I don’t understand why most quartz watches are stuck with ticking second hands rather than smooth sweep second hands. I prefer quartz movements for their dramatically superior accuracy, but I also prefer the look of a smooth sweep second hand. I have yet to see a convincing explanation for why quartz second hands must tick beyond vague gesturing at power saving, but not only that, I have seen sweeping second hands on inexpensive quartz wall clocks from IKEA, so it’s clearly possible.
I regret to say I’ve started to think that ticking second hands on quartz watches are essentially cartelized marketing on the part of watchmakers to easily distinguish less expensive but technologically superior quartz movements from luxury-branded mechanical movements. Can anybody talk me out of this conspiratorial thinking, or confirm it?
You must log in or register to comment.
High end watches aren’t really in my budget, but it is gratifying to hear that there are very high end quartz movements. But jewels and precious metals aren’t really my jam. What I want is a reasonably accurate watch that will run without me having to wear it or wind it, with a second hand that moves nice and smooth. (And since I’m also kind of particular about how they look, I want a nice wide variety to choose from, but that’s kind of my own thing.) The Seiko Spring Drive is a cool idea and the second hand movement is very nice, but I’d want a battery in there to obviate the winding.
This question is asked all the time. The convincing answer is simple: a sweeping seconds hand uses a lot more power than a ticking one. Wall clocks can do it because they use comparatively massive batteries. Most people would rather have double the battery life than a smooth sweep.
I guess I just don’t find that answer very persuasive. I mean, I’m no engineer, but it seems like it wouldn’t be that hard to do. I mean, if it’s really only a factor of two, couldn’t you just fit a second battery in there?
But even setting that aside, mechanical movements translate the stepped movement of a governor through a series of interlocking gears to achieve a smooth motion, I don’t see why something similar can’t be added to a quartz movement.
Those things are technically possible, but they increase complexity and cost. The battery takes up a huge amount of space in most quartz movements - it’s by far the largest part - so it’s not trivial to just add a second one. Also, running batteries in a series causes difficulty…what happens if one battery dies prematurely? Most people wouldn’t be willing to pay double or more for their watch just to get a sweeping second hand.
Hybrid electronic movements that used battery power to drive a mechanical geartrain existed briefly in the early 1970s, but they were quickly replaced by quartz movements because they were inferior in every objective way.
Idk, it seems like some people are willing to pay quite a bit for watches, including ones that have features that add complexity without clear timekeeping benefit