patrick_y[PuristSPro Moderator]
28404
Nice, but how does this add value to me? And how long does that value addition last?
Jul 22, 2014,13:40 PM
Did anyone notice at 1:48 in the video the moonphase disc was advancing almost like a second hand?
First of all, yes, testing is very important. No consumer likes to put on their brand new watch and right away it fails. That'd be awful. That has certainly happened to me, from a top-tier brand, and it was not a great feeling.
While it is probably obvious, the more testing, the greater the reduction of immediate failures, I still wonder if a 500 hour test really matters... For two reasons...
1. The Jaeger-LeCoultre test is supposedly 1000 hours! Does this mean that Jaeger-LeCoultre watches are twice as thoroughly tested?
and
2. How important is testing if the watch will be fully disassembled for a service every 5-7 years? After servicing, a 500 hour test is not conducted.
All of this makes me wonder the following:
1. What is the correlation of testing and failure rates, how much percentage decrease of failures occur for every 100 hours of testing?
2. Is there a long-term value to such testing after a service?
3. Geneva seal is more about construction methods and aesthetic finishing methods of the movement. These will always be inherent properties to the movement no matter what. The Geneva Seal doesn't have stipulations regarding accuracy. A watch that passes the Geneva Seal today, will pass after a service (unless servicing watchmaker scratches/damages or re-arranges parts).
4. A watch that passes a 500 hour test, will not necessarily pass the same 500 hour test after servicing.
Validating points 3 and 4, I put value on a Geneva Seal because a Geneva Seal is something the watch will always have. But, this 500 hour certificate is not something the watch maintains after service. Because the service process doesn't include a 500 hour testing regimen.
So, it begs the question; is 500 hour testing, 1000 hour testing, a marketing ploy? Probably partially. The point was to make the watch a super reliable and accurate watch out of the factory, but after a service in a few years, there is no such testing procedure. Thus, the 500 hours of testing is good, but only applicable for the first few years. I always try to be careful to not drink the Kool-Aid... Funny fact; they actually they used Flavor-Aid at the Jonestown mass murder/suicide, but Kool-Aid got all the credit. From a marketing perspective is that good or bad marketing for Kool-Aid? Probably bad, and it wasn't even their product.
Some will say that the 500 hours of testing is an indicator of initial quality. That's true. And that initial quality is indicative of future and later quality. Maybe not so true.
Look at airplane pilots who pilot planes for major Western-country airlines. To get a commercial pilots license requires hundreds of hours of experience. And that is reinforced with thousands of hours of on-the-job experience. BUT! Pilots still need to be re-licensed and go through quite thorough checks. And pilots do sometimes fail those checks due to many factors (health, vision, technical, etc.). A pilot who passes today, may not necessarily pass tomorrow. A watch that passes a 500 hour test today doesn't get tested for 500 hour test after a service either (and therefore can't be promised to pass).
This message has been edited by patrick_y on 2014-07-22 13:45:12