Digital watches/clocks

[HudsonHawk]

I think Kennedy babies are a generation all our own, neither boomer nor Xer. If the moon landing was the first world event you vividly remember, you belong to this cohort.

I've heard this theory put forth before, that people born in the 60's really don't fit with the post-war Boomers, but don't really fit in with the post-Woodstock Gen X either. Basically, those who parents were born right before or *during* WWII. It's often dismissed as it's a pretty small time interval, and it's easier to lump people into Boomer or X, but many sociologist says it's a significant cultural distinction.

 

[Talbot]

Digital clocks tell me the time. Analog clocks help me understand the progress of time as well.

Here's one of my wall units:



A ship radio room clock. The three minute red zones at 15min and 45 min past the hour mark morse radio silence periods to listen for emergency signals. The red four second long marks on the outer chapter ring are to time holding the morse key down to signify an emergency.

 

[Stearmen]

I also have problems with digital clocks and watches, I always consult the US tank clock on the wall instead of the computer.
I am wearing my Government issue Marathon analogue today, but really like these WWII frogman watches. Big dial and hands. My first build is front and center.
Does the Raketa confuse you?

Richard

If you want to blow a kids mind, when they ask what time it is, show them a analog watch with military time!

 

[Stearmen]

I have always thought the term Baby Boomer was way to broad. If you were a male born in the US after 1955, you had little in common with the older kids. You remembered the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but you never saw them in person, you were to young for Woodstock, you remember where you were when JFK was assassinated, the moon landing, but the draft ended before you turned 18!

 

[Zombie_61]

I love the aesthetic of the analog clock face but I always give the time as "8:45."

That must be fun when it's only 2:30 in the afternoon.

According to my birth certificate I was born in July of 1961, so most sources would consider my birth date to be near the late end of the Baby Boomer generation. As such, I learned to tell the time by use of analog watches and clocks, but I saw the onset of electronic digital timepieces becoming popular in the 1970s so I have no problems using either type of device. I hadn't put much thought into it before reading this thread (or any thought, if I'm honest), but I just realized all of the clocks in our house are digital. However, I find I prefer analog wristwatches and can't recall ever having owned a digital wristwatch.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Digital watches became a fad in my school around 1975, but the only kids who had them were the ones who would go on to become stalwarts of the math team and the chess club. They started showing up around the time the first kids with pocket calculators were passing them around the back of the room, demonstrating how "7734" upside down spelled "hell." I wasn't real impressed.

 

[Zombie_61]

Digital watches became a fad in my school around 1975, but the only kids who had them were the ones who would go on to become stalwarts of the math team and the chess club...

This is similar to my experience, though for some reason the "jocks" at my school also found them appealing as though the new technology made them look even more macho. I've always thought even the "high end" digital watches look like bulky cheap junk and lack the simple elegance of analog wristwatches.

 

[Huertecilla]

If you want to blow a kids mind, when they ask what time it is, show them a analog watch with military time!

Actually, that is far easier for them to deal with than the 12 hour analogue dial.
Old timers (pun intended) may be úsed to the 12 hour analogue watch face to represent 24 hours of erath rotation but is ís an illogical puzzle. More incomprehinsible still is the analogue chrograph. I lóve proper vintage ones but they are beyond odd with programmed human error.

Most logical is a 24 hour one hander but almost as logical and eliminating all reading error in 24 HH:MM.

My favourite however is the Seiko Think Earth.

 

[Huertecilla]

I've always thought even the "high end" digital watches look like bulky cheap junk and lack the simple elegance of analog wristwatches.

I have REAL high end analogues but as far as styling goes, the digital representation gives the designer way more freedom to create simple elegant time. I mean what can be more simple elegant than just HH:MM ???
Have a look at ´The Watch´ by Flemming Bo Hansen originally made by Ventura, currently produced by Rosenthal. Note that the pushers are at the back! It does not come more simple elegant...

Now, I líke vintage analogues with real history and as I write wear a véry early (and totally untouched) Strela 3017 which thús was per definition once worn by a soviet pilot/astronaut, but there is no denying the superiority of a modern tech digital representation of time.

 

[Fastuni]

but there is no denying the superiority of a modern tech digital representation of time.

What is this "superiority" you are referring to? You were talking exclusively about the "simple elegance" and "styling" of some recent designs of digital watches. This is about aesthetics and therefore entirely subjective.
I agree on the "simple" part... but don't think it is "elegant" in comparison to a 30's tonneau watch.

The only disadvantage of old mechanical watches is maintenance and regular winding up - which is a technical and not an aesthetic matter.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't get the idea of digital being "superior" to analogue. Time itself is not digital. Time is analogue -- a continuous flow from one moment to the next. That being so, the truly superior timekeeper is neither a mechanical spring-wound watch or a digital clock. It's an electric wall clock with a Telechron movement and a sweep second hand -- the only timekeeper that truly depicts time as it actually exists.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Now, I líke vintage analogues with real history and as I write wear a véry early (and totally untouched) Strela 3017 which thús was per definition once worn by a soviet pilot/astronaut, but there is no denying the superiority of a modern tech digital representation of time.

The Strela 3017 is one that I want. Currently I have a Poljot 31659 Shturmanskie. The Strela 3017 was also exported to the UK in the 1960s and sold under the name Sekonda.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't get the idea of digital being "superior" to analogue. Time itself is not digital. Time is analogue -- a continuous flow from one moment to the next. That being so, the truly superior timekeeper is neither a mechanical spring-wound watch or a digital clock. It's an electric wall clock with a Telechron movement and a sweep second hand -- the only timekeeper that truly depicts time as it actually exists.

Not only is time continuous, it's relative and variable. It's not constant. It's about as far from digital as you can get.

But I just think digital watches are ugly. There is nothing stylish or elegant about them, in my opinion.

 

[sheeplady]

While I get that it is a beautiful piece, I don't think I could get the time off of that watch. It is too far removed from even a traditional digital timepiece for me to easily make sense of it in my head.

 

[Zombie_61]

Not only is time continuous, it's relative and variable. It's not constant...

Time passage is constant; it's our perception of the passage of time that's relative and variable.

 

[Huertecilla]

What is this "superiority" you are referring to? You were talking exclusively about the "simple elegance" and "styling" of some recent designs of digital watches. This is about aesthetics and therefore entirely subjective.
I agree on the "simple" part... but don't think it is "elegant" in comparison to a 30's tonneau watch.

The only disadvantage of old mechanical watches is maintenance and regular winding up - which is a technical and not an aesthetic matter.

Indeed elegant and simple are subjective ant that 30´s tonneau came in digital format too; imo the most simple and elegant of the lot with added (superior) clarity in read out.

Stunning example of unconfusing display of hour clock time are the 1890ties IWC digital pocket watches;

The seconds hand at 6 is just to see wheteher it is running or not and the HH:MM is inequivocably clear = superior read out.

As for your last remark; what has digital to do with mechanical or not. Aren´t you confusing things? Digital is just a digital format = in digits, of the representation of hour clock time. The means by which this representation of time is driven is something else.

The HUGE advantage of digital representation of time is that it is inequivocable whereas the analogue dial is a puzzle which incorporates THREE pitfalls for human errors.
THÁT is the superiority of the display which I am referring to.

As to technology... well, better not start on that becase as much as I adóre pre modern horology there is simply no comparison as to modern tech being tech vastly superior for the job = measuring accurate time.

Btw I have a lunch date tomorrow and am going to don one of the first LCD watches. It is solid state electronics with HH:MM displayed by liquid crystals and I have it from the co-inventor of LCD himself!
It is not particularly beautifull but a stunning statement and an incredible conversation piece. with mind boggling technology. It was state of the art space age technology and made by hand.
The exact same watch as in the photo:

Talking about display format; in 2010 Seiko launched the first truely free format represenation of time display. The display is an EPD matrix which can represent clock hours in ANY form and shape and as such is neither digital nor analogue:

Not the clearest of formats you will agree; just HH:MM is the superior format for inequivocable read out:

 

[Huertecilla]

Time passage is constant; it's our perception of the passage of time that's relative and variable.

Clock time is simply an agreed way to represent time in relation to the rithms of days as a result of the earth´s movement in relation to the sun.
The only watch truely represnting that is the Seiko Think Earth.
The rest is just óne internationally agreed upon standardised concept and only a simplified easy workable one. In history there have been more accurate ones and several more suited to specific ways of life.
One clear exampl of how relative even hour clock time is can be seen in medieval town clocks and in traditional japanese clock time which was only abandonned as recently as 1872!

My life on the farm is far more dictaed by daylight than by clock time. As such I could use a clock display the amount of daylight left in relation to the dayly portion of that. This varies daily of course.
I make do with our western 24 hour clock time and do a mental calculation based on the position of the sun and clock time.
It is best illustrated by me needing to adjust the alarm clock as the sun rises earlier AND jump an hour with dst. The only constant in my daily life summer or winter is mid day. That mid day is the solar mid day which is an hour off from the time zone and two off during dst thus screwing up preceived daylight time...

 

[Huertecilla]

-- the only timekeeper that truly depicts time as it actually exists.

Euh.... nope.
Not in ANY way.
It is just accurately reset and thus on time. That is all.
It still is an odd puzzle, still only our agreed clock time definiton and only in 1 hour format at that too.

Btw, you clock is off, in need of adjustment.
The seconds hand is not in sync with the minute hand.
The seconds hand should be at twelve with the minute hand on the minute marker. Ditto the hour hand ofcourse.

As a matter of interest, have a look at the Mondaine train clock. Not only is the dial design stunningly clear, it was also the earliest slave clock system.
I have one with accurate qco as pocket watch.
The have recently released a redesign of the 58-2 in pocket watch format and it is AWESOME!
Imo it is a must-have for wath lovers but as I already have the 60, I cannot justify the outlay [huh]

 

[Fastuni]

As for your last remark; what has digital to do with mechanical or not. Aren´t you confusing things?

Huh? I think it is you who is confusing things.

I said: "The only disadvantage of old mechanical watches is maintenance and regular winding up."

Where did I mention "digital" in this sentence? I was generally talking about the maintenance issue with old mechanical watches.

Of course digital watches can be mechanical as well... I don't see the contradiction.

Regarding my first part: "You were talking exclusively about the "simple elegance" and "styling" of some recent designs of digital watches."

The "digital" in the sentence obviously referred to your example of a modern (and non-mechanical) watch.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Time passage is constant; it's our perception of the passage of time that's relative and variable.

Eh...time passage, the interval between two events, is variable to the observer. Take the twins paradox: Twin A gets in a space ship and takes off near the speed of light. Twin B stays on earth. When Twin A returns, he may have observed only 1 minute passed, but Twin B observed 20 years passed. It's a perception thing, but you can't separate time from space.

A any rate, I still don't like dig