/fa/ - Fashion

>>13880620
How dare you point out an inconsistency of mine when I'm drunk!!!!

Of course. What bothers me is that it's one thing to talk about vintage watches performing astonishing feats. But time has passed to the point where I would expect more watches to be able to do this regularly, with ever higher potentials as the years go by. And sure, mass production of Rolex has achieved this.

I simply do not accept that there is a finite limit for modern manufacturing whereby we accept something in a range of 10 seconds for COSC, and 4 with Rolex as the best we can get for that price. That seems to me ludicrous.

Unless the quartz revolution so seriously decimated the Swiss industry that they are still playing catch-up to the whole thing. Which is admittedly a possibility I hadn't considered.

I mean, c'mon. If Rolex can achieve a 2/2, why can't anyone else? Furthermore, if they can achieve a 2/2 as a norm across the board, why can't they do something tighter for say, highly jeweled Daytonas for Saudi Princes, or Day-Dates in Platinum for execs? What is preventing them from creating a watch that runs perfectly (as long as it's serviced properly)? That's what bothers me...it seems like they're not bothering to try, like they've hit the limit they want to hit and don't care to improve.

But now I'm just beating a dead horse.