Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Dec 2012 15:50 UTC

Thread beginning with comment 546525
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Good idea, wrong producer
by Laurence on Fri 28th Dec 2012 17:30
in reply to "RE[9]: Good idea, wrong producer"
I don't know about that - I think there was lots of rubbish, too. We rarely remember it because... it didn't survive to our times.
And with watches there's also the issue of accuracy, not merely if it works or not.
I think MOS's statement was a fair one. Things are made much cheaper these days, but then that's the price we pay for wanting to pay less for goods. The upshot is that watches are now affordable where as once upon a time they weren't to a great majority of people.
RE[11]: Good idea, wrong producer
by zima on Mon 31st Dec 2012 00:26
in reply to "RE[10]: Good idea, wrong producer"
But OTOH just because something was expensive, doesn't mean it had to be reliable and lasting. I have few old watches around, they are unreliable as timekeepers.
Now, inexpensive quartz watches are quite reliable and lasting. Watchmaker profession nearly disappeared, it's not needed.
RE[10]: Good idea, wrong producer
by MOS6510 on Sat 29th Dec 2012 09:46
in reply to "RE[9]: Good idea, wrong producer"
RE[11]: Good idea, wrong producer
by zima on Mon 31st Dec 2012 00:28
in reply to "RE[10]: Good idea, wrong producer"
Member since:
2005-07-06
I don't know about that - I think there was lots of rubbish, too. We rarely remember it because... it didn't survive to our times.
And with watches there's also the issue of accuracy, not merely if it works or not.