By: Martin Schwartz

Martin Schwartz — Sat, 21 Oct 2023 22:20:21 +0000

wrong. it is a comication because watches today, from the least to the most expensive, are not impacted by gravity. the tourbillon was designed for pocket watches which are impacted by gravity because the siting a pocket. the wristwatch is constantly changing positions and so a tourbillon does nothing because gravity is no longer a meaningful accuracy factor. it’s just an overpriced complication that is for display, nothing else. probably the least useful, not costly mechanical wristwatch complication in existence

By: Jeff Kingston

Jeff Kingston — Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:38:27 +0000

Frankly I see two schools of thought here. The old definition of a complication is something that is in addition to the display of time. By that restrictive view, a tourbillon is not a complication because it is used for the time function. However, think of all the trivial things that are “complications” under this definition: a date window, a supplemental 24 hour indication, two time zones, power reserve. These are easy to implement. I think the modern and better view is to view complications as something that requires watchmaking prowess. Without doubt a tourbillon calls upon a much higher level of watchmaking than a date, to put a fine point on it. One respects a watchmaker who has mastered a tourbillon much more than many things considered “complications”.

Comments on: Did You Know That: A Tourbillon Is Not A Complication

By: Martin Schwartz

By: Jeff Kingston