I must say that I'm surprised that a discussion of watches on Birdforum would turn to snobbery rather than stay anchored to practical considerations. When it comes to outdoor gear, I'm all for art, craftmanship, and elegance, but the only basis for final judgment of what is a valid choice (i.e. an option) in that venue is performance, in this case as a timekeeping and time display tool (i.e. its utility, practical significance). Sure, one can argue that a cheap digital is not useful for climbing Everest because accidentally contemplating its lack of art and status might make the wearer feel déclassé and evoke such feelings of revulsion for the humble tool that the wearer or a companion might vomit at an inopportune time during the climb...but I think that argument would be a stretch, as much as are some of the assertions in this thread. I mostly agree w/Robert Wallace and I identify w/his approach to this discussion. It seems to me, he clearly has a bit of interest in watches (as do I) but he is honest w/himself and others as to the practical merits of different models and technologies. Being a snob about mechanical watches and futilely trying to defend their technological or practical superiority by ignoring objective performance measures should not be a prerequisite for acceptance into the tiny community (as a percentage of the human population) of people who discuss and appreciate watches.
...I haven't said a word about those Casio electronic time devices because they certainly are not watches and don't deserve to be considered such...
Oh come on. Why be dismissive of such a functional marvel? Maybe it isn't very arty, and no craftmanship (in the original sense) is involved, but such watches (e.g. a basic waterproof digital) are viciously accurate and beautifully simple in their own way.
...Mechanical watches are less accurate than quartz and are now mainly used as "Bling", to demonstrate how wealthy the wearer is...
I agree when it comes to the motivations of most people who wear fine mechanical watches. Most are interested in status and style, not the art or engineering and execution of intricate movements. But don't forget that a few wearers do choose mechanical watches for aesthetic reasons. Unfortunately, others purchase them (especially cheap but functional automatics, e.g. Seiko 5 sometimes available for ~$50!) out of a mistaken notion that they are more practical or reliable since they don't use batteries.
The latest Swarovision FieldPro is really nothing but "Birding Bling" when you think about it since it really does nothing a Zeiss FL doesn't. But it's performance figures give an indication of it's potential and its construction...
Objectively wrong. Among other differences, the Swarovision has far superior off-axis optical performance, which is important for some users and uses.
...Fine timepieces have always represented milestones in human achievements in engineering and science....and, yes.. art...
Sure they have. But I submit that the invention of the quartz digital does likewise. Those heroic watchmakers of the past were motivated by concern for precision in time keeping as much or more so than making cases, faces, and movements aesthetically pleasing, so I think they would have much respect for the quartz digital based on its performance. Were I a time traveler, given a choice for figuring longitude at sea in 1761, I'd choose a Casio digital over Harrison's H4 every time.
...Nonsense.They are slightly less accurate, but represent craftsmanship in engineering.
And you don't have to replace batteries...
If you read online discussions, you'll see that many people buy cheap mechanical automatic watches out of a mistaken belief that they are more reliable and inexpensive in the long run because they don't use batteries. Which is less convenient and costly, having to replace the battery every 3-12 years, or having to have the watch lubricated/cleaned/overhauled every few years? For every 1000 people who know that quartz and digital watches require batteries, only 1 knows that mechanical watches need costly regular maintenance and that quartz watches don't [O.K. I admit that I just made up that "statistic", but I hope you take my point].
...A watch in the field doesn't need to be accurate down to the nano second...
...I once wore a cheapo to bird the forests in Malaysia and it filled with condensation within 3 days and then stopped...
...My watch (Raymond Weil) cost me £200 over twenty years ago, it's been all over the World and is still unscratched and going strong, I call that a bargain...
Ah, all true, but it is also true that a watch can be very accurate, reliably waterproof, _and_ super inexpensive (i.e. "cheapo"). I try not to buy watches, for a long time had only two (a digital and a utilitarian Swiss made automatic) but now have two automatic, four quartz analog, and one digital. When it comes to convenience, practicality, accuracy etc, my best watch has to be my Casio digital that I got when I was about ~10 years old for under $20. I wore it for 15 years absolutely everywhere (never took it off) so it is a little scatched up, but it has never leaked in the shower, swimming pool, or while snorkeling in the sea, and I've only had to replace the band once (for under $10) and the battery three times (every 12 years--it is a big lithium) at a cost of $3 each time. I still use it while camping, traveling etc, or any time I need a watch with an alarm (One of my quartz analog watches has an alarm but it isn't as precise or as easy to use).
So I've had my digital Casio now 36 years, it has cost me under $40 total plus a few minutes every decade to maintain, it is super-precise, and besides telling time has many other abilities. Frankly, I think such performance is a stunning display of technology well-executed, is therefore a tremendous human achievement, and so deserves respect.
--AP