I am both a fan and a defender of the journey for ever-higher exactness in mechanical watches since I believe that the quest for better precision has assembled, is as yet constructing, the actual establishment of horology.
A watch for me isn’t simply a versatile three-dimensional figure or piece of active workmanship, it is first − if not preeminent − an instrument for telling the time . . . or then again to be more exact, a watch is an instrument for telling the correct time.
I’ve read sentiments hypothesizing that there is no reason for competing for better exactness in today’s mechanical watches since they won’t ever accomplish the precision of quartz watches or our cell phones. Yet, to me that’s like saying all competitive game is an exercise in futility for anybody yet potential world champions.
To give you a thought of how emphatically I feel about the subject, the absolute first article I distributed on Quill & Pad − indeed, the absolute first article ever distributed on Quill & Pad − was called, Why Accuracy Matters To Me, And Why It Should Matter To You Too .
However, my disposition is developing. What’s more, year and a half after that first article my reasoning was epitomized in 2015 International Chronometry Competition Now Underway, But Does Anyone Care?
Well, that last inquiry presently seems to have been addressed on the grounds that, similar to you, I’ve enthusiastically followed the enlivened talk and warmed discussion after the aftereffects of the 2015 Chronometry Competition were announced.
Oh, you missed that? Me too.
Live competition and porn
There are just two things that individuals (alright, principally men) will pay for to watch or follow online in critical numbers: live (sports) competition and pornography. Also, pornography is battling (in light of the fact that an excessive number of individuals are sharing for free).
We like watching and following game and competition, everything being equal. On the off chance that live chess and poker games can pull in large number of watchers, unquestionably a biennial fight to see which watch asserts the title of the “Most Accurate Watch in the World” ought to in any event draw in the consideration of numerous with even only a passing revenue in horology.
But it doesn’t. What’s more, it’s far and away more terrible than that in light of the fact that not just doesn’t the International Chronometry Competition (Concours International de Chronométrie) draw in and hold the consideration of those with just a passing interest in horology, it can’t even hold the interest of those, similar to me, that are definitely keen regarding the matter and glad to advance it.
Speed Ice-Skating 2002 versus Concours International de Chronométrie 2015
At the Salt Lake Winter Olympics in 2002, Australian ice skater Steven Bradbury won the gold award in the 1,000-meter last notwithstanding being the most seasoned and slowest in the field.
That was Australia’s first-since forever gold decoration at winter Olympics so it was quite huge information. Quite huge news, yet on the off chance that that’s all you know . . . it’s truly an exhausting truth of history.
However, examine this video of the race here (Bradbury is last . . . until he isn’t).
Now, envision the sentiments and feelings of both the allies of the unfortunate losing top choices and the fortunate victor while following this race live, and the long stretches of discussion afterwards.
Concours International de Chronométrie 2015
I was helped to remember that Olympic skating race subsequent to seeing this picture of the triumphant watch in the Tourbillon Category of the 2015 International Timing Competition, the Louis Moinet Vertalor tourbillon.
It isn’t that I’m likening the Louis Moinet Vertalor with Steven Bradbury (however, strangely, the Vertalor was the most un-precise of every single set watch). However, I am implying that those two void platform for silver and bronze awards on one or the other side of the Vertalor – just as the two void platform on one or the other side of the triumphant Tissot chronograph – allude to an energizing competition with numerous competitors falling by the wayside.
But we wouldn’t know anything about that on the grounds that, in contrast to watching sports, chess, poker or some other competition, we can’t follow the International Chronometry Competition during the weeks in which it happens. We simply become familiar with the outcomes afterwards.
It may be useful for the competition coordinators to recall that individuals are not able to pay for learning the outcomes (yawn), yet rather for watching or following the games and competitions live as they take place.
It’s the common after of the competition that joins us and creates interest, not the last score.
And that’s what’s amiss with the Concours International de Chronométrie in its current structure. What number of individuals would enthusiastically follow soccer or Formula 1 if no games were appeared on TV and no one was permitted to watch at the arenas? All things considered, the groups would play in secret and the end of the week results are posted each Monday morning.
Riveting? I think not.
What has happened is that the coordinators of the Concours International de Chronométrie twisted around in reverse to come up with a recipe that the brands are content with, which is essentially acceptable exposure in the event that they win, however more terrible than zero exposure in the event that they lose.
And that has brought about basically no exposure by any means, in light of the fact that the solitary way a competition like can work is if the emphasis in on the crowd as opposed to the competitors. Since when you have assembled an enormous enough crowd, the brands will come.
I compliment Tissot for winning both the competition in general, just as second and third spot, and the chronograph classification. Additionally a tip of the cap to Louis Moinet for winning the tourbillon classification for the second time.
And a major thank you to all brands for supporting the competition by taking part.
And Louis Moinet and Tissot ought to be additionally complimented for making watches adequately solid to withstand being tried for half a month under conditions mimicking ordinary use. It’s been a genuine stunner to see the number of watches can’t get past the testing methods while staying inside C.O.S.C.- endorsed chronometer resiliences of precision.
Unless the Concours International de Chronométrie drastically moves its thoughtfulness regarding the crowd rather than the brands I feel it is bound to unimportance (if it’s not as of now there). What’s more, there doesn’t have all the earmarks of being a lot to lose in light of the fact that it’s not as though the current framework has borne much natural product anyway.
To the coordinators of the International Chronometry Competition I say thank you for the entirety of your diligent effort and honest goals, however that’s adequately not. Building a crowd of people isn’t simple and it will involve an extreme reconsider, however it’s the best way to make a solid establishment for future growth.
“I am to be sure baffled at the modest number of members, and I trust that the causes can be found in the unsure condition of the watchmaking industry since the start of the year. I dare not mull over that the accuracy and unwavering quality of the items may be just brand promoting trademarks, not founded on real quantifiable performances,” commented Philippe Fischer, director of the competition.
Well, Fisher probably won’t try to mull over that numerous brands are showcasing fake relief, yet it’s troublesome not to believe that the proof is pointing toward that path. Where are the entirety of the great accuracy silicon hairsprings, high-recurrence adjusts, and new escapements in the circumstance competitions? The hole between unverified cases in public statements and hard information appears to be developing ever wider.
Pandering to brands doesn’t work for anyone, including the actual brands (and they know that).
I wish the Concours International de Chronométrie the very best for the future and genuinely trust that its coordinators figure out how to figure out how to improve public interest in the competition . . . be that as it may, I’m not holding my breath.
For more data, if it’s not too much trouble, visit www.concourschronometrie.org .