The Fourth Wheel, Issue 111: Ask Me Anything

Your questions answered: The most important horological development of the last century; recycling watches; diminishing returns and what current trend will one day make us cringe.

Hello and welcome back to The Fourth Wheel, the weekly watch newsletter that is once again pleased to answer your questions. Once again, you lovely people have come up with the goods. Thank you to all those who gave me something to think about - doing this is one of my favourite elements of TFW and this week is no exception. If you’re a new subscriber, this is something that usually happens every tenth issue, when circumstances don’t interfere. If you had a question you just didn’t get around to asking, send it in and stick around for nine weeks…

---

---

The Fourth Wheel is a reader-supported publication with no advertising, sponsorship or commercial partnerships to influence its content. It is made possible by the generous support of its readers: if you think watch journalism could do with a voice that exists outside of the usual media dynamic, please consider taking out a paid subscription. You can start with a free trial!

Here’s a little taste of what you might have missed recently:

Can Switzerland Ever Embrace Quartz?
World Exclusive: Horological Dicktionary On The Record
Louis Vuitton Brings Back The Classic Round Watch
Review: The Schofield Obscura

---

Ask Me Anything…

What’s the most important development/advancement in watchmaking in the last 100 years? - mostlymovado on Instagram

This is what I get for saying I’ll answer anything - a question that could be a small book in the answering. But I love it all the same.

The last 100 years, whether he knew it or not, is a prescient choice by Lawrence, because it means my answer is just about eligible: the automatic winding rotor. Developed by John Harwood, a watchmaker from Bolton who recognised the shortcomings of hand-wound watches during World War 1, the very first self-winding movement was patented in 1923 but first produced in 1926. It wasn’t great by today’s standards, but it was good enough for a little firm called Rolex to jump on the invention, improve it and market it as its own (with 1931’s debut of the Oyster Perpetual)¹. If you ask me, the ability for a watch to wind itself was integral to the success of wristwatches as an idea, full stop; there is a good chance the pocket watch was dying out regardless, but can you imagine wristwatches finding such popularity among the newly-minted leisure classes of the 1950s if you had to keep stopping to wind them up?

There are other candidates to consider, especially if you keep the widest possible definition of watchmaking. The quartz movement, obviously - on which note, do take a read of Issue 109 if you haven’t already for a good look at what quartz really did, and didn’t, do to the mechanical watch industry. Hand-in-glove with the quartz oscillator is of course the coin battery, and I would also suggest that the microchip, printed circuit board and LED display have had a pretty seismic impact on the world of watches. You could also argue that the CNC machine, automated production line and computer-aided design have been transformative. But these are inventions whose impact was far broader: for developments that specifically affected watches, I don’t have any advance on the invention of the automatic rotor. Which is a pretty damning verdict on the intervening 98 years, isn’t it?

From the British Museum, a Harwood Automatic from 1929

The co-axial escapement was the greatest horological improvement of its time. What’s the next one going to be? - bellross_londonboutique on Instagram

Well. Well, well, well. You guys are ganging up on me now.

I don’t know if I totally accept the premise of the question - even without thinking too hard about the precise period of time that we’re talking about, I would throw silicon technology into the mix right away. But that’s not what’s being asked - and the co-axial is definitely a major improvement on a very fundamental element of mechanical watchmaking. Escapements, as it has been said before, are hard. So even though only Omega (‘only’ one of the world’s largest brands) uses the co-axial escapement, I’ll agree it’s an important improvement to horology overall.

What next though? As luck would have it, I’ve spent some time recently (working on the upcoming podcast project I’ve mentioned here and there) researching some of the more adventurous watches that were produced in the last 15 years. What this means is that when I’m asked about horological improvements, I’m moved to say we’ve already had them, and the bad news is nobody cared enough.

Maybe that’s a bit harsh. What is maybe more accurate is to say that coming up with improvements is, well, not easy, but that coming up with improvements that can be industrialised in a cost-effective way is the real magic. We’ve seen watches with otherworldly oscillators, vacuum-sealed cases, superpowered shock-resistance systems and 50-year warranties, and next to none of it has made it into a watch you or I could realistically buy. The potential promise of the last generation’s worth of R&D is a mechanical movement that would run for decades without a service, keep remarkably good time and withstand almost all outside interference, but unfortunately it would cost £100,000 and be the size of a desk clock. The commercial imperatives necessary to drive down manufacturing costs just haven’t materialised, because people are happy enough with the sort of incremental improvements to tried-and-tested movements that are already on offer. So when you ask what the next co-axial is going to be, I have to reply by saying I’m not that sure it’s coming at all…!

Twenty years ago was peak ‘big watch’ era. What will journalists be looking back on in 20 years’ time and shaking their heads at? - Felix Scholz