:55, 22 Octover 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.249.81 (talk)

Mechanical watches "most precisely engineered mechanisms in existence"

I strongly doubt that, by orders of magnitudes. I do not think that the precision comes close to e.g. harddisk production etc.If there are no bjections, I will just remove the sentence. Brontosaurus 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The other extremely precisely engineered device is actually the humble video recorder head, built to much higher precision than any mechanical watch component. Colin99 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And then there are disk drives. And diffraction grating ruling machines. And mask steppers -- the machines that project the mask patterns onto semiconductor chips. Those operate to tolerances that are a fraction of the IC feature size -- right now that's 45 nanometers, give or take, in the densest chips. So watches miss the mark by at least 4 if not 5 orders of magnitude. Paul Koning 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

American Made Watches

I question the validity of this paragraph:

Important collectible American made watches from the early 20th Century were the best available at any price. Leading watchmakers included Elgin, Gruen, Hamilton, and Illinois. Hamilton is generally considered as having the finest early American movements, while the art deco styling of The Illinois Watch Company was unsurpassed worldwide. Early Gruen Curvex models remain very desired for how they entwined form and function, and Elgin made more watches than anyone else.

It appears biased, the last sentence doesn't elaborate on 'entwining form and function' which is a very abstract phrase. Also in the same sentence it not only has a grammatical error by having a comma followed by the word 'and' but it also makes very bold point that is irrelevant to the rest of the sentence. I think a citation would be required when making as bold a statement as a company making more watches than any other company for the entire century.

Luxury watches

Perhaps high end watches needs to be addressed in further depth. Chopard and Cardier as well as most women's watches are thought of as more of jewelry and hence many are quartz. While Breguet, Blancpain, Patek are rarely quartz, and hence rarely thought of as jewelry or ornamentation but as timepieces. The section describing high end watches needs to be cleaned up, one can tell it was not written by someone that knows watches. Also I don't believe Patek invented the first wristwatch, i thought it was Breguet??

First please, excuse my movement of your post to this section; it will make it easier for others interested in the discussion to join. I agree that there should be more written about the high-end watch market. The only issue I have here is that there is debate as to where some brands fall (though others are clearly in certain groups). A good page that was alreadly linked to on this article can be found here [1]. My only problems are that it spends far too long trying to explain that Rolexes aren't the be-all, end-all of watches and having a giant love-in with Omega watches and not enough on the brilliant table at the bottom that makes an admirable attempt at splitting the higher-end watches into sub-groups based on reputation and price. As a guide to the way brands are split, here are the example given for each sub-group:

• High-end luxury - A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantin
• Luxury - Breitling, Cartier, Ebel, Omega, Rolex
• Pseudo Luxury Watches - Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, Tag Heuer
• Basic Luxury Watches - Epos, Fortis, Movado, Oris

I don't know about you but this (as well as the explanations of the groups in the table seems reasonable based on my (admitedly limited) experience with luxury watches. I imagine there will be some debate on those makers not included on this list, and where they fit in as well as on other topics but I'd appreciate feedback from all about placing this table in the article or perhaps even starting (an, IMO, long overdue artilce on luxury watches in particular).--Zoso Jade 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to, but you may want to add Girard-Perregaux in the "High-end luxury" section. Zenith, IWC,in the "Luxury" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.155.23 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree, there needs to be alot more written about both the high end complications and the luxury market. This is the part of watchmaking which is interesting! Ill get around to it in a month or two if nothing happens before that(busy on holliday!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidolafsson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What specific price range is required to purchase luxury brand watches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.240.5 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to german version

There is a bit of a problem with the link to the german, as the english "watch" basically means "the union set of pocketwatches and wristwatches" (correct?) and there is no such word in german (there is a word for general "timekeeping device" and specific types of them, but no word that encompasses exactly those 2 specific types). The link was towards pocketwatches and I've changed it to wristwatches as those are more common, is this okay with everybody? Peter S. 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Today, nearly every Westerner wears a watch on his wrist

I think we need to correct that. Since cell phones are popular (since 5 years or so) I think less and less people (specialy teenagers) wear watches.

El Questiono

Why does my watch say: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri, Sat, Sun from 1am to 12am and Dom, Lun, Mar, Mie, Jue, Vie, Sab (el spanisho) from 12am to 1am??? Answer that one... :P~

Your mechanical watch was built to display the day in either English or Spanish. The date wheel inside has the names of the days in both languages. When you set the watch, you will have some way of indexing it to either the Spanish or English names.

To advance from Dom to Lun, it has to move the date wheel two "steps". It makes these movements an hour apart. If you look at in during that hour, you will see the "off" language.

Watches with many complications that need to change daily don't always change them in a single set of motions. It is normal for a watch to take several hours to prepare all the displays (day, date, month, etc.) for the new day. Since this typically happens in the middle of the night, when the wearer awakes, the watch is ready. -O^O

News of my death.........

The beginning of the watch discussion suggests that mechanical watches are a thing of the past. Mechanical watches are produced today in the millions and will be for the forseeable future. Switzerland produced 100 million mechanical watches from 1990 to 2000.

I suppose what he was trying to say was that quartz has taken over the utilitarian end of the market. If you just want timekeeping functions, quartz is cheaper and more accurate. Mechanical watches are now luxuries, valued more for their history, esthetic qualities and as jewelry than for their timekeeping abilities. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Seiko 5 series, for example, is a series of inexpensive but accurate mechanical watches that have been very popular from the 70s to this day. I think it goes deeper than what you suggest. Survivalists, adventurers etc as well as normal people who don't want to depend on batteries are among consumers who prefer the simplicity, ruggedness and self-sufficiency of a good mechanical watch. Good mechanical watches like the Seiko 5 models lose about a minute per week and are also automatic. One minute per week is about 52 minutes per year. Even if you went to the Amazon jungle and never adjusted the watch at the end of the year you would only be off by 52 minutes. Compare that to the problem you would have if you ran out of batteries halfway into your adventure. What kind of watch would you take to the Amazon? Dr.K. (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that they are "green" (environmentally friendly) and cheaper to maintain since battery replacement, if done by a watch specialist, runs at about 7 bucks a pop. Dr.K. (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course let's not forget the third world, people in villages, the handicapped, the old and other underprivileged populations for whom a trip to the nearest mall's watch specialist is either impossible, unknown, or simply not part of their way of life at all. However almost everyone has a radio. For these underprivileged people the time keeping routine involves listening to their radio time announcement once a week, adjusting their mechanical timepiece and then go about their business without having to worry about any watch battery replacement. Dr.K. (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, especially about the 3rd world. I don't know what the penetration of quartz watches is there. You're right, mechanical watches aren't a 'thing of the past', but they're becoming a smaller part of the market. In 1998 alone, Hong Kong exported about 500 million quartz watches 1, p.231, dwarfing the decade's Swiss production of 100 million mechanical watches quoted above. Not that I think this is good - I like mechanical watches for the excellent reasons you mentioned. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You cannot impede progress. Indeed we are all dependent and even addicted to the modern conveniences afforded to us by the ever growing number of features and modes present on quartz watches which are increasingly becoming something of a moving entertainment/connectivity centre due to technological convergence. But for the substantial minority living under more rugged conditions than we are normally accustomed to and also for the many of us who sometimes want to go back to basics such as using the watch as a device for telling time (and are not very fussy to tell it to the nearest split second), the mechanical watch will have a niche. How long this niche will last and how big it will be in the future, only time can tell. Thank you very much for your kind comments and great input, which made me think about such an interesting subject, and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If I was going to live in a 3rd-world backwater, I'd be happy to have a solar-powered quartz watch (e.g., Citizen Eco Drive). Don't know what their life expectancy is, but probably longer than most people could keep an every-day watch without losing it or breaking it. 75.149.30.179 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A mechanical watch won't run forever without service. Every five years is a typical recommendation. Maybe a modern watch with modern lubricants will go for a few decades without—assuming you don't break it. But, my grandfather's watch, which sort-of still worked forty years ago when my grandmother gave it to me, is just an inert, gold-plated memento today. 75.149.30.179 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Watchmakers and Watch Brands

I'm wondering about the usefulness of this list in its current form. It is a very long list of watch makers with links to their website without any additional information. Does someone has an idea on how this list may be used by wikipedia readers ? Dragice 10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

perhaps only independent watchmakers should be listed, and perhaps a link to a site that has more detail information about the brands. i agree, listing all the brands(all being very understated).Davidolafsson (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the Cesium?

Why no mention of cesium clocks? TheLimbicOne 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are cesium clocks, but no cesium watches. Paul Koning 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cesium clocks are precise, but as far as I know, there are no cesium clock or timepieces of any kind sold at this moment. The closest are atomic, or radio, clocks, which, despite, the name, only connect to a radio broadcast of the time, and the broadcast is measured by a cesium clock.

Couple of years back, there was a guy who built a prototype cesium-time-base wrist watch. A little bit too big and klunky to be practical. It wasn't the oscillator that took up so much space though. I'm guessing it probably was the batteries. 75.149.30.179 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Commercial Links

I suggest we remove links to commercial watch vendors such as "misterwatch" and limit links to resource pages only

Agreed. I keep removing that one, and it keeps coming back. I have just reported the URL to the Spam blacklist, so I hope it will get permanently blocked some day. --Heron 12:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Would this be an acceptable link to use?

• Information on the user of titanium in wrist watches

I added it but then started to read the guidelines and although it is informative at the same time the site is primarly for commercial intent so I'm not sure if that is acceptable. I read a suggestion to post it here and ask for advice if I am not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.150.23 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

is there anyone can anser me this Q? (Why 10:10?)

i found out that almost 99% of analoge watches shown in magazine,newspaper or cataloge show the same time. that is 10.10. why is it 10:10.is there any meaning?

Answer: This is a recurring question on many watch fora. The most common answer is: the 10:10 position looks like a 'smile'. If the hands would point to, for example, 7:20, the hands would form a 'frown'. Another answer is that this position usually doesn't block any of the watch's important features or markings (the logo, the date window, etc.). Even some digital watch manufacturers do this.

Reply: The "Smile" is something I have never heard of before. Not blocking the 12:00 brand markings is what I've heard, as well as being symmetrical. For the time being 10:10, rather than 1:50, is generally regarded that the time 10:10 can denote both evening and morning hours where one isn't up late or up early, where as 1:50 could denote that it is "past the bedtime", giving the viewer a psychological feeling of uneasiness.

Also, such as the date usually showing the 28th most generally, as well as Wednesday as a day, is because they fill the aperture of the dial the fullest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.117.136 (talk)

Reply : because the bigger numbers are at 6-12 it gives a more balanced look to have the smaller hand(hour, duh :) at the 6-12 side of the dial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidolafsson (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My father told me many years ago that the 10:10 time looks like a "tick" or checkmark, implying approval or correctness or yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.149.94 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

removed nonsense

More than this, digital watches have the more philosophical implication of fragmenting the linear and controlling functions of time. By presenting only a number that can be glanced at in a vaccum from all other time, they free the reader from a spatial notion of time. Mechanical watches force us to see time as a moving hand on a clock face, whereas the flashes of a digital clock open the space for different interpretations and can help to ensure that our bodies and minds are not conrolled by the flows of linear time. James Herndon, a communications scholar with a focus on time studies, argues that "any attempt to disempower the biojuridical phenominological existence of timepieces that fails to recognize and delineate mechanical vis a vis digital timepieces is scholastically absurd to the point of being asinine."

removed above piece of nonsense from the digital watch#Digital watches section.

--Unconcerned 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

not quite "nonsense", but indeed it is quite over-wrought in language and, furthermore, is theoretical in nature. What the passage is trying to say is that digital watches forces you to regard time in the immediate sense, as an absolute value ("It's 2:49 right now"), while an analog watch forces you to see time in relation to the coming or passing hours ("It's ten minutes 'til two").

waterproofing

There is no section on waterproof watches: how is it achieved and what do the different waterproofing ratings mean (50m, 100m, etc.)? There is a common misconception that the 'm' rating is actually the maximum depth underwater that the watch can handle, however, this is not true. I believe 50m meant that the watch is splash-proof, 100m means it's swim-proof, and larger numbers are for diving and deep diving. I am, however, unsure of the exact specifications. Please add a section with appropriate information. maraz 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's usually water-resistant, not water-proof. Second, it varies by manufacturer. However, I think Seiko is a typical, good-quality watch maker, without being a luxury watch maker, though they do make some more expensive watches, including diving watches. Here's the Seiko FAQ: see the section on this topic: Seiko FAQ. Feel free to add the information to the article--Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. -THB 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Made section, Watch#Water_resistance. At least, it's a start. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My Casio watch says "Water Resistant 20BAR", now how deep is that? --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

20Bar is 200 meters. Are you asking or are you asking for the info to be put in the article? =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just asking... ;) --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It does actually not vary by manufacturer, if the watch says 200 meters its 200 meters its guaranteed to withstand(read article for clarification on what that actually means). Some manufacturers might have the tolerances bigger then others(for example all [Brand X] watches withstand 200 meters + a 20% added for security but [Brand Y] has only 15% added, if thats the variation you mean then you are right i guess, but the classification is the same for all watches. 200 is 200. Ive added some bits and pieces about the whole process of testing the water resistance of watches, i hope it makes it a bit clearer.

Davidolafsson (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Timepieces vs. clocks

I have added brief references to the nature of "timepieces" (such as wristwatches) that lack striking mechanisms, and noted that this distinction sets them apart from "clocks," which usually have bells or gongs that announce the passage of time. Some watches, of course, have this feature and can correctly be designated clocks. It is hoped that this distinction will be helpful to those who investigate timekeeping instruments and their useful characteristics. Jack Bethune 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrist Watch invented in the end of the 19th century?

I sincerely doubt this. While researching Baroque paintings, I encounter the French piece of A Lady on Her Day Bed , 1743 by François Boucher. His wife is posed reclining upon a day bed and is clearly wearing a wrist watch. The piece is located in the Frick. External Link:Painting in the Frick Collection displaying the wrist watch

The first documented sale of a wristwatch was by Breguet to the Queen of Naples in 1810. Adam Wang 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That does actually look like a watch, although it could also be some kind of jewelery. JayKeaton 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How do stopwatches work?

I decided to answer this question before it's asked. Watch crystals are invariably 32768Hz. Divide by two, 15 times, and you get 1Hz pulses to drive a watch counter or electromechanical movement. So, I hear you ask, how do stopwatches work, these count in 10ths or even 100ths of a second? Well they could re-engineer the whole thing to use a different frequency of crystal, perhaps 100kHz instead of 32.768kHz, then the required fractions of a second could be taken from divide-by-10 counters. They could, but they don't. In practice the stopwatch adds 1/32768 second fractions to a counter and calculates how many 10ths or 100ths of a second have elapsed since the start signal. Of course this is an approximation, but good enough for a wristwatch. This is done because 32.768kHz crystals and trimmers are readily available in the required small size for a watch, other frequencies would consume more space and the dividers would probably consume more power. Colin99 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that someone has changed from "most" to "many" watches have 32768Hz crystals. No, it should be most. Virtually all in fact. Name a recent quartz watch which uses any other frequency... Colin99 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Several Seiko watches use the 8F35 movement which has a 196,609Hz crystal, for example the diver model SBCM023.72.242.92.138 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)Brett Clark

I don't know how it's done, or even whether it's done -- it may be designers simply use the closest approximation and ignore the error. (That could easily be tested.) However, it's easy to do it right -- using a frequency synthesizer. Paul Koning 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first stages of quartz movement design, the first oscillator was not 32.768kHz. I am not certain of the frequency, but it was much slower, and the crystal a much larger size, which consumed more energy to maintain its oscillations. The tuning fork shaped crystal design which was at 32.768kHz was the major breakthrough in the electronic quartz watch design, though the technology was developed elsewhere, not in a watch factory. In regards to Paul Koning's remark, that is almost precisely how it is done. It would be practically impossible to cut and manufacture quartz crystals to vibrate precisely at 32.768kHz. As with all manufacturing, there is a tolerance of machining. Manufacturers will cut the crystal into the tuning fork shape smaller than the required size. This makes the oscillations faster, thus the watch will run faster if not compensated some how. In practical purposes, an unadjusted quartz watch will run three or four seconds fast a day. Older quartz logic circuits had a trimmer that could be manually adjusted by the manufacturer or watchmaker, such as a regulator arm on a balance and hairspring mechanical watch. Newer quartz watch circuits will have a function in their logic called "Inhibition". What this does is every 60 seconds or so, depending on how many times the coil is impulsed, rotating the gear train and progressing the hands, the IC will halt a programmed duration, delaying the next impulse of the coil. This lets the watch, which was gaining time for one minute, slow down enough to essentially maintain accurate timekeeping. Generally, this cannot be readjusted by anyone besides the circuit manufacturer, which is nearly never the same as the watch movement manufacturer. A select few of professional quartz watch testing devices have abilities to modify this setting through trying to flash a new variable into the IC of the circuit, but it does not work well in the field of watch repair. It is more efficient to replace a bad circuit than repair it. Besides, most watchmakers were trained in the mechanical aspect of watches and only briefly into the theory and application of electronic watches (like myself).

Unitepunx 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While an interesting item you have added there, it's not quite answering the right question. We were pondering the way that 10th and 100th's of seconds were adjusted in stopwatches, not how watches in general maintain timekeeping. Paul's idea would be impractical within the power constraints of a wristwatch, I believe. But since you have raised the point of timekeeping, this is interesting that many manufacturers no longer include trimmers. So the watches (or at least ones away from the sub £5 bracket) would be trimmed at manufacture of the chip and crystal assembly. This seems entirely logical. I once had a brainwave that radio controlled watches could "learn" the inaccuracy of their inbuilt crystal used for timekeeping between radio reception, and apply adjustments throughout the day, ideal if radio reception might be unavailable for some days for example. A short conversation with Junghans informed me that they do this already in some of their newer designs. Colin99 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say a frequency synthesizer would be impractical in a watch. It only takes a few transistors, and there's no reason it should take more than a trivial amount of power. Also note that you'd only need to turn it on while the stopwatch function is operating, which further reduces the issue. Paul Koning 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge "mechanical watch" here?

I'd suggest merging mechanical watch into this article, since it doesn't seem to stand on its own as a separate article. Paul Koning 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May I request that mechanical watch not be merged into watch. I think it would be more beneficial to the community to expand on the mechanical watch article as itself. In my opinion, the article is very poorly written in its current state. Unitepunx 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Unitepunx. I feel there is so much innovation going on in the watch field (the proliferating functions of digital watches, combinations of analog and digital technology, new materials, new power sources, new styles, etc.) that this article has to cover. Whereas mechanical watches are a separate, more traditional field, and should benefit from their own article. If both mechanical and digital watches were covered thoroughly in this article, it would be HUGE. I agree with Paul that the existing mechanical watch article is broken, but I'd like to see it fixed, not merged. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Numerals - IV vs. IIII

Why do most watches with Roman Numerals display IIII vs. IV? I have read a number of theories but none seem conclusive. Any ideas? Rclancy 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)rclancy

As you mention there are many theories, but the one most traditionally held by the watchmaking community at large is that when dials were made in the 17th and 18th centuries, usually by a dialmaker that had little to no knowledge of watchmaking or manufacture, they were told to keep the numerals 9:00 through 3:00 inwards, so the bottom of the numeral was to the center of the dial, and the numerals 4:00 through 8:00 outwards, so the bottom of the numeral was pointed outwards to the edge of the dial. This made it seem that when the dial was held up, all the numbers were still vertical in nature, even though they were nearly all rotated to be in line with the radius of the dial. As these were made, they started to notice that 6 (VI) and 4 (IV) were too close together and were sometimes confused. So since 6 was more prominent, they left it alone, changing IV to IIII.

Unitepunx 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A common theory is that the ancient Romans avoided putting "IV" on a sundial face so as not to insult Jupiter (whose name was spelled out IVPITER in their calligraphy), the most important of the gods. WHPratt (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean it to be quite different

As writer of the Mechanical Watch article, I had meant this page to be quite different in content as well as explanation to the original branched Watch article. It is not in my opinion to merge these two articles, as the explanations to fusees as well as the mechanical movements are important to be explained independently on a separate page. As writer of the article, I am fully against the decision to merge these two articles together. G'Day, -- Steven Stone 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: As a newer user and contributer of Wiki, i would agree that Watch should provide general information on the watch, specifically cases, displays, bracelets, etc. where as Mechanical Watch should be the recipient of much of the information that is on this page. I'm afraid this page is in dire need of a cleanup. As example, one of the first sections, Parts, includes a tourbillon along with the balance and escapement. while it denotes that it (tourbillon) is 'Optional", it is the most unlikely complication added to a watch. I think the Gear train can be added in its place, and subdivided into the 5 Different classifications of gear trains in a simple mechanical watch etc, along with the 3 types of gear trains... blah blah blah I can go on.

Point being. Please don't merge Mechanical Watch into Watch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.117.136 (talk) 06:43, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I didn't see that "Parts" section in the article today, so I created a new "Parts" section from scratch.

Is there anything from the old "Parts" section that should be restored? --DavidCary (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Not representative enough?

I'm puzzled by today's edits in which a number of photos and other material were eliminated on the grounds of "not representative enough". So what? Are they good photos that illustrate what the article describes? If so, leave them in. The fact that they are Russian instead of Swiss is not relevant. The fact that they may not be the first chronographs isn't relevant either. Paul Koning 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire gallery of photos was deleted, in addition to an excellent close-up of watch internals at the top of the article. They are all photos of watches, both digital and analog, very representative. The user who deleted should have been more specific, and should have made a note in the talk page. I am reverting as best I can. --Bridgecross 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see some of his reasoning now; most of the watches in the gallery were from one Russian company. This made the gallery seem like an advertisement, and it was a bit one-sided. However not ALL of the photos were like this, and it also left the article without a decent photo near the top. I am reverting some of the gallery, and moving a photo up. Anybody have better idea, let me know.--Bridgecross 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Paul Koning 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be old, but I am noticing that the Poljot watch image [2] which is captioned as a Russian Mechanical Watch Movement is actually the swiss ETA Caliber 6497, which has had its bridges shaped in the similar way Panerai shapes the bridges in the watches they produce that also have this movement.

td;dr: That picture representing a watch movement is Swiss, not Russian. Poljot is a Russian Watch Company, but they don't manufacture movements anymore.

Unitepunx (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

what's the deal with these watches?

I'm not commercially link spamming, I really want to know. Are these weird LED things common in Japan? Notable enough to be mentioned in the article? --86.144.101.134 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital watches with unconventional displays are widely available across the world. There are several gadget sites selling them and I have found retail stores in my country providing them as well. So either you are in good faith but ignorant or you are spamming, but claiming not to be. In either case I'm removing the link to the online store, since it's against wikipedia's policy. Now if you want to add a section to the article about unconventional watches, be my guest, I actually think it would be a worthwhile addition. --Ferengi 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Article needs to be reorganized?

This article desperately needs a comprehensive rewrite/reorganization. The only section on the history of watches, misleadingly labeled 'Pocket timepieces' is very incomplete. The section on 'Parts' only deals with mechanical watches, and only mentions the escapement and balance wheel, ignoring other essential parts. And the above 2 subsections are grouped under 'Watch cases'! The article seems like an eclectic collection of sections on watch features people have added because they are interested in them. Nothing wrong with that, but someone needs to edit it into a comprehensive, organized overview. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a comprehensive section on the history of the watch. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I question the sub articles in the history section. At first it seemed there was a section dedicated to each century during the watch's history. However, there are sections refering to specific years. And on top of that, there are events and innovations that took place before or after the dates indicated in the sction title. I suggest either having sections designated for each century; or, if that doesn't lend itself well to the watch's evolution of the years, perhaps a section for each era in the watch's development, including a range of years during which that era took place.Ghost650 (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The history section is organized along the lines of your latter suggestion, broken into eras. Each era begins with the year in the heading, and ends with the beginning of the next era. I didn't give the range of years (e.g. 1657-1765) for each era, only the beginning year, to avoid duplication. Perhaps this is confusing. As you point out, some of the eras mention events that occur before or after that era, in the interest of continuity. It was difficult to show the connections between technological innovations through time while strictly segregating events into eras, so I violated the segregation in some places. I think it improves understanding. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Did celestial navigation have anything to do with watches?

Re: 'Pocket timepieces' section. Did celestial navigation have anything to do with the development of watches in the 15th century? What I've read says portable clocks and watches evolved because people wanted to know what time it was, for daily use. Besides, before the balance spring in 1657, watches were so inaccurate (~1hr/day) that there's no way anyone would think them applicable to navigation. Mostly they were just expensive novelties for the rich. Of course later, during the 18th & 19th centuries, marine chronometer design innovations were applied to watches. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think celestial navigation had anything to do with timekeeping before the 17-18th century. Since as you say, they were extremely inaccurate, they didnt even have a minutes hand. Davidolafsson (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ten Past Ten

Why do watches, when advertised, almost always show the time ten past ten? Could the answer be added to the main article? Robinson weijman (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From this posting under the title "Ten past ten" Quote: is the best placement of the two arms of the watch and it makes the appearance of the watch very elegant and in a state of equilibrium. and this setting of the watch as a face symbolic of gleeful reception which gives cheers to a viewer/reader. The two arms of the watch equally stretched divergently upwards symbolise receiving a person warmly with open arms. That is why the watch is invariably shown "ten past ten. The posting then goes on to analyze other hand configurations and it concludes that 10 past 10 has the optimum appeal based on aesthetic/psychological reasons. 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also here it is mentioned that 10 past 10 looks like a smiling face. Dr.K. (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers. So, should this be added to the main article? By the way, I've often heard this "smiley face" argument - but is it true? I mean, does it work. Any articles on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinson weijman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The smiley face link which I found seems to be a reliable source but I don't know of any books that mention this or the other reasons for the 10:10 configuration. As far as inclusion I am against creating a new section only for this fact but if there is an advertising related entry, in any section, it could be included with inline citations. I consider this to be an interesting point but not necessarily of significant encyclopaedic importance. On the other hand this is just my opinion. If you disagree please go ahead and modify as you choose. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an article called 10:08 discussed this, but it was deleted because it was mostly speculation with lots of contradictory claims. Before adding any information to this article, I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10:08 discussion. It would probably be very useful to ask a wikipedia admin to recover the deleted talk page and article so that it could be used as a starting point. If someone wants to put the effort into actually making a good article on this subject, I think you make something that wouldn't be delted again. However, references like mentioned above to would not qualify as reliable sources. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is of importance for Wikipedia, because you see this everywhere! Here's another question: is it Ten Past Ten or Ten To Two? Robinson weijman (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As the old 10:08 article explained, there are many times being used and many sources that claim that the time on clocks/watches in advertising is "always" 10:10, 1:50, 8:20, and quite a few other times. These conflicting sources that claimed that the when the time "always" was is part of why the article was deleted. Again, this is something that someone will have to put some effort into or it will just be deleted again. Wrs1864 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fish wearing a wristwatch

It's a long shot, but does anyone know the name of a children's story featuring a fish who always wanted to have a watch? Eventually the wish is granted and the fish gets to wear the watch around his or her waist. I've been trying to track this down for years with no luck --Totorotroll (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrist or all?

Is this article meant to bear mainly on wristwatches, or is it meant to cover both wrist and pocket watches? If it's the latter, I'd like to suggest that this be changed to have this article mainly deal with wristwatches, as the pocket watch has its own article. As such, it would delete redundancy. History could be kept to pocket watch history in that article, and wrist watch history here. Right now, it seems like this article is MAINLY about wrist watches. It would be easier to move pocket watch info to that article, and add the template

This article is about wristwatches. For pocket watches, see Pocket watch. For other uses, see Watch (disambiguation).

to deal with any issue. If noone has objections, I'd like to make that change. TheHYPO (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The mechanisms of mechanical wristwatches and pocketwatches are almost the same, and historically are part of a continuous line of technological development. A history of wristwatches has to include the history of pocketwatches, to cover the origins of the mechanism. I'd like to see the chronological history of watches in this article stay together, and not be broken up into segments destributed among various articles. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe discussion on the mechanics and mechanisms of watches, both pocket watches and Watches could be moved over to Mechanical Watch, where, in my opinion, it seems better suited? Unitepunx (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo of a digital watch (issue resolved)

Does anyone have a better photo of a digital watch? The one shown doesn't have the standard time-of-day displayed. Jeff Muscato (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I found a usable photo on the Timex Ironman article, so I'll try to work it into the watch article as a graphic for a standard digital watch. Jeff Muscato (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Done—I added a thumbnail of a standard digital watch with the time displayed. Jeff Muscato (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated images

No prize for spotting it, but one image is used twice. that can't be right? ProfDEH (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant?

2009

Both Le Locle and its geographical twin town La Chaux-de-Fonds, located in the Jura Mountains, the cradle of the Swiss Watch Industry, have now been recognised as an UNESCO World Heritage Site, for their horological and related cultural past.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not in their own section. But the info could be packaged differently and put in the history section. Something like: "In the history of the watch the cities of...... are considered the cradle of the Swiss Watch Industry and have been recognised....etc. "Cradle" and other assertions have to be cited though. Dr.K. logos 01:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand I don't see any mention of any historical watch-making cities in the article so either we add some information about other watch manufacturing centres or leave this info out altogether. Dr.K. logos 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Custom clocl face

I am looking for a clock face, size- 1"-1/1/8" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.58.67 (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Digital / LED

"Most watches with LED displays required that the user press a button to see the time displayed for a few seconds, because LEDs used so much power that they could not be kept operating continuously."

All too true. I got my first digital watch maybe 1973. The first two or three batteries promptly died on me. I took the thing to a shop. "You're only supposed to light up the display four of five times a day." I was told. "How often do you do it?"

"About eight or nine times an hour when I'm teaching a class," I told him. "You have to pace a lecture, you know."

That convinced me that I wasn't an LED type person. The LCD models that came in shortly were much better in this regard. WHPratt (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of recent flowery content

I removed a recently added section because it uses promotional-type language and the ideas presented are naive and unencyclopedic. It also uses commercial external links as references. A quote from a portion of the removed text may illustrate some of the flowery language which coats quite mundane and useless concepts to the point of triviality:

Furthermore, at the end of the decade, on 20 July 1969 to be exact, the wristwatch was quite incredibly used on the mission to the moon where NASA astronauts immediately recognised the usefulness of this tool.<ref>[http://www.dellaroccagioielli.it/orologi.html Luxury brands and celebrity wrists]</ref>

Wow, you don't say. The fact that astronauts used wristwatches is presented as incredible. What next? Should they have used a sun-dial instead? And what with the "astronauts immediately recognised the usefulness of this tool"? Is this difficult to recognise? And must you be an astronaut to recognise the usefulness of the watch? What about the billions of people who wear one in every corner of the planet? Do they just wear one for kicks? Please leave these incredible statements for a blog or something of that type. And leave the commercial links out of the article. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I couldn't omit the introduction:

The coronation and undisputed success of wristwatches came about in the 1960s when even the stars of the big screen started to wear such timepieces in their films; artists of the calibre of Sean Connery in the unforgettable Bond film series, Steve McQueen in The Hunter or the great Paul Newman in Winning.

I guess prior to their "coronation" in the 60s, the wristwatches lived a life of failure, poverty and neglect, wallowing in self pity and frowned upon by the masses who refused to wear them. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And please stop edit-warring attempting to insert such tripe into the article. The time is ripe, not for tripe but, for some responsible second thoughts. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Glad to see somebody cleaning up this junky article. Parts of it seem to have been lifted by semiliterate people from watch industry promotional material or ad copy. This is an encyclopedia, not a hobbyist's blog; this is not the place to promote your favorite watch. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

David Usinski

David Usinski was the creator of the watch and was formally known as "Ticker" back in 1631. although many people had disagreed with him and his invention of the time device. It was 3 years later that he came with his first design of the watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devole (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

History

Article became too big. I think that "History of watches" should be shifted into separate article - it is good written and interesting by its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.8.94 (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References, definitions, general article

I am putting in my own efforts to this article. There are several specific pages on the pocket watch, mechanical watch, time, etc. The statements in this article, especially in the opening few paragraphs, aren't backed up by good references. A statement was made in paragraph 2 that "Most inexpensive and medium-priced watches used mainly for timekeeping are electronic watches with quartz movements", but the referenced article doesn't say this at all! It just says that as time went on, quartz started replacing purely mechanical approaches to tracking time. It is possible to buy a full automatic knock off watch that tells the time for about $100 USD. I don't think it's a good idea to generalize on the technologies found in the typical watch at a given price point, that's really all over the map. Someone looking to read about a watch needs a general overview on wrist and pocket watches, a basic history, checked facts, etc. and then the article should refer to the article on Mechanical Watch, Time and Pocket Watch.

I will do my best to tighten up the article with whatever references I can find.

Derekd73 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is staggeringly full of original research, personal insight and generally poor prose. I've done a bit to address that but this will be a long-term project. You're right that the various timepiece articles seem to have an incoherent relationship to one another, not helped by their having been moved about, retitled, split and merged multiple times over the years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

History

The "history of watches" entry redirects to History of timekeeping devices, which has a short section on Watches, which directs the reader back to the "Watches" page. On History of Timekeeping Devices, there is no mention of the Digital watch. That article expects this article to provide a history of watches. Can someone please decide what to do and move that section or flush it out? It would be a great read on its own, I agree :)

Derekd73 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've split the section back out to history of watches. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Invention of the wrist watch

Here in Brazil, people say that the first person to invent the practicability of using a watch on the wrist was the Brazilian inventor Alberto Santos Dumont. As he was going about his mechanical experiments, each time he wanted to check the hour, he found it clumsy to reach for a pocket watch, so he experimented fastening the watch to his wrist. From this to designing a watch shaped expressly to be worn in the wrist was a short jump. João Carlos de Rezende Martins (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

See this WP entry. That should clear things up.TMCk (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional Readouts

I've never read an explanation for those extra circular readouts on some wristwatch faces (see the picture of the "space" watch in the article). One dial seems to have six hours marked along its circumference, another has 45 minutes. If these could be set independently, they might be useful, but my experience is that they're tied to the main hour reading. Of what use is a dial that goes around four times a day and another that goes around 32 times a day? These would seem to be redundant information. WHPratt (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The watch is a chronograph that can be used as a stop-watch for timing events. One sub-dail shows the number of elaped minutes and the other the number of elapsed hours. Racklever (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of digital clocks and watches

Timetables are always printed in a digital manner: Thus the plane, train or bus will be “leaving at 11:15”, never it will be “leaving when the short hand points upwards except for a small angle to the left and when the long hand points to the right”.

To compare the watch reading with the timetable is thus much easier and more straightforward with a modern digital watch than with an old-fashioned analog watch. Even inexpensive digital watches are also usually more accurate than the most expensive analog watches. (See COSC). Why then are analog watches still being manufactured and sold? This is partly explained by the fact that analog watches are often heavily advertised as being both jewels and timepieces rather than just timepieces.

A typical digital watch will display: SUN 01-29, 17:25:15. It is all there except for the year, which is 2012. The watch does in fact keep track of the year too, checking whether it is a leap year, but the year is not displayed for reasons of space. Most people keep track of the year anyway. Sixtamia 10:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtamia (talk • contribs)

The Financial Times for Sept. 8, 2012 has an interesting article considering the virtues of craft over precision. Mechanical watchmakers try to increase precision by introducing ever higher escapement frequencies. But “nothing they produce will match the accuracy of a cheap electronic watch.” Sixtamia 09:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtamia (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sweep seconds

I have edited a section that claimed the term sweep seconds refer to the gliding motion of a second hand in a mechanical watch. This is not correct, sweep seconds is a second hand mounted in the center of the watch face, as opposed to in a subdial. It literally sweeps the face of the watch. For sources see here or search for seconds in this horological dictionary. Ramskjell (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Space - Watches flight-qualified by NASA

This list is not substantiated by any references my Internet search engines turn up.

Flight-certified by NASA for all manned space missions: Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.50.00

Flight-Qualified by NASA for space missions: Omega Speedmaster Professional X-33 Casio G-Shock DW-5600C Casio G-Shock DW-5600E Casio G-Shock DW-5900 Casio G-Shock DW-6900 Casio G-Shock Master of G G-9000 Timex IRONMAN Triathlon Data Link

I found it here: http://mobile.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=187&t=839828&mid=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.97.151 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Printed Material

I was wondering if there is an agreed upon policy/standard/mechanism for listing printed material a reader may find for more information.

To be specific, there have been a number of new books written in the past 3 years that help Gruen watch collectors. In the past there has been only 1 dedicated to Gruens. I also know of and have collected a number of magazine articles on Gruens, from the early research by Charlie Cleves in the AWCI journals, to dedicated publications by the NAWCC, and recent articles, three in the past 6 months I believe. New collectors to the brand have more tools now than ever but there isn't a place to find them without visiting the sites shown in "External links" section.

Please excuse my ignorance of Wikipedia and how it works. If there is an "owner"/"moderator" of the Gruen Wikipedia page Gruen_Watch_Co. , I have a good list of books and journals that I can supply. If I am supposed to edit the page myself, some direction on what section name and format to use would be great. An example page would be even better.

--MikeTheWatchGuy (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mike and thanks for offering help! I think it might be very useful to mention those books at the Gruen Watch Co. article. You can make a section named "Further reading" right before the "External links". As a model you can use Berlin#References section. If you find any trouble in doing that, then you can simply mention those books here and I will create that section. You can mention here the books in a list like this:

• Title of the first book, First Author Name, Publishing house, Year
• Title of the second book, Second Author Name, Publishing house, Year

etc. For starting to learn more about editing Wikipedia, you can read Help:Editing. Have a nice day! —  Ark25  (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sales

The global watch industry will generate more than $60 billion in sales in 2013, said Citigroup Inc. analyst Oliver Chen. While that’s smaller than the pool of revenue that comes from TVs, gross margins on watches are about 60 percent, he said. That’s four times bigger than for televisions, according to Anand Srinivasan, a Bloomberg Industries analyst. TG Daily, September 2, 2013. —  Ark25  (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Casting doubt on wrist watches in the 1570s

Guinness World Records says there is no concrete evidence to support wrist watches prior to 1868.

David.castell (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the section Watch#Wristwatch seem to depend on the reliability of this source. This web article is an interesting read, but other than mentioning "Eugène Jaquet's and Alfred Chapuis' "Technique and History of the Swiss Watch" (ISBN-0-600-03633-2)", it doesn't cite any sources. Does anyone have access to that book? - DVdm (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Jaquet-droz and Leschot have the paperwork for a bracelet watch ordered in 1790 and a bracelet watch survives from 1806.

Bruton, Eric (2000). The History of Clocks & Watches. Little, Brown and Company. p. 183. ISBN 0316853550.

©Geni (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121120171414/http://forums.watchreport.com/index.php?showtopic=286 to http://forums.watchreport.com/index.php?showtopic=286

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150928004218/http://www.watchismo.com/search.aspx?find=muslim to http://www.watchismo.com/search.aspx?find=muslim

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110323064128/http://invention.smithsonian.org:80/centerpieces/quartz/coolwatches/pulsar.html to http://invention.smithsonian.org/centerpieces/quartz/coolwatches/pulsar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Watch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151013191116/http://www.ieee-uffc.org/main/history/step.pdf to http://www.ieee-uffc.org/main/history/step.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_5_8a.php?id=02-024&gl=58
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaexplores.com/search_nav_9_12.php?id=02-024&gl=912

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Movement -> Automatic watches -> advert

Hello all,

I removed a paragraph that looked like advertisement from the article, but my change was reverted. The rationale for the revert was that the advertised product represents a unique development. Since this is a notability question I do not feel equipped to answer (i.e maybe the product should actually be referenced, but certainly not advertised), instead I tagged the section with the most visible problems, like the use of marketing-like words and/or claims that are not in the linked sources. In detail, these include:

• "inexpensive": how is that relevant for anyone looking to do anything but buy? also I do not see how it is NPOV, they go for $100+, which to an NPOV can be anywhere between 'prohibitively expensive' and 'cheap as dirt'
• "only 51 parts": again, how is this relevant? the rest of the article does not concern itself with minimizing part count, is the part count pertinent? looks like something a marketer added to a brochure
• "purely mechanical": this suggests that automatic watches before this one were something impure? this idea of movement purity is not discussed anywhere in the article, which again points this to being another point of puffery

If it were up to me, I'd remove that paragraph from the section altogether, but to avoid an edit war, I'm assuming User:BBCLCD has intimate knowledge of the notability policy and the subject matter, so the best I can do is discuss here how that paragraph should be rewritten so as to not function as an advertisement. Please let me know what you think!

Regards,

Daclyff (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Have introduced three new references (including one by de:Gisbert L. Brunner, renowned watch expert ) to document the notability and uniqueness of this automatic movement. There is good reason for this movement to be called Sistem51, as it's low parts count combined with automatic assembly allow low manufacturing cost of a complicated automatic watch with jewel bearings. Quote: Unique in the world, this ingenious system eliminates the need for a regulator and manual adjustment of the precision of the movement by changing the rate. Quote: The genius of the Sistem51 is that it’s made of only 51 parts, spread around 5 modules and linked one to another by only one central screw. The assembling of the parts, including the 19 jewels and the regulating organ, is done by machine.--BBCLCD (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)