bernard cheong
7182
The mechanical compromises are present, but this moement is significant.
While I agree with the POV of some engineering compromises.
I am of the opinion that many factors justify the importance of creating this movement.
One is that it allows more creativity for future movements, and that it sends the right signal that older ideas previously not well implemented by earlier efforts should not be abandoned. Significant lessons have been learnt fro Patek's and Citizen's attempts.
The platform of the A1000 will allow a space, at least from what I can reveal, for some very lateral thinking designs.
I am optimistic. I know for fact that even the sceptical of watch engineers had very good compliments that were shared with me earlier.
In modesty, I may be 100% WRONG. However, like the Freak, and also the single barrel cal5000 both in 1999, I too experineced incredible negative comments for my support of those projects....one was silicium, the other that it was a thick and useless big movement. GUT feelings...the A1000 is the beginning of better things.
Again, I am not disagreeing with all the points made.
An outsider brand, Carl F. Bucherer, and its innovative new in-house calibre
Yes. SJX's observations are correct. THIS is a movement of great importance.
not the first, but possibly the last...
How can winding efficiency be quantified or tested in the industry?
I know of no universally agreed upon testing methods
further technical observations
