this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Watches

0 readers
1 users here now

A community for watch & horology discussion.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

https://imgur.com/a/fvf9Srd

Picture shows the back and the front. The front screws line up perfectly. The back screws are all over the place.

Why can't they do something to make the back screws line up as well? I'm pretty sure the screws in the front and back aren't connected. So whatever they do to make the front line up they should be able to do for the back, no?

It's a very small issue but considering how much this watch is, as well as the commitment to precision/detail-orientation, this is something that really bothers me every time I see it...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fit_Equivalent3610@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (11 children)

The front ones on the APRO aren't actually screws, they're bolts made to look like screws. Correcting the alignment would require the threads to be perfectly aligned and oriented in every direction with extremely close tolerances.

Further reading:

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/why-screw-slots-arent-aligned-in-watchmaking

https://www.esquire.com/uk/watches/a33816691/why-dont-screws-line-up-watch/

[–] FivePoppedCollarCool@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Interesting! I had no idea.

But isn't this something they should do for a watch like this? I get it for watches below $10k, but we're talking about $30k+. They can't perfectly align the the threads in the back?

For even more expensive watches I would expect the movement screws to be aligned in some way as well... If I'm paying $150k for a watch I would expect that kind of precision

[–] Wintermute_088@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

NASA isn't that precise, let alone a piece of jewellery.

NASA optimizes for efficiency and utility.

A piece of jewelry is supposed to be for beauty

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)