New products from various watch brands are released every year. At a micro level, there aren't many big differences. However, when you look at them over a longer span of time, you realize that they have evolved into something completely different from the products of 10 years ago, both in terms of interior and exterior. So what has changed in modern watches, and what trends are they creating? Let's take a closer look at the factors that have brought about these changes.
Interview and text by Masayuki Hirota (Chronos-Japan)
[First published in the November 2017 issue of Kronos Japan]
Changing design philosophy
Many manufacturers are focusing on in-house movements. However, it can be said that the design philosophy has completely changed compared to 10 years ago. In the past, designers pursued reproducing the philosophy of mass production manufacturers as faithfully as possible. However, nowadays, new approaches that go beyond that are increasingly being seen.
Swing angle from high to low
In terms of movement design, the element that is most different from 10 years ago is the balance wheel oscillation angle. In the past, in order to improve portability, the higher the balance wheel oscillation angle, the better. 300 degrees was the norm, and even more than 340 degrees was not uncommon. However, the balance wheel oscillation angle has now been reduced to a level where it does not cause oscillation jamming. The factors that made this possible are a long power reserve and multiple barrels.
This world timer features Cal. B35. It features a newly designed base movement with a compact world timer module that is an improved version of Cal. B05. Automatic winding. Stainless steel (44mm diameter). 100m water resistant. Price: 102 yen. For inquiries, please contact Breitling Japan at 03-3436-0011.
"The maximum swing angle of a balance is 280 degrees. Anything more than that will cause it to jam," said the master François-Paul Journe. True to his words, the maximum swing angle of all Journe movements is 280 degrees. In the past, watchmakers and watch manufacturers would have increased the swing angle as much as possible. However, in recent years, an increasing number of manufacturers have followed the example of FP Journe and are limiting the swing angle to between 280 and 300 degrees.
Until around 2005, many manufacturers tried to increase the balance wheel oscillation angle as much as possible. There were two reasons for this. One was to increase resistance to external disturbances. The other was to allow the oscillation angle to be maintained high even when the mainspring unwound. For this reason, many manufacturers, including Breitling and IWC, tried to increase the balance wheel oscillation angle to 330 degrees or more, and in some cases even to 340 degrees. This certainly increased resistance to external disturbances, and allowed a high oscillation angle to be maintained even 24 hours after the mainspring was wound. However, as a result of increasing the oscillation angle too much, these movements began to suffer from oscillation problems. This is a problem in which the balance wheel oscillates too much, causing the watch to run too fast. In an era when a high oscillation angle was considered a panacea, even ultra-high-end manufacturers could not avoid the issue of oscillation problems.
This is a core movement designed with a completely new design concept. In the past, Breitling tried to increase the balance swing angle as much as possible, but in recent years it has been reduced to a level that does not cause swing. Automatic winding. 41 jewels. 28,800 vph. Power reserve of approximately 70 hours.
On the other hand, Rolex has consistently given its movements an amplitude that does not cause any oscillation. The company placed more importance on isochronism than oscillation, and as a result, some Rolex movements only had an oscillation angle of 280 degrees, or even 250 degrees in some cases. When the development of in-house movements began to gain momentum, other companies were skeptical of Rolex's design philosophy. However, they soon came to realize that Rolex was right.
As a result, today's designers, like Rolex, have begun to carefully limit the amplitude. Even Breitling, once a pioneer in the supremacy of amplitude, now has an amplitude of 280 to 300 degrees, a major change. However, it's important to mention the evolution of design philosophy that made this possible. Previous movements had to increase the amplitude because they only had a power reserve of around 40 hours. However, thanks to advances in mainsprings, the power reserve of current movements has been extended to nearly 70 hours. This means that the amplitude is less likely to decrease even after a certain amount of time has passed. If that's the case, there's no need to force an increase in the amplitude. There's clearly a causal relationship between extending the power reserve and reducing the amplitude. Panerai is a good example.
Another reason is the spread of multi-barrel movements. In the late 1990s, designers at several watch manufacturers "rediscovered" that increasing the number of barrels makes it less likely for the amplitude to drop. The multi-barrel movements that have appeared since have been influenced to a greater or lesser extent by this idea. Good examples include Chopard's Quattro, or "LUC9.96," and Cartier's 1904-MC. In fact, each designer cites the advantage of multi-barrel movements being that the amplitude is less likely to drop.
So how will the thinking surrounding the swing angle change in the future? The swing angle will likely continue to be kept to a level that does not cause swing contact. However, companies aiming for even higher precision will no doubt try to increase the swing angle to the very limit where swing contact does not occur.
Automatic winding shifts from reverser to ratchet
Another major change over the past decade has been the automatic winding mechanism. In the past, many manufacturers tried to give their own movements the same automatic winding mechanism as ETA and Rolex. However, now, manufacturers under the Richemont Group have begun to adopt a new automatic winding mechanism: Seiko's Magic Lever.
This system uses a reversing wheel to rectify the left and right rotation of the rotor in one direction. When rotating in the forward direction, the reversing pawl built into the reversing wheel engages with a recess on the inside, locking the reverser. When rotating in the reverse direction, the reversing pawl slides along the recess, unlocking the reverser. Because it is made up of only gears and small pawls, it is compact and suitable for mass production. However, if the inertia of the reverser is not small, winding efficiency will be poor, and if it is too small, the parts will be prone to wear.
The ratchet system converts the rotational motion of the rotor into back and forth motion of left and right pawls to wind the mainspring. This is the Magic Lever used in Seiko's 9S55. This automatic winding mechanism is now used by luxury manufacturers other than Seiko. Compared to other automatic winding systems, the number of gears can be reduced, so winding efficiency is less likely to decrease even if the oil runs out or parts wear out. On the other hand, it requires space horizontally, and there are theoretically angles at which the watch will not wind. Therefore, if the design is not done properly, the watch may not wind properly.
For a time, a debate over single-winding or bidirectional winding watches raged among watchmakers and enthusiasts. The reason it quickly died down wasn't because the winner was decided. It was because watchmakers realized that the quality of an automatic watch isn't determined solely by its design, but also by the precision of its components. In theory, any watchmaker could create a perfect automatic watch from a design perspective. However, the reason this didn't happen in practice was because, to one degree or another, they all had problems with the winding mechanism. This was especially true for bidirectional winding automatic watches.
For a long time, the standard for bidirectional automatic winding was the so-called reversing transmission type (reverser type), which switches between directions using only gears. Manufacturers that use this type include Rolex, some mechanical Seiko watches, and ETA, among many others. Reversing automatic winding is suitable for mass production, and if well designed, theoretically has very high winding efficiency. On the other hand, reversers have the problem of not winding if the processing precision is low. Furthermore, making the reverser larger increases durability, but decreases winding efficiency due to increased inertia, while making it smaller improves efficiency due to reduced inertia, but also reduces durability. Designing and manufacturing reversers was not as easy as watchmakers had thought.
Pascal Dubois, president of gear manufacturer DPRM, said, "Designing and manufacturing a reverser may seem simple, but it is actually extremely difficult. It is not something that a new manufacturer can undertake." In fact, a certain major manufacturer known for its reverser automatic watches outsources its manufacturing to DPRM.
The reverser was supposed to be easy to make and highly efficient, but the designers at various manufacturers found that it was a bottleneck in automatic winding. In response, they began to search for a bidirectional automatic winding system that was not a reverser type. This would be simpler than a reverser, and therefore easier to make.
It is not known which Swiss manufacturer first focused on the "Magic Lever" or when. It was a type of ratchet automatic winding mechanism that used a pawl to wind the gears, and had an extremely simple structure. Similar mechanisms include the Longines 19AS, Patek Philippe 12-600AT, and IWC 85 series, but Seiko's Magic Lever had an extremely small number of parts and a simple structure. Therefore, if the pawls were made strong, it was unlikely to stop winding due to deterioration over time, as was the case with reverser mechanisms.
It is unclear who first noticed it, but it was the Richemont Group that adopted it on a large scale. As far as I know, brands under its umbrella, such as Cartier, Piaget, and Panerai, now use the same "Magic Click" system as Seiko, rather than a reverser, in their automatic winding mechanisms. Even outside the Richemont Group, the micro-rotor made by Agenor and the automatic winding mechanism in Tag Heuer's Caliber 01 use Magic Click.
To be honest, there are many voices in the Swiss watch industry that are opposed to the adoption of Seiko-style automatic winding. However, the high winding efficiency provided by the simple ratchet system, or more specifically, the Magic Lever system, will likely become increasingly necessary in the future.
