Watch identification

[epbrown]

I saw a watch a while back that i really liked and now I can't remember what it's called. It was a German model, I think, and had only one hand on a 12-hour dial. Anyone know what type of watch this was? I know we've got watch buffs here, and figured someone might have heard of it.

[epbrown]

Found it - the Meistersinger 1Z!

[StevoRocket]

http://www.gwatch.com/meistersinger.html

[cegerer]

There are now several versions on this watch available. I've purchased from WatchBuys - they're excellent!

http://watchbuys.com/MeisterSinger.htm

This is a new limited edition version - not sure how I lke it - the busy dial sorta takes away from the simplicity of the orginal design.

[epbrown]

Thanks for the links, guys. I'm going with the 38mm Business model with tan dial - nice, not too big, and good price as well!

[masraum]

Nice, I like it, simple. I like the GMT model too.

[bigchillcar]

http://www.timepiecesusa.com/product_details.php?p_id=97&vlang_id=141

wound up with this from dad this past xmas. daniel steiger, gold 'evolution'..you can see moving parts..leather band..i just hope it holds up..i've been wondering how well it keeps time, but you have to wind it or wear it daily, so..
ryan

[stuartj]

Some things really havent be improved on. Like the four wheeled car, the two handed analogue watch interface, as we know it, is one of those things.

On this watch, the increments on the minute chapter represents 5 min intervals. This watch therefore displays time to +/- 2.5 minutes.

So error is designed into the instument. What difference then, does the finesse of the mechanical movement make to a watch that can only tell you the time within several minutes.

What a fkn moronic, superfluous concept. Different for the sake of being different.

I might be someones idea of innovation in horology, its certainly not mine. How does this represent "fitness for purpose?"

Next you will be telling us there is COSC version available. LOL.

[porsche356a]

Perhaps, I am obtuse, but how the hell do you tell time on that thing?

[M.D. Holloway]

That pic is 9:50. Each hash mark is 5 minutes with larger ones indicating 15, 30 and 45 marks.

[bigchillcar]

didn't even notice it only hand a single hand until now. it took me 5-6 beers..what does that say? oh well..
ryan

[epbrown]

Originally posted by stuartj
Some things really havent be improved on. Like the four wheeled car, the two handed analogue watch interface, as we know it, is one of those things.

Actually, the 2-hand system was improved on quite a while back - with the digital readout. As for accuracy, the cheapest quartz movement around is more accurate than my Rolex, much less this watch. Like in most areas of life, character counts for a lot, and this watch has character.

[masraum]

Originally posted by epbrown
Actually, the 2-hand system was improved on quite a while back - with the digital readout. As for accuracy, the cheapest quartz movement around is more accurate than my Rolex, much less this watch. Like in most areas of life, character counts for a lot, and this watch has character.

Yep. I'd probably opt for the GMT version or the version that has the extra register, but I think the one handed version is cool. You might not want that version if you had to know time exactly, but for regular daily life, it should be fine.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by epbrown
Actually, the 2-hand system was improved on quite a while back - with the digital readout. As for accuracy, the cheapest quartz movement around is more accurate than my Rolex, much less this watch. Like in most areas of life, character counts for a lot, and this watch has character.

I said the "analogue" interface. You may compare a digital watch, or even a quartz watch, to a mechanical watch in the same way you might compare a Corolla or a WRX to a 911. Each has its place.

However, if you appreciate this:



to take even a mechanical movement like the Unitas or garden variety ETA such as in that watch and "improve" it by creating a watch that tells the time to the nearest 2.5 minutes, is plain stupid. Form over function.

Has it character? Yes it does.

[Isabo]

Actually a digital read-out is not as easy to take in as an analogue dial. That analogue looks better in my eyes is just a bonus. Imagine a car dashboard full of digital read-outs and one with analogue dials - which would give you the most easily absorbed information, with the least effort, in the least time. Analogue everytime.

[cegerer]

" ... by creating a watch that tells the time to the nearest 2.5 minutes, is plain stupid. Form over function."

Come on, when's the last time you really needed to know the time to within 2 1/2 minutes anyway?! I would argue that the single-hand design is quicker/easier to read/comprehend than any 2-hand watch and certainly quicker than any digital display - that's function over form.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by cegerer
[B
I would argue that the single-hand design is quicker/easier to read/comprehend than any 2-hand watch and certainly quicker than any digital display - that's function over form. [/B]

I look forward to reading that argument.


Look at this this way. Several hundred years of horological development has produced the mechanical watch movement, a tiny miracle of wheels, gears and springs, balances and escapements, that is capable of keeping time to within +3/-7 seconds in 24 hours under every condition that humans can withstand. (Yes, quartz movements and digital circuits do all of this better and at a fraction of the price-insert 911 anaolgy here).

So what do these people do with such a modern day, post industrial marvel of micro mechanical precision? They design a fashion watch that tells the time accurate to 2.5 minutes.

Brilliant.

What I do like about this watch is that the dial itself is well designed (although fundamentally flawed, as above) and especially the way the singular hand touches the minute chapters for clarity. I wish more manufactures did that.