A sweeping second hand is the sign of a high-end automatic watch so I'd choose sweeps every time if they add that
But it would be a good thing if that choice existed instead of Apple making that choice for us?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Face Options Kinda Suck
- Thread starter Tapiture
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But it would be a good thing if that choice existed instead of Apple making that choice for us?
Yes certainly I'm always for more customization, that was just my side-comment.
Owning both quartz and mechanical watches myself (none of which are "high-end"), I'll just say that it's quicker to see that a movement is running when the seconds hand is smooth.A sweeping second hand is the sign of a high-end automatic watch so I'd choose sweeps every time if they add that
That's the main purpose of a seconds hand anyway: to show the wearer that the watch is operating normally.
(if you want a mechanical watch whose second hand ticks once per second, then you're talking "high-end"... it's not a simple complication to build)
I have a Hamilton Khaki automatic which is relatively high-end and the second hand is very smooth. The higher quality automatic watches almost always have the sweeping second. If you take a look at Rolex and Omega watches you'll see they have a very smooth second hand, usually about 8 ticks per second which is the same as my Hamilton (a 2824-2 movement.) I don't know much about mechanical movements because I only have automatic watches.
Automatic watches are a subset of mechanical watches. They used to call them "self-winding," which some brands, like Tudor, display on their dials.
Some people have been getting on Omega's case about how, in the name of reliability, they lowered the beat rate for their Co-Axial movements from 28,800 beats/hr to 25,200. I don't think it's a problem since they've been getting great accuracy anyway.
Get a hi-beat Seiko or Zenith and you'll see 10 ticks/second (36,000 beats per hour).
Or a Grand Seiko with Spring Drive and you won't see any ticking at all -- it works via electromagnetic brakes, whose circuit gets power from a wheel driven by an unwinding spring like a regular mechanical watch. Fascinating movement.
Again, though, a mechanical wristwatch with a "dead seconds" complication is a pretty difficult thing to pull off, but some of them still do it, and you'd pay a pretty penny to own a new one.
https://monochrome-watches.com/technical-perspective-dead-seconds/
(not to burst your bubble, but Hamilton hasn't been high-end for a long time; it's firmly slotted in Swatch Group's entry-level bracket, next to Tissot and just below Longines)
(also, over in watch-land, a "sweeping seconds" is another name for a center-mounted seconds hand. An alternative is a "small seconds" hand, which is in a subdial instead, like the running seconds in the AW's Chronograph face)
I think Omega probably reduced to 8 ticks per second to increase the power reserve. Hamiltons are very high-quality and I'd disagree that they're at the "entry-level." They're more expensive than Tissot (a quartz Hamilton is the same price as an automatic Tissot) and you can't get an automatic Hamilton chrono for under 800 bucks. It depends what your definition of high-end is but they're definitely more expensive than Swatch Group's entry level lines.
I have to agree with Barrack here. While Hamiltons give you great bang for your buck, I wouldn't consider them high-end.
My original, although minor, point was that it's easier for me to see whether a watch is running or not if it has a smoothly-moving seconds hand. If I happen to glance at my quartz watch just after it ticked, I need to wait for it to tick again; my mechanicals' (and AW's) seconds hands are always moving, though.
Now, yeah, a quartz watch that isn't running is a rare problem (even more rare with mine since they're light-powered), but my mind still asks, "It's still running, right?" whenever I look at it.
I should add: I'm not saying that Hamilton isn't high quality. They're good, solid watches; if I hadn't been gifted a rather dressy Rado, I would've bought a day-date Hamilton Jazzmaster by now. But no, despite costing more than most reasonable people think a watch should cost, they're still not high-end. To get to the really good stuff, you go over to Patek, AP, Vacheron Constantin, and above.
Now, yeah, a quartz watch that isn't running is a rare problem (even more rare with mine since they're light-powered), but my mind still asks, "It's still running, right?" whenever I look at it.
I should add: I'm not saying that Hamilton isn't high quality. They're good, solid watches; if I hadn't been gifted a rather dressy Rado, I would've bought a day-date Hamilton Jazzmaster by now. But no, despite costing more than most reasonable people think a watch should cost, they're still not high-end. To get to the really good stuff, you go over to Patek, AP, Vacheron Constantin, and above.
Last edited:
You're so lucky, I've really wanted a Rado or Omega for years but I've always ended up shying away because of cost.
The Rado arrived out of the blue from my godfather. I would have never chosen it myself, but it turns out he's got better taste than I do, because it's a lot of fun to wear.
I've still got my eyes on Omega or Rolex if I reach another career milestone. It would probably be the last "good" watch I'd buy.
But, back on topic (kinda) -- it's hard to justify a luxury watch when I still wear my AW so much more often than any of the others.
The main reason I wear regular watches these days is because we can't bring gadgets into my workplace... but I can telework, and I only go to the office a couple days a week. When I'm at home, I wear my AW and leave my phone on the kitchen counter. I'm still accessible, then, but I'm also less likely to be distracted by Candy Crush or Facebook.
A sweeping second hand is the sign of a high-end automatic watch so I'd choose sweeps every time if they add that
While that is true, sometimes I find it soothing to stare at the ticking. I'm strange like that.
Apple is apple, they make things like they wanted to, it is either consumer accept what they make and care less if consumers buy or not, 3rd parties are not so easy to participate on apple's product, its bc apple has its own OS and engineering hardware. The same goes for iphone etc, unlike andriod which is shared by many. Yes I agree with some of your comments but I still stick around with apple hehe.
That is false. Third-party manufacturers can easily replicate/participate with Apple's accessories, iPhone cases, Apple Watch bands and any other accompanying accessory that would suit the actual product own (iPhone, Apple Watch, iPad, etc). There's literally a third-party accessories/product for almost every Apple product available.
That doesn't mean third parties have the same hardware specifications in terms of build quality that Apple has, But third-party manufacturers is a billion dollar industry that many gravitate towards because it's a cheaper option then what Apple charges for their OEM accessories.
Yes, Apple does develop their own software and hardware. But that doesn't mean third parties can't replicate or distribute their own products that correlate to Apple hardware specifications.
I've always thought a killer watch face would be a "skeleton" face that reveals some of the mechanical "works" behind the face. It wouldn't be hard to do with the AW's resolution.
There's this for now:
And this one is the movement from Moser's manual-wound spoof of the AW:
Interesting recommendation. I like the sophistication behind your idea. Those are the types of Watch faces I would like to see as well. If it's feasible or not, I don't know. But having the gears moving in transiton with other parts would be a Watch face that would offer something completely different.
With iOS 11 / WatchOS 4 comes another missed opportunity for watch faces. They released 2 new types of faces, Siri and Kaleidoscope, and added a few Disney faces. I'm incredibly disappointed that they didn't take this opportunity to allow for more customization, third party faces, or introduce more types of classic watch faces.
These latest watch faces definitely sparked some fatigue with other users who are wanting expansion with the Apple Watch faces. I think Apple takes a lot of pride in their watch faces, but it's not the same pride shared by other users who want more specifics. Either way, I share your views and I would like to see more customization with the watch faces. I enjoy customizing the watch physically with different bands, but this would be highly appreciated if we had more custom watch faces.
If that were true, how do you explain the Hermès analog face at a premium price? Clearly, the company recognizes the value of a nice analog face.
The company recognises that people want a nice analog face and that many are prepared to pay a $200+ premium for it.
Custom apple watch faces are diamonds. Their value comes only from the fact that they are rare. The only reason they are rare is because apple has absolute control over what faces can exist. Apple controls the diamond mind and they control how many diamonds are in the market. This is was allows the Hermès to have a premium price.
Eventually people who want the ability to customise their watches will move away from apple and to another watch that does offer that functionality. If this move impacts apple's cash flow, they might consider changing their policy on watch faces. But as long as people cry out for custom faces and yet continue to support apple, they'll only be minor "customisations" powers given to the user.
The issue I have with several of the faces is that it's very hard to actually read the time on them. That's part of why I don't use several of them.
Did you see the new kaleidoscope watch face? Can't read anything on that.
Yeah. That one had me scratching my head when I saw it. Really bad design for something meant to tell you the time.
On a totally separate note, I found it a bit interesting that the kept showing the Apple Watch and AirPods being used with exercise. I never exercise with my AirPods because I'm afraid to damage them. They are so adamant about them not being sweat or water resistant.
I also noticed this and I was wondering if anyone else observed this. There is a photo during the keynote were a female was wearing her Apple Watch and AirPods when running. Yet, the AirPods have no water/sweat resistance rating.
It makes me think of the advertisement last year when the iPhone 7 launched, they show a male falling into a pool holding his iPhone 7 above his head as he is in the water. That raised a lot of conflict on the iPhone forums about the iPhone water resistance .