Talk:Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of watches. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Fashion Portal

This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!

This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.

High

This article is on a subject of high-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Time Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Watch is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Also there is no section on turbillons. The complication paragraph needs to be expanded to include grand complications and other variations, jewels etc. There is so much more to watches than this article. This is very dissappointing.

What is the etymology of the word 'watch' (as in "a small portable timepiece"?) How do self-winding mechanical watches work?

I removed this sentence, "About 4 times per day a radio wristwatch will check this radio signal and reset itself to the exact time." My Casio G-Shock only resets once per day. Is 4 times a day normal and the G-Shock is the exception to the rule? It seemed like this was at least an overgeneralization.

[edit] Mechanical watches "most precisely engineered mechanisms in existence"

I strongly doubt that, by orders of magnitudes. I do not think that the precision comes close to e.g. harddisk production etc.If there are no bjections, I will just remove the sentence. Brontosaurus 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The other extremely precisely engineered device is actually the humble video recorder head, built to much higher precision than any mechanical watch component. Colin99 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And then there are disk drives. And diffraction grating ruling machines. And mask steppers -- the machines that project the mask patterns onto semiconductor chips. Those operate to tolerances that are a fraction of the IC feature size -- right now that's 45 nanometers, give or take, in the densest chips. So watches miss the mark by at least 4 if not 5 orders of magnitude. Paul Koning 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Made Watches

I question the validity of this paragraph:

Important collectible American made watches from the early 20th Century were the best available at any price. Leading watchmakers included Elgin, Gruen, Hamilton, and Illinois. Hamilton is generally considered as having the finest early American movements, while the art deco styling of The Illinois Watch Company was unsurpassed worldwide. Early Gruen Curvex models remain very desired for how they entwined form and function, and Elgin made more watches than anyone else.

It appears biased, the last sentence doesn't elaborate on 'entwining form and function' which is a very abstract phrase. Also in the same sentence it not only has a grammatical error by having a comma followed by the word 'and' but it also makes very bold point that is irrelevant to the rest of the sentence. I think a citation would be required when making as bold a statement as a company making more watches than any other company for the entire century.

[edit] Luxury watches

Perhaps high end watches needs to be addressed in further depth. Chopard and Cardier as well as most women's watches are thought of as more of jewelry and hence many are quartz. While Breguet, Blancpain, Patek are rarely quartz, and hence rarely thought of as jewelry or ornamentation but as timepieces. The section describing high end watches needs to be cleaned up, one can tell it was not written by someone that knows watches. Also I don't believe Patek invented the first wristwatch, i thought it was Breguet??

First please, excuse my movement of your post to this section; it will make it easier for others interested in the discussion to join. I agree that there should be more written about the high-end watch market. The only issue I have here is that there is debate as to where some brands fall (though others are clearly in certain groups). A good page that was alreadly linked to on this article can be found here [1]. My only problems are that it spends far too long trying to explain that Rolexes aren't the be-all, end-all of watches and having a giant love-in with Omega watches and not enough on the brilliant table at the bottom that makes an admirable attempt at splitting the higher-end watches into sub-groups based on reputation and price. As a guide to the way brands are split, here are the example given for each sub-group:

High-end luxury - A Lange and Sohne, Alain Silberstein, Audemars Piguet, Blancpain, Breguet, Franck Muller, JLC, Parmigiani, Patek Phillipe, Ulysse Nardin, Vacheron Constantin
Luxury - Breitling, Cartier, Ebel, Omega, Rolex
Pseudo Luxury Watches - Baume & Mercier, Raymond Weil, Tag Heuer
Basic Luxury Watches - Epos, Fortis, Movado, Oris

I don't know about you but this (as well as the explanations of the groups in the table seems reasonable based on my (admitedly limited) experience with luxury watches. I imagine there will be some debate on those makers not included on this list, and where they fit in as well as on other topics but I'd appreciate feedback from all about placing this table in the article or perhaps even starting (an, IMO, long overdue artilce on luxury watches in particular).--Zoso Jade 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to, but you may want to add Girard-Perregaux in the "High-end luxury" section. Zenith, IWC,in the "Luxury" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.155.23 (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to german version

There is a bit of a problem with the link to the german, as the english "watch" basically means "the union set of pocketwatches and wristwatches" (correct?) and there is no such word in german (there is a word for general "timekeeping device" and specific types of them, but no word that encompasses exactly those 2 specific types). The link was towards pocketwatches and I've changed it to wristwatches as those are more common, is this okay with everybody? Peter S. 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Today, nearly every Westerner wears a watch on his wrist

I think we need to correct that. Since cell phones are popular (since 5 years or so) I think less and less people (specialy teenagers) wear watches.

[edit] El Questiono

Why does my watch say: Mon, Tue, Wed, Thur, Fri, Sat, Sun from 1am to 12am and Dom, Lun, Mar, Mie, Jue, Vie, Sab (el spanisho) from 12am to 1am??? Answer that one... :P~

Your mechanical watch was built to display the day in either English or Spanish. The date wheel inside has the names of the days in both languages. When you set the watch, you will have some way of indexing it to either the Spanish or English names.

To advance from Dom to Lun, it has to move the date wheel two "steps". It makes these movements an hour apart. If you look at in during that hour, you will see the "off" language.

Watches with many complications that need to change daily don't always change them in a single set of motions. It is normal for a watch to take several hours to prepare all the displays (day, date, month, etc.) for the new day. Since this typically happens in the middle of the night, when the wearer awakes, the watch is ready. -O^O

[edit] News of my death.........

The beginning of the watch discussion suggests that mechanical watches are a thing of the past. Mechanical watches are produced today in the millions and will be for the forseeable future. Switzerland produced 100 million mechanical watches from 1990 to 2000.

I suppose what he was trying to say was that quartz has taken over the utilitarian end of the market. If you just want timekeeping functions, quartz is cheaper and more accurate. Mechanical watches are now luxuries, valued more for their history, esthetic qualities and as jewelry than for their timekeeping abilities. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Seiko 5 series, for example, is a series of inexpensive but accurate mechanical watches that have been very popular from the 70s to this day. I think it goes deeper than what you suggest. Survivalists, adventurers etc as well as normal people who don't want to depend on batteries are among consumers who prefer the simplicity, ruggedness and self-sufficiency of a good mechanical watch. Good mechanical watches like the Seiko 5 models lose about a minute per week and are also automatic. One minute per week is about 52 minutes per year. Even if you went to the Amazon jungle and never adjusted the watch at the end of the year you would only be off by 52 minutes. Compare that to the problem you would have if you ran out of batteries halfway into your adventure. What kind of watch would you take to the Amazon? Dr.K. (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that they are "green" (environmentally friendly) and cheaper to maintain since battery replacement, if done by a watch specialist, runs at about 7 bucks a pop. Dr.K. (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And of course let's not forget the third world, people in villages, the handicapped, the old and other underprivileged populations for whom a trip to the nearest mall's watch specialist is either impossible, unknown, or simply not part of their way of life at all. However almost everyone has a radio. For these underprivileged people the time keeping routine involves listening to their radio time announcement once a week, adjusting their mechanical timepiece and then go about their business without having to worry about any watch battery replacement. Dr.K. (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points, especially about the 3rd world. I don't know what the penetration of quartz watches is there. You're right, mechanical watches aren't a 'thing of the past', but they're becoming a smaller part of the market. In 1998 alone, Hong Kong exported about 500 million quartz watches 1, p.231, dwarfing the decade's Swiss production of 100 million mechanical watches quoted above. Not that I think this is good - I like mechanical watches for the excellent reasons you mentioned. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You cannot impede progress. Indeed we are all dependent and even addicted to the modern conveniences afforded to us by the ever growing number of features and modes present on quartz watches which are increasingly becoming something of a moving entertainment/connectivity centre due to technological convergence. But for the substantial minority living under more rugged conditions than we are normally accustomed to and also for the many of us who sometimes want to go back to basics such as using the watch as a device for telling time (and are not very fussy to tell it to the nearest split second), the mechanical watch will have a niche. How long this niche will last and how big it will be in the future, only time can tell. Thank you very much for your kind comments and great input, which made me think about such an interesting subject, and take care. Dr.K. (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watchmakers and Watch Brands

I'm wondering about the usefulness of this list in its current form. It is a very long list of watch makers with links to their website without any additional information. Does someone has an idea on how this list may be used by wikipedia readers ? Dragice 10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the Cesium?

Why no mention of cesium clocks? TheLimbicOne 16:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There are cesium clocks, but no cesium watches. Paul Koning 20:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cesium clocks are precise, but as far as I know, there are no cesium clock or timepieces of any kind sold at this moment. The closest are atomic, or radio, clocks, which, despite, the name, only connect to a radio broadcast of the time, and the broadcast is measured by a cesium clock.

[edit] Commercial Links

I suggest we remove links to commercial watch vendors such as "misterwatch" and limit links to resource pages only

Agreed. I keep removing that one, and it keeps coming back. I have just reported the URL to the Spam blacklist, so I hope it will get permanently blocked some day. --Heron 12:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Would this be an acceptable link to use?

Information on the user of titanium in wrist watches

I added it but then started to read the guidelines and although it is informative at the same time the site is primarly for commercial intent so I'm not sure if that is acceptable. I read a suggestion to post it here and ask for advice if I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.150.23 (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is there anyone can anser me this Q?

i found out that almost 99% of analoge watches shown in magazine,newspaper or cataloge show the same time. that is 10.10. why is it 10:10.is there any meaning?

Answer: This is a recurring question on many watch fora. The most common answer is: the 10:10 position looks like a 'smile'. If the hands would point to, for example, 7:20, the hands would form a 'frown'. Another answer is that this position usually doesn't block any of the watch's important features or markings (the logo, the date window, etc.). Even some digital watch manufacturers do this.

Reply: The "Smile" is something I have never heard of before. Not blocking the 12:00 brand markings is what I've heard, as well as being symmetrical. For the time being 10:10, rather than 1:50, is generally regarded that the time 10:10 can denote both evening and morning hours where one isn't up late or up early, where as 1:50 could denote that it is "past the bedtime", giving the viewer a psychological feeling of uneasiness.

Also, such as the date usually showing the 28th most generally, as well as Wednesday as a day, is because they fill the aperture of the dial the fullest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.117.136 (talk)

[edit] removed nonsense

More than this, digital watches have the more philosophical implication of fragmenting the linear and controlling functions of time. By presenting only a number that can be glanced at in a vaccum from all other time, they free the reader from a spatial notion of time. Mechanical watches force us to see time as a moving hand on a clock face, whereas the flashes of a digital clock open the space for different interpretations and can help to ensure that our bodies and minds are not conrolled by the flows of linear time. James Herndon, a communications scholar with a focus on time studies, argues that "any attempt to disempower the biojuridical phenominological existence of timepieces that fails to recognize and delineate mechanical vis a vis digital timepieces is scholastically absurd to the point of being asinine."

removed above piece of nonsense from the digital watch#Digital watches section.

--Unconcerned 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

not quite "nonsense", but indeed it is quite over-wrought in language and, furthermore, is theoretical in nature. What the passage is trying to say is that digital watches forces you to regard time in the immediate sense, as an absolute value ("It's 2:49 right now"), while an analog watch forces you to see time in relation to the coming or passing hours ("It's ten minutes 'til two").

[edit] waterproofing

There is no section on waterproof watches: how is it achieved and what do the different waterproofing ratings mean (50m, 100m, etc.)? There is a common misconception that the 'm' rating is actually the maximum depth underwater that the watch can handle, however, this is not true. I believe 50m meant that the watch is splash-proof, 100m means it's swim-proof, and larger numbers are for diving and deep diving. I am, however, unsure of the exact specifications. Please add a section with appropriate information. maraz 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's usually water-resistant, not water-proof. Second, it varies by manufacturer. However, I think Seiko is a typical, good-quality watch maker, without being a luxury watch maker, though they do make some more expensive watches, including diving watches. Here's the Seiko FAQ: see the section on this topic: Seiko FAQ. Feel free to add the information to the article--Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. -THB 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Made section, Watch#Water_resistance. At least, it's a start. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

My Casio watch says "Water Resistant 20BAR", now how deep is that? --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

20Bar is 200 meters. Are you asking or are you asking for the info to be put in the article? =P --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just asking... ;) --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timepieces vs. clocks

I have added brief references to the nature of "timepieces" (such as wristwatches) that lack striking mechanisms, and noted that this distinction sets them apart from "clocks," which usually have bells or gongs that announce the passage of time. Some watches, of course, have this feature and can correctly be designated clocks. It is hoped that this distinction will be helpful to those who investigate timekeeping instruments and their useful characteristics. Jack Bethune 19:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrist Watch invented in the end of the 19th century?

I sincerely doubt this. While researching Baroque paintings, I encounter the French piece of A Lady on Her Day Bed , 1743 by François Boucher. His wife is posed reclining upon a day bed and is clearly wearing a wrist watch. The piece is located in the Frick. External Link:Painting in the Frick Collection displaying the wrist watch

The first documented sale of a wristwatch was by Breguet to the Queen of Naples in 1810. Adam Wang 15:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That does actually look like a watch, although it could also be some kind of jewelery. JayKeaton 22:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do stopwatches work?

I decided to answer this question before it's asked. Watch crystals are invariably 32768Hz. Divide by two, 15 times, and you get 1Hz pulses to drive a watch counter or electromechanical movement. So, I hear you ask, how do stopwatches work, these count in 10ths or even 100ths of a second? Well they could re-engineer the whole thing to use a different frequency of crystal, perhaps 100kHz instead of 32.768kHz, then the required fractions of a second could be taken from divide-by-10 counters. They could, but they don't. In practice the stopwatch adds 1/32768 second fractions to a counter and calculates how many 10ths or 100ths of a second have elapsed since the start signal. Of course this is an approximation, but good enough for a wristwatch. This is done because 32.768kHz crystals and trimmers are readily available in the required small size for a watch, other frequencies would consume more space and the dividers would probably consume more power. Colin99 19:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that someone has changed from "most" to "many" watches have 32768Hz crystals. No, it should be most. Virtually all in fact. Name a recent quartz watch which uses any other frequency... Colin99 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it's done, or even whether it's done -- it may be designers simply use the closest approximation and ignore the error. (That could easily be tested.) However, it's easy to do it right -- using a frequency synthesizer. Paul Koning 01:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In the first stages of quartz movement design, the first oscillator was not 32.768kHz. I am not certain of the frequency, but it was much slower, and the crystal a much larger size, which consumed more energy to maintain its oscillations. The tuning fork shaped crystal design which was at 32.768kHz was the major breakthrough in the electronic quartz watch design, though the technology was developed elsewhere, not in a watch factory. In regards to Paul Koning's remark, that is almost precisely how it is done. It would be practically impossible to cut and manufacture quartz crystals to vibrate precisely at 32.768kHz. As with all manufacturing, there is a tolerance of machining. Manufacturers will cut the crystal into the tuning fork shape smaller than the required size. This makes the oscillations faster, thus the watch will run faster if not compensated some how. In practical purposes, an unadjusted quartz watch will run three or four seconds fast a day. Older quartz logic circuits had a trimmer that could be manually adjusted by the manufacturer or watchmaker, such as a regulator arm on a balance and hairspring mechanical watch. Newer quartz watch circuits will have a function in their logic called "Inhibition". What this does is every 60 seconds or so, depending on how many times the coil is impulsed, rotating the gear train and progressing the hands, the IC will halt a programmed duration, delaying the next impulse of the coil. This lets the watch, which was gaining time for one minute, slow down enough to essentially maintain accurate timekeeping. Generally, this cannot be readjusted by anyone besides the circuit manufacturer, which is nearly never the same as the watch movement manufacturer. A select few of professional quartz watch testing devices have abilities to modify this setting through trying to flash a new variable into the IC of the circuit, but it does not work well in the field of watch repair. It is more efficient to replace a bad circuit than repair it. Besides, most watchmakers were trained in the mechanical aspect of watches and only briefly into the theory and application of electronic watches (like myself).

Unitepunx 21:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

While an interesting item you have added there, it's not quite answering the right question. We were pondering the way that 10th and 100th's of seconds were adjusted in stopwatches, not how watches in general maintain timekeeping. Paul's idea would be impractical within the power constraints of a wristwatch, I believe. But since you have raised the point of timekeeping, this is interesting that many manufacturers no longer include trimmers. So the watches (or at least ones away from the sub £5 bracket) would be trimmed at manufacture of the chip and crystal assembly. This seems entirely logical. I once had a brainwave that radio controlled watches could "learn" the inaccuracy of their inbuilt crystal used for timekeeping between radio reception, and apply adjustments throughout the day, ideal if radio reception might be unavailable for some days for example. A short conversation with Junghans informed me that they do this already in some of their newer designs. Colin99 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say a frequency synthesizer would be impractical in a watch. It only takes a few transistors, and there's no reason it should take more than a trivial amount of power. Also note that you'd only need to turn it on while the stopwatch function is operating, which further reduces the issue. Paul Koning 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "mechanical watch" here?

I'd suggest merging mechanical watch into this article, since it doesn't seem to stand on its own as a separate article. Paul Koning 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May I request that mechanical watch not be merged into watch. I think it would be more beneficial to the community to expand on the mechanical watch article as itself. In my opinion, the article is very poorly written in its current state. Unitepunx 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Unitepunx. I feel there is so much innovation going on in the watch field (the proliferating functions of digital watches, combinations of analog and digital technology, new materials, new power sources, new styles, etc.) that this article has to cover. Whereas mechanical watches are a separate, more traditional field, and should benefit from their own article. If both mechanical and digital watches were covered thoroughly in this article, it would be HUGE. I agree with Paul that the existing mechanical watch article is broken, but I'd like to see it fixed, not merged. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Numerals - IV vs. IIII

Why do most watches with Roman Numerals display IIII vs. IV? I have read a number of theories but none seem conclusive. Any ideas? Rclancy 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)rclancy

As you mention there are many theories, but the one most traditionally held by the watchmaking community at large is that when dials were made in the 17th and 18th centuries, usually by a dialmaker that had little to no knowledge of watchmaking or manufacture, they were told to keep the numerals 9:00 through 3:00 inwards, so the bottom of the numeral was to the center of the dial, and the numerals 4:00 through 8:00 outwards, so the bottom of the numeral was pointed outwards to the edge of the dial. This made it seem that when the dial was held up, all the numbers were still vertical in nature, even though they were nearly all rotated to be in line with the radius of the dial. As these were made, they started to notice that 6 (VI) and 4 (IV) were too close together and were sometimes confused. So since 6 was more prominent, they left it alone, changing IV to IIII.

Unitepunx 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Wrote The Article, Mechanical Watch, And I Mean It To Be Quite Different From The Watch Article

As writer of the Mechanical Watch article, I had meant this page to be quite different in content as well as explanation to the original branched Watch article. It is NOT in my opinion to merge these two articles, as the explanations to fusees as well as the mechanical movements are important to be explained independently on a separate page. As writer of the article, I am fully against the decision to merge these two articles together. G'Day, -- Steven Suttles Stone 00:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: As a newer user and contributer of Wiki, i would agree that Watch should provide general information on the watch, specifically cases, displays, bracelets, etc. where as Mechanical Watch should be the recipient of much of the information that is on this page. I'm afraid this page is in dire need of a cleanup. As example, one of the first sections, Parts, includes a tourbillon along with the balance and escapement. while it denotes that it (tourbillon) is 'Optional", it is the most unlikely complication added to a watch. I think the Gear train can be added in its place, and subdivided into the 5 Different classifications of gear trains in a simple mechanical watch etc, along with the 3 types of gear trains... blah blah blah I can go on.

Point being. Please don't merge Mechanical Watch into Watch —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.117.136 (talk) 06:43, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not representative enough?

I'm puzzled by today's edits in which a number of photos and other material were eliminated on the grounds of "not representative enough". So what? Are they good photos that illustrate what the article describes? If so, leave them in. The fact that they are Russian instead of Swiss is not relevant. The fact that they may not be the first chronographs isn't relevant either. Paul Koning 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the entire gallery of photos was deleted, in addition to an excellent close-up of watch internals at the top of the article. They are all photos of watches, both digital and analog, very representative. The user who deleted should have been more specific, and should have made a note in the talk page. I am reverting as best I can. --Bridgecross 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see some of his reasoning now; most of the watches in the gallery were from one Russian company. This made the gallery seem like an advertisement, and it was a bit one-sided. However not ALL of the photos were like this, and it also left the article without a decent photo near the top. I am reverting some of the gallery, and moving a photo up. Anybody have better idea, let me know.--Bridgecross 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Paul Koning 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what's the deal with these watches?

I'm not commercially link spamming, I really want to know. Are these weird LED things common in Japan? Notable enough to be mentioned in the article? --86.144.101.134 16:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital watches with unconventional displays are widely available across the world. There are several gadget sites selling them and I have found retail stores in my country providing them as well. So either you are in good faith but ignorant or you are spamming, but claiming not to be. In either case I'm removing the link to the online store, since it's against wikipedia's policy. Now if you want to add a section to the article about unconventional watches, be my guest, I actually think it would be a worthwhile addition. --Ferengi 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs to be reorganized?

This article desperately needs a comprehensive rewrite/reorganization. The only section on the history of watches, misleadingly labeled 'Pocket timepieces' is very incomplete. The section on 'Parts' only deals with mechanical watches, and only mentions the escapement and balance wheel, ignoring other essential parts. And the above 2 subsections are grouped under 'Watch cases'! The article seems like an eclectic collection of sections on watch features people have added because they are interested in them. Nothing wrong with that, but someone needs to edit it into a comprehensive, organized overview. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did celestial navigation have anything to do with watches?

Re: 'Pocket timepieces' section. Did celestial navigation have anything to do with the development of watches in the 15th century? What I've read says portable clocks and watches evolved because people wanted to know what time it was, for daily use. Besides, before the balance spring in 1657, watches were so inaccurate (~1hr/day) that there's no way anyone would think them applicable to navigation. Mostly they were just expensive novelties for the rich. Of course later, during the 18th & 19th centuries, marine chronometer design innovations were applied to watches. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ten Past Ten

Why do watches, when advertised, almost always show the time ten past ten? Could the answer be added to the main article? Robinson weijman (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From this posting under the title "Ten past ten" Quote: is the best placement of the two arms of the watch and it makes the appearance of the watch very elegant and in a state of equilibrium. and this setting of the watch as a face symbolic of gleeful reception which gives cheers to a viewer/reader. The two arms of the watch equally stretched divergently upwards symbolise receiving a person warmly with open arms. That is why the watch is invariably shown "ten past ten. The posting then goes on to analyze other hand configurations and it concludes that 10 past 10 has the optimum appeal based on aesthetic/psychological reasons. 17:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also here it is mentioned that 10 past 10 looks like a smiling face. Dr.K. (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers. So, should this be added to the main article? By the way, I've often heard this "smiley face" argument - but is it true? I mean, does it work. Any articles on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinson weijman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The smiley face link which I found seems to be a reliable source but I don't know of any books that mention this or the other reasons for the 10:10 configuration. As far as inclusion I am against creating a new section only for this fact but if there is an advertising related entry, in any section, it could be included with inline citations. I consider this to be an interesting point but not necessarily of significant encyclopaedic importance. On the other hand this is just my opinion. If you disagree please go ahead and modify as you choose. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an article called 10:08 discussed this, but it was deleted because it was mostly speculation with lots of contradictory claims. Before adding any information to this article, I would recommend reviewing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10:08 discussion. It would probably be very useful to ask a wikipedia admin to recover the deleted talk page and article so that it could be used as a starting point. If someone wants to put the effort into actually making a good article on this subject, I think you make something that wouldn't be delted again. However, references like mentioned above to would not qualify as reliable sources. Wrs1864 (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it is of importance for Wikipedia, because you see this everywhere! Here's another question: is it Ten Past Ten or Ten To Two? Robinson weijman (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As the old 10:08 article explained, there are many times being used and many sources that claim that the time on clocks/watches in advertising is "always" 10:10, 1:50, 8:20, and quite a few other times. These conflicting sources that claimed that the when the time "always" was is part of why the article was deleted. Again, this is something that someone will have to put some effort into or it will just be deleted again. Wrs1864 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fish wearing a wristwatch

It's a long shot, but does anyone know the name of a children's story featuring a fish who always wanted to have a watch? Eventually the wish is granted and the fish gets to wear the watch around his or her waist. I've been trying to track this down for years with no luck --Totorotroll (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)