This is a short note on one of the more important recent innovations in horology. It pertains to the assortment, which is a collection of parts regulating the release of energy from a watch's mainspring. In detail, the assortment consists of the escape wheel, balance wheel, hairspring, anchor lever (usually) and pallet stones. I've now seen two similar, and major, innovations in this portion of a watch mechanism. I was initially confused about the similarities and differences between these two mechanisms, so I thought I would briefly outline them. Two watches represents the start of a potential trend, so this is probably worth doing.
In 2017, Zenith announced the Defy Lab, a watch (pictured here with a black strap) featuring the wholesale replacement of a traditional assortment with an oscillating wafer of silicon (see picture). Top: Zenith Defy Inventor, Bottom Left: Zenith Lab,Zenith Bottom Right: Silicon Oscillator Credit: Zenith The price of this reference, available in only 10 examples, was roughly $30,200. The Zenith oscillator is large in comparison to an assortment, having approximately the same diamater as a dial (in contrast, traditional assortmants can squeeze within a much smaller diameter). In 2019 Zenith "commercialized" this highly limited release with the Defy Innovator (pictured with a blue strap, reference 95.9001.9100/78.R920) priced at $17,900.
The specifications on the Defy Inventor are very impressive and in keeping with Zenith's accomplishments in the field of high frequency movements, such as the El Primero. The oscillator runs at 18 hz (129,600 bph), more than 4.5 times the typical frequency of a mechanical timepiece. As you would expect, this results in enhanced precision. The Defy Inventor was case-tested and chronometer certified by Timelab, with reports of accuracy ranging from .3 to .5 seconds per day. The power reserve is 50 hour. This implementation of a silicon oscillator was created under the leadership of Guy Semon (a PhD holding physicist) in the Research Institute for the Watch Division of LVMH. You can watch a video about the development efforts here.
Despite these advantages, observers did note that something might be lost with the rapidly "quivering" and flashing oscillator visible through the skeletonized dial. Traditional assortments have an almost relaxing and soothing impact on the observer. In contrast, Zenith' oscillator can seem frenetic and less peaceful. There were also rumors that regulating the Defy Lab / Inventor was a challenge for Zenith.
This week, Frederique Constant (FC) introduced three versions of its Slimline Monolithic Manufacture. The Federic Constant Slimline Monolithic Manufacture. Interestingly, FC also adopted the silicon oscillator as a replacement of the assortment. In this rendition, though, the oscillator is much smaller in diameter and also features adjustable weights. These, reputedly, make regulation more straightforward. You can see the FC's oscillator through a "heartbeat" window positioned at 6 o'clock on the dial. A watchmaker still requires a special tool to measure the accuracy of the movement. The Slimline Monolithic Manufacture is far more accessible for buyers, with a starting price of approximately $5,276. Amazingly, this movement runs at an even faster pace, at 40 hz (288,000 bph). At more than 10x the frequency of a standard movement, FC claims the Slimline Monolithich Manufacture achieves chronometer-grade accuracy. It's remarkable that FC was able to round out this package with an 80 hour power reserve. Interestingly, FC's version of a silicon oscillator was developed by Flexous, a Dutch startup.
The watch community has not had a chance, yet, to form an impression of the Slimline Monolithic Manufacture "in the metal." The smaller diameter oscillator may help address concerns that this technology is less pleasant to observe "ticking" away. What's remarkable to me is that, approximately three short years ago, a watch with a silicon oscillator was priced at five figures and extremely limited in production. Today, that price has decreased by a whopping 83%. The technology has decreased in size while seemingly improving by a factor of 2x or more (from 18 hz to 40 hz). The innovation has diffused internationally and to another brand. This is an incredibly rapid pace for innovation in the watch industry. It is akin to the type of competition we more often see in semiconductors and computer processors. Also, competition in horological innovation typically does not involve offering more for a lower price. We'll have to stay tuned in order to see if this nascent development transforms into a permanent trend.
What it might look like if Aragon and Argon watches actually went to court over the trademark dispute. My prior post described a disappointing development for those collectors hoping to acquire an Argon Spaceone watch via the brand's Kickstarter campaign. The campaign had reached over $1 million in funding when Kickstarter's management stepped in and froze the whole thing over an "intellectual property dispute." When I posted about this development on Instagram , Hodinkee editor Tony Traina noted in the comments that another brand, Aragon watches, had filed a complaint with the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) back in April (thanks Tony!). Argon's account replied and indicated that they had already filed a registration for their brand name and they were retaining counsel in New York City. On Tuesday, June 27 of this week, more details were offered via a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case is filed on behalf
Among many avid watch collectors, the term "in house movement" seems to elicit eyerolling disdain. Pieces of an assortment, including balance spring, from a non-Swiss movement. There is a sizeable perception that "in house" is, in fact, nothing more than an unnecessary marketing ploy designed to tease more money out of the wallet of buyers (by way of definition, an "in house" movement means that the mechanism inside a watch was predominently manufactured by a brand itself, kind of like "we make our own bread" at a restaurant). I'll confess that I'd begun to think similarly, that is, until I read a 66 page report posted by the Swiss Competition Commision on May 10, 2023. Yes, this is the kind of thing an economist finds interesting on a weekend, or at least this economist. Before we get into the details of this report, in the interest of full disclosure I should say that the original document was in a different language: lawyerese.
There comes a moment in the servicing of a watch that is probably easy to miss among the hundreds of steps required to remove a movement from a case, inspect the parts, repair anything amiss, lubricate all the pieces, and put the whole thing together again. A watch that Rolex's investigator bought at Beckertime for approximately $4,500. The lawsuit refers to this as "Counterfeit Watch One." That moment is when a watchmaker takes the dial and reattaches it to the movement. There is nothing particularly unique when it comes to the tools required or the tasks involved in this step. Instead, what is unique about this moment is that the watchmaker holds in their hand a mark that is not the property of the watchmaker and it is not exactly the property of the watch's owner. In the case of Vacheron Constantin, that mark is a Maltese Cross. For Audemars Piguet, it is the brand's initials. When it comes to Rolex, the mark is a widely recognized crown. If the reassembly
Comments
Post a Comment