Few of us give a thought to the inside of a watch, whether you wear one or not. This video of the inner workings of a $10,000 Rolex Submariner shows how intricate and complicated the mechanisms are.
Inside a Rolex Submariner
Few of us give a thought to the inside of a watch, whether you wear one or not. This video of the inner workings of a $10,000 Rolex Submariner shows how intricate and complicated the mechanisms are.
The folks at iFixit might get some perspective by watching this.
Can’t wait to hear the moans of the iFixit guys when they tear down the ᴡᴀᴛᴄʜ
That was absolutely awesome!
My dad might’ve enjoyed this.
On the other hand, he might’ve said “I do this for a living all day. Why would I want to watch a movie of it?” 😉
I spent some time in the department of a master watch repairman at a jewelry store in Princeton NJ. He showed me the tools he uses and told me about what kind of training it takes to become a watchmaker. There’s a great school here in the States. If I was young, and didn’t want to go to college, I might have seriously considered this job. There’s no room at the bottom for such jobs in the watch world. And I’m pretty sure Apple is going to make that even more true with the Watch.
But at the high end, there are amazing multi-million dollar watches and plenty like this classic Rolex out there to keep running. And as expensive as such watches are, they are not worn because of their accuracy. Especially Rolexes, which are in fact mid-level watches in the grand scheme of things, compared to what else is out there from the likes of Patek Phillipe, Hublot, and other truly high-end makers.
Pretty fantastic. I’ve always fantasized about becoming a watchmaker.
It’s the type of thing that either “is” or “isn’t”. There is no grey area.
There really isn’t anything quite as satisfying as fixing something.
Pure jewelry. Pinky rings have as much utility as these mechanicals and are far more reliable.
This is for the same people Apple wants to sell watches to.
Jewelry, yes. And could you be confusing “reliability” with “accuracy?” Mechanicals will never be as accurate as your $10 plastic watch. But my GF’s 1956 Rolex works day-in, and day-out as it has for the past 58 years. This to me seems “reliable.”
If the time is not accurate, the watch is not reliable for its singular purpose.
Sorry to drag this out (but it’s kind of fun). Accuracy as it refers to wristwatches is a relative term. Even a batter-powered watch made for accuracy will lose or gain a few seconds a day as compared to the most reliable time source, the atomic clock. Does this make these more-accurate watches “unreliable” as well? And unless you’re saying that any lack of accuracy renders a timepiece unreliable, then you’re arbitrarily setting a cutoff where some amount of inaccuracy becomes “unreliability.” Is this what you mean? (Just trying to follow the logic.)