Re: An interesting quote.
- From: "N8N" <njnagel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Aug 2006 06:12:56 -0700
The French drain? because the house had a full basement below grade.
Although now that I think about it it was probably only 7' because the
builders cheaped out and there wasn't a full height ceiling in the
basement, I think they omitted a row of blocks.
nate
The Baron wrote:
Why was it 8' deep?
"N8N" <njnagel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1154990474.806956.168190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Longfellow wrote:
<snip>
If indeed haute horology (horlogerie?) intends to produce an instrument
of the greatest possible accuracy, and said possibility has now expanded
by many orders of magnitude, is there now a change in that intent?
It's been claimed in this and other horology forums that the virtue of a
mechanical watch is its intrinsic nature and not its functionality. No
mechanical watch/clock, one presumes, is expected to keep the sort of
time that the cheapest of quartz timepieces attain; wear a mechanical
watch for its own sake, etc.
I quess the question is: Is that accepted limitation theoretical, or is
it a statement of the limitations of current horological art? Was Musy
"having the author on", or does he indeed express a real potential?
What say you all?
Longfellow
I guess the reason I am drawn to mechanical watches is actually the
simplicity of them. I realize that that sounds absurd given that
quartz movements have about no moving parts other than the ones
necessary to drive the hands and gear them to each other, but it's the
principle of the thing. I could, theoretically, given the right tools
(and a magnifying lens and a good week without caffeine) and research,
practice, etc. work on one myself. The fact that there are people
posting here who really *do* work on them themselves proves this.
Nobody repairs quartz movements other than to replace batteries. It's
just my little way of protesting our consumer economy; I wear a watch
almost twice as old as I because it still works and it will hopefully
still be worth repairing after I'm dead, as opposed to a modern sealed
unit whose best repair is a replacement. Besides, I find older styles
more attractive; I'm drawn to both Art Deco and 50s styles more than I
am modern things (same holds true for cars, FWIW.) And finally, should
our civilization completely collapse, I will still know exactly what
time it is, just so long as I don't forget to wind my watch every
morning :) (yes, I know, the last is a bit of a stretch.)
I guess I'm something of an anachronism; I was born into a
working-class family in Western PA of mostly German ancestry; we didn't
just go out and buy new stuff unless we really needed it. We'd fix
things ourselves when they broke; contractors were people that rich
folks used. (I think an exception was made for installing a new French
drain around the house my parents moved into while I was in junior
high; digging an 8 foot deep trench 3/4 of the way around a house I
guess seemed like too much work even for my parents to inflict on
themselves and me.) My preference for durable, repairable things, even
if they cost a little more up front, is probably due to my
chea^H^H^H^Hfrugal upbringing :)
nate
.
- References:
- An interesting quote.
- From: Longfellow
- Re: An interesting quote.
- From: N8N
- Re: An interesting quote.
- From: The Baron
- An interesting quote.
- Prev by Date: Re: Manual wind - Inherently lower beat?
- Next by Date: Re: I thought it was a Venus something or other
- Previous by thread: Re: An interesting quote.
- Next by thread: Re: An interesting quote.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
