1970s Mechanical Timex 🙂 Loses a minute a day, but absolutely bulletproof!Submitted by jmp3r96 t3_10c7ptt in BuyItForLife
FLTDI t1_j4ea95u wrote
Looks nice, but not exactly bulletproof if it doesn't function correctly.
WeirdEngineerDude t1_j4eamd5 wrote
For a mechanical watch, and an old one, a minute a day is pretty good. That’s off by less than 0.1%.
That’s why a vibrating quartz element was such a game-changer.
F-21 t1_j4ez30d wrote
Also, if you didn't loose a quartz watch from the 70's (or maybe 80's when they gott really widespread), it still runs today as well. New Casios last a decade on one battery and are more accurate than a rolex...
JMAC426 t1_j4g4s7u wrote
Yeah but Rolex are also overpriced and overhyped (though certainly not bad watches)
Edit: oh no fanboys found me
F-21 t1_j4g5zl4 wrote
That's quite literally any mechanical watch. Even the cheapest one is terribly overpriced and inferior to a much cheaper quartz casio in functionality. It's jewelry :)
I have nothing against them, and enjoy a good mechanical watch, but that's what they are. For style and performance, something like a Citizen Ecodrive is probably the best balance.
JMAC426 t1_j4g65c1 wrote
You mis-spelled Longines
F-21 t1_j4h5czt wrote
Longines, patek philippe, tag heuer, rolex, citizen, seiko... does not matter, functionally a mechanical watch is obsolete. There is nothing that it could do better. For example, a citizen ecodrive is cheaper, slimmer, more elegant, way more accurate, lighter, more durable and completely maintenance free (I think it uses some sort of capacitors instead of a battery, only needs short term battery anyway, if most battery watches last for 8-10 years on a single battery the ecodrive only needs to last a week or a month so it's really tiny as it is constantly recharged). For more extreme durability, there's g-shock. A mechanical watch is an incredibly complex piece of fragile engineering, quartz is an amazing technology from a functional standpoint. But a mechanical watch is art.
JMAC426 t1_j4h64ik wrote
Just a joke, comrade. I’m well aware of the pros and cons of various watch types. I was just saying Rolex is those things, in comparison to other mechanical watches.
F-21 t1_j4h8hk5 wrote
Rolex is probably the most overhyped since it is so famous :) But probably retains value better? I don't know. I bet lots of people want a Rolex even over some "better" or equivelant brands just cause they only know rolex.
Dear_Watson t1_j4grs5g wrote
I have a early Seiko Quartz 0624 LCD from 1974 that still functions perfectly along with an early Zenith Defy Quartz from 1975 that also keeps great time. If you maintain older Quartz watches and make sure to regularly change the battery so the internals don’t get ruined they literally pretty much last forever. The massive exception to the rule being LED watches as eventually the LED anode will deteriorate with regular use, especially with older LEDs.
throwawaycanadian2 t1_j4elisf wrote
For an old one maybe. Mechanical is usually accurate to way more precise measurements than that. Even back then it would be measured in a few seconds. Not a minute.
Getting this was serviced by someone who knows what they re doing may make it way more accurate.
F-21 t1_j4eyxdf wrote
As another guy said, this was one of the cheapest mechanical movements on the market at the time. The shafts run on bearings that wear out and get sloppy...
RokieVetran t1_j4fut6j wrote
Timex watches of the day were not made to be serviced
lngswrd15 t1_j4ezdz5 wrote
As others have said, it's a bit hard to believe when we live in an age of super precise and cheap quartz movements, but it's not too bad for an old mass produced mechanical movement.
For comparison, a brand new NH35 is specced at -20 to +40 seconds per day.
agent_flounder t1_j4ej8e6 wrote
For an old, cheap pin-pallet Timex movement, that's not terrible. I doubt any of em could do better than 20-30 sec/d brand new. I mean, these are zero jewels movements designed for low cost.
This one could simply need regulating, too. If we want to judge health, throw it on a timegrapher.
Meanwhile .. cool watch!
jmp3r96 OP t1_j4g971n wrote
I didn't buy it for the accuracy. I'm a manufacturing engineer, so I jump between working in my office to being out on the shop floor pretty regularly. Nothing heavy-duty, but I wanted something that would still work if I accidentally knocked it. And I wanted something mechanical because I just like mechanical objects.
I'd also like to point out that the Timex movement while inaccurate and crude to some is pretty ingenious in that they were able to break down a complicated watch movement into its most basic components for mass manufacture. From a watchmaker's perspective, it's a junk nightmare. But for me, it's an example of manufacturing engineering at its finest.
agent_flounder t1_j4gs7rw wrote
For sure! They are awesome. That's why I have several including the one I had as a kid in the 70s (it still runs fine too).
The old ads are true ("takes a licking..."). Those old Timex watches really are tough as nails. For example, the balance staff, instead of a thin, easily broken thing like in typical mechanicals, is 10x thicker with cone ends that ride in inverse cone dishes. You're not gonna break that, I don't care what you do. That design is inherently shock proof without needing to add any tiny, expensive shock protection parts (diashock, incaboc, etc).
Cottonita t1_j4gy2o9 wrote
Exactly why I started collecting vintage Timexes. I’m amazed at the engineering it took to produce such hardy pieces at affordable prices, and I really like how the designs are so distinctive to their era. One of my everyday watches is from the 1950s and it’s still accurate.
bill1024 t1_j4f5dby wrote
In the 70s, a cheap watch might lose or gain 5 minutes a day. Timex was a cheap watch.
It takes a licking, and keeps on ticking! was their motto iirc.
ErikRogers t1_j4hwkr0 wrote
They ran with that motto in to the 90's. I remember a digital to next being a runner up prize on a kids game show back then (Uh-Oh) and they used that motto.
jmp3r96 OP t1_j4eami5 wrote
You have to wind it every other day anyways. I usually reset the time then.
FreakyWolf t1_j4fj3tc wrote
Automatic and mechanical watches are always off, especially the older ones. The more important thing is that it keeps going. A quartz watch is more accurate, but it breaks faster. A digital watch or a phone is way more accurate.
My mechanical 1939 German timepiece still works, it's off by a minute every day, but it's more of a conversation piece and it still works.
My 1982 Quartz watch has needed a couple of repairs, battery changes and it won't work anymore.
Golden_Wind123 t1_j4gn5sr wrote
>A quartz watch is more accurate, but it breaks faster
A quartz watch with a sapphire crystal and stainless steel case would last just as long as a good mechanical while requiring much less maintenance.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments