Discussion:
Timex info
(too old to reply)
Tom Charlton
2008-02-07 04:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.

Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement? 8^)

Thanks,
Tom
SWG
2008-02-07 07:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement? 8^)
Thanks,
Tom
Tom, please put some good pictures of your watch on the web, enabling
all of us to have a look of it.
dAz
2008-02-07 07:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement? 8^)
some photos of timex movements

http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/t/timex/index.php?l=en
Frank Adam
2008-02-07 08:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by dAz
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement? 8^)
some photos of timex movements
http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/t/timex/index.php?l=en
Please. I'm about to have dinner..
--
Regards, Frank
Jack Denver
2008-02-07 16:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Yes, the Timex movements look unappetizing for the most part (though at the
very end they used some jeweled A. Schild movements that were not bad for
their "high end" watches, also some German electrics by Laco that were
conventionally jeweled). BUT, remember than they introduced a whole new
price category to the wristwatch world and made watches affordable for the
first time to many millions whose alternative before was no watch at all -
just listening for the factory whistle or town clock bells. IIRC, the first
year Timex was on sale, they sold as many watches as had been sold by all
the US jeweled watch makers (Waltham, Elgin, etc.) put together in the
previous century.

Also their design was such that they were highly shock resistant (even
without the use of any sort of incabloc). Americans can remember the famous
"takes a licking and keeps on ticking" TV ads - my favorite (which I have
seen on recordings - it predates my memory) from the days of live TV - the
Timex is strapped to the propellor of an outboard motor. The motor is then
started and run underwater for a few seconds, then the announcer tilts the
motor back out of the water to show that the Timex is still ticking. The
only problem is, the watch has flown off the propeller and is nowhere to be
found, so the announcer has to improvise that IF the Timex was there, it
would still be ticking.

Lastly, keep in mind that these watches were not designed to be serviced by
traditional watchmakers in the manner of a jeweled watch (most don't even
have screws on the back, though you usually can get in from the dial
ide) - even at '50s labor rates, a whole new Timex cost less than the cost
of a clean and lube. So the idea was that once the watch had worn down,
you'd throw it out and get a new one, the same as people do today with cheap
quartz watches. Of course we are very lucky today in that today's cheap
quartz keep much better time than the Timex did - once they got some wear on
them (which didn't take long given the total lack of jewels) they were not
very accurate, but most people didn't (and still don't) have "mission
critical" jobs that required them to know the time with great precision -
having your watch a couple of minutes off and resetting it every few days
(when it had to be wound every day anyway) was no big deal.

So, yes, by traditional watchmaking standards, these movements look like a
dog's breakfast. But they didn't sell for traditional prices and were not
meant to be judged by those standards - they were a complete clean sheet
approach to the problem of how you could reduce the cost of making a watch
by 90% (which could only be done by totally unmooring the design from 200
years of watchmaking tradition) and as such have merit as pieces of history
and innovative industrial design, if not aesthetic beauty.
Post by Frank Adam
Post by dAz
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement? 8^)
some photos of timex movements
http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/t/timex/index.php?l=en
Please. I'm about to have dinner..
--
Regards, Frank
SWG
2008-02-07 17:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Denver
Yes, the Timex movements look unappetizing for the most part (though at the
very end they used some jeweled A. Schild movements that were not bad for
their "high end" watches, also some German electrics by Laco that were
conventionally jeweled). BUT, remember than they introduced a whole new
price category to the wristwatch world and made watches affordable for the
first time to many millions whose alternative before was no watch at all -
just listening for the factory whistle or town clock bells. IIRC, the first
year Timex was on sale, they sold as many watches as had been sold by all
the US jeweled watch makers (Waltham, Elgin, etc.) put together in the
previous century.
Also their design was such that they were highly shock resistant (even
without the use of any sort of incabloc). Americans can remember the famous
"takes a licking and keeps on ticking" TV ads - my favorite (which I have
seen on recordings - it predates my memory) from the days of live TV - the
Timex is strapped to the propellor of an outboard motor. The motor is then
started and run underwater for a few seconds, then the announcer tilts the
motor back out of the water to show that the Timex is still ticking. The
only problem is, the watch has flown off the propeller and is nowhere to be
found, so the announcer has to improvise that IF the Timex was there, it
would still be ticking.
Lastly, keep in mind that these watches were not designed to be serviced by
traditional watchmakers in the manner of a jeweled watch (most don't even
have screws on the back, though you usually can get in from the dial
ide) - even at '50s labor rates, a whole new Timex cost less than the cost
of a clean and lube. So the idea was that once the watch had worn down,
you'd throw it out and get a new one, the same as people do today with cheap
quartz watches. Of course we are very lucky today in that today's cheap
quartz keep much better time than the Timex did - once they got some wear on
them (which didn't take long given the total lack of jewels) they were not
very accurate, but most people didn't (and still don't) have "mission
critical" jobs that required them to know the time with great precision -
having your watch a couple of minutes off and resetting it every few days
(when it had to be wound every day anyway) was no big deal.
So, yes, by traditional watchmaking standards, these movements look like a
dog's breakfast. But they didn't sell for traditional prices and were not
meant to be judged by those standards - they were a complete clean sheet
approach to the problem of how you could reduce the cost of making a watch
by 90% (which could only be done by totally unmooring the design from 200
years of watchmaking tradition) and as such have merit as pieces of history
and innovative industrial design, if not aesthetic beauty.
Post by Frank Adam
Post by dAz
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement? 8^)
some photos of timex movements
http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/t/timex/index.php?l=en
Please. I'm about to have dinner..
--
Regards, Frank
In your opinion, did Timex innovate from the basic pin-lever movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin-lever_watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Frederic_Roskopf
Moka Java
2008-02-07 18:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by SWG
In your opinion, did Timex innovate from the basic pin-lever movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin-lever_watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Frederic_Roskopf
There are American made dollar watches that date back to the 1890s.
Jack Denver
2008-02-07 20:58:12 UTC
Permalink
While no one individual feature on the Timex was entirely new, the whole
package put together ( the manufacturing method, the sales and marketing
methods and channels (TV advertising, drug and discount stores), etc.) was
new and revolutionary (as indicated by their "take the country by storm"
sales that took off immediately). The American "dollar watches" had all
(AFAIK) been pocket watches -there was no popular "dollar wristwatch". Even
the original Roskopf watches, though unjeweled, were closer to traditional
watch construction than the Timex which was designed for mass production at
the lowest possible labor cost. However there were other Swiss 1 jewel
writswatch movements of the Roskopf type (e.g. Agon) as seen in the
"character" that were basically the same idea as the Timex, but they never
really had a good marketing channel or a well known brand name associated
with them. Having unique technology is not necessarily the key to success
in business.
Post by Moka Java
Post by SWG
In your opinion, did Timex innovate from the basic pin-lever movement?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pin-lever_watch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Frederic_Roskopf
There are American made dollar watches that date back to the 1890s.
Frank Adam
2008-02-08 05:26:05 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:58:12 -0500, "Jack Denver"
Post by Jack Denver
While no one individual feature on the Timex was entirely new, the whole
package put together ( the manufacturing method, the sales and marketing
methods and channels (TV advertising, drug and discount stores), etc.) was
new and revolutionary (as indicated by their "take the country by storm"
sales that took off immediately). The American "dollar watches" had all
(AFAIK) been pocket watches -there was no popular "dollar wristwatch". Even
the original Roskopf watches, though unjeweled, were closer to traditional
watch construction than the Timex which was designed for mass production at
the lowest possible labor cost. However there were other Swiss 1 jewel
writswatch movements of the Roskopf type (e.g. Agon) as seen in the
"character" that were basically the same idea as the Timex, but they never
really had a good marketing channel or a well known brand name associated
with them. Having unique technology is not necessarily the key to success
in business.
Yep, basically that is all what Timex was. Marketing.
It worked mainly in the US. That is what makes/made the US such an
economic power. The sheer amount of people under the same sky gives
companies a great opportunity to "play the game". Get the folks to buy
the ad campaigns, the slogans and the spoons full of added nationalist
flavours, and it's a potential 300 million customers and that's a
great leg up to start off any business with ambitions to go
international.
Try that here in Oz and good luck. A new local company's product
actually has to be good to make it here, because we don't fall for
"Australian made", or the latest try of "Australian owned".

It is ironic that Timex is celebrated for the very same thing that the
West hated about Russia, Japan(for a long time anyway) and now China,
warning people off their products being low quality cheap crap made in
the zillions and sold for rice.
--
Regards, Frank
Alex W.
2008-02-08 12:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Adam
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:58:12 -0500, "Jack Denver"
Post by Jack Denver
While no one individual feature on the Timex was entirely new, the whole
package put together ( the manufacturing method, the sales and marketing
methods and channels (TV advertising, drug and discount stores), etc.) was
new and revolutionary (as indicated by their "take the country by storm"
sales that took off immediately). The American "dollar watches" had all
(AFAIK) been pocket watches -there was no popular "dollar wristwatch".
Even
the original Roskopf watches, though unjeweled, were closer to traditional
watch construction than the Timex which was designed for mass production at
the lowest possible labor cost. However there were other Swiss 1 jewel
writswatch movements of the Roskopf type (e.g. Agon) as seen in the
"character" that were basically the same idea as the Timex, but they never
really had a good marketing channel or a well known brand name associated
with them. Having unique technology is not necessarily the key to success
in business.
Yep, basically that is all what Timex was. Marketing.
It worked mainly in the US. That is what makes/made the US such an
economic power. The sheer amount of people under the same sky gives
companies a great opportunity to "play the game". Get the folks to buy
the ad campaigns, the slogans and the spoons full of added nationalist
flavours, and it's a potential 300 million customers and that's a
great leg up to start off any business with ambitions to go
international.
Try that here in Oz and good luck. A new local company's product
actually has to be good to make it here, because we don't fall for
"Australian made", or the latest try of "Australian owned".
Can you say "RM WIlliams"?
:-(

Go back a bit in history, though, and it becomes clear that the Americans
learned this particular game from the British. We had the biggest domestic
market in the world -- we modestly called it the "Empire". A century ago,
Australians were every bit as prone to buying British as Americans now buy
American. So much so, in fact, that despite a sufficiently large, wealthy
and urbanised population, Australia never did develop indigenous luxury
goods industries; there are no Australian watch manufacturers past or
present, for example, or even a system of Australian hallmarks for silver
and gold. You imported it all from us ....
Post by Frank Adam
It is ironic that Timex is celebrated for the very same thing that the
West hated about Russia, Japan(for a long time anyway) and now China,
warning people off their products being low quality cheap crap made in
the zillions and sold for rice.
Rule #1: It's OK if we do it. We are the good guys, after all....
:-)
Jack Denver
2008-02-08 15:22:17 UTC
Permalink
You've got it all wrong - American consumers don't particularly care about
"buy American". What they do respond to is a well organized marketing
campaign for goods with a strong brand identity (particularly when it is
accompanied by good products at attractive prices) , but the product could
be Japanese (Toyota, Sony) or Swiss (Rolex, Swatch) or whatever. Many of
the great marketing powerhouses were and are American, but increasingly
their manufacturing is done overseas and the only thing "American" about
them is the brand name (as you can see from the Timex gallery , Timex was
doing this as early as the '70s and even before). Again from a watchmaking
POV, Timex was always crap, but they weren't meant to be looked at from a
traditional watchmaking POV - they were never meant to be repaired - the
customers who bring them into your shop just don't understand this (not that
Timex went out of it's way to tell them) but they should have understood
that if you pay $30 for a watch instead of $300, something has got to go
(and that it will never be feasible at modern labor rates to do any sort of
repair beyond the most trivial on a $30 item - even a strap replacment may
cost more than a new watch).

Generally speaking , "the cheapest is the dearest" is good advice - if you
look at lifecycle costs, it's better to pay 10x as much and buy a product
that lasts a lifetime than it is to pay 1/10th for a product that you will
need to replace every 6 months. But often nowadays that advice doesn't hold
in all cases. For things like DVD players, MP3 players, digital cameras &
such, what good is a "lifetime" product if the technology will be obsolete
in 2 or 5 years? If you "overbuy" then you will just end up with something
that begs to be replaced with current technology but you don't have the
heart to do it because the old one still works perfectly and so you live
with the old, while the $29 Chinese DVD player will be doing you a favor
when it breaks because now you'll have a reason to get that Blu-Ray. Not
long ago, I visited my elderly aunt and there in her den was the Grundig
hifi I remember seeing in her house when I was a child in the '60s - it
must have cost a pretty penny then, in a lovely lacquered wood cabinet. It
still worked, though it is monophonic and only plays phonograph records.
She did not buy a "cheap crap" product and what did it get her - a lifetime
product but one that has been laughably out of date for 30 of its 40 years.


So yes, in a way, Timex was one of the pioneers of "built in obsolescence",
for better or for worse. What you have to understand is that the market
chooses this stuff, not the other way 'round - Timex made this stuff because
people bought it, bought a lot of it and that this was a fundamentally
democratic thing - they may be "cheap crap" but they made watches affordable
for the first time to millions of people who could never have scraped
together the $ to buy a jeweled watch even if the jeweled watch is the
better value over the long run (which it really isn't if you have to pay for
a $100 cleaning every 5 years). The whole revolution that Henry Ford
started was the idea of the mass market - that the guys who worked in the
factory would actually be able to afford its products. The European and
British markets were not like this back in the day - the factories made
really high quality stuff, but the bloke in the factory putting together
Rolls Royce motor cars would never be able to afford one of his own. So
that's basically the choice - zillions of products sold for "rice" so the
average Joe can afford them, or really high quality products that are out of
reach for most people, so they do completely without - which is better, a
really bad hifi or no music at all?
Post by Alex W.
Post by Frank Adam
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:58:12 -0500, "Jack Denver"
Post by Jack Denver
While no one individual feature on the Timex was entirely new, the whole
package put together ( the manufacturing method, the sales and marketing
methods and channels (TV advertising, drug and discount stores), etc.) was
new and revolutionary (as indicated by their "take the country by storm"
sales that took off immediately). The American "dollar watches" had all
(AFAIK) been pocket watches -there was no popular "dollar wristwatch".
Even
the original Roskopf watches, though unjeweled, were closer to traditional
watch construction than the Timex which was designed for mass production at
the lowest possible labor cost. However there were other Swiss 1 jewel
writswatch movements of the Roskopf type (e.g. Agon) as seen in the
"character" that were basically the same idea as the Timex, but they never
really had a good marketing channel or a well known brand name associated
with them. Having unique technology is not necessarily the key to success
in business.
Yep, basically that is all what Timex was. Marketing.
It worked mainly in the US. That is what makes/made the US such an
economic power. The sheer amount of people under the same sky gives
companies a great opportunity to "play the game". Get the folks to buy
the ad campaigns, the slogans and the spoons full of added nationalist
flavours, and it's a potential 300 million customers and that's a
great leg up to start off any business with ambitions to go
international.
Try that here in Oz and good luck. A new local company's product
actually has to be good to make it here, because we don't fall for
"Australian made", or the latest try of "Australian owned".
Can you say "RM WIlliams"?
:-(
Go back a bit in history, though, and it becomes clear that the Americans
learned this particular game from the British. We had the biggest
domestic market in the world -- we modestly called it the "Empire". A
century ago, Australians were every bit as prone to buying British as
Americans now buy American. So much so, in fact, that despite a
sufficiently large, wealthy and urbanised population, Australia never did
develop indigenous luxury goods industries; there are no Australian watch
manufacturers past or present, for example, or even a system of Australian
hallmarks for silver and gold. You imported it all from us ....
Post by Frank Adam
It is ironic that Timex is celebrated for the very same thing that the
West hated about Russia, Japan(for a long time anyway) and now China,
warning people off their products being low quality cheap crap made in
the zillions and sold for rice.
Rule #1: It's OK if we do it. We are the good guys, after all....
:-)
Moka Java
2008-02-08 23:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Jack Denver wrote:
Not
Post by Jack Denver
long ago, I visited my elderly aunt and there in her den was the Grundig
hifi I remember seeing in her house when I was a child in the '60s - it
must have cost a pretty penny then, in a lovely lacquered wood cabinet. It
still worked, though it is monophonic and only plays phonograph records.
She did not buy a "cheap crap" product and what did it get her - a lifetime
product but one that has been laughably out of date for 30 of its 40 years.
From your aunt's POV she didn't and still doesn't need to upgrade to a
stereo w/CD player and Ipod socket. I'm sure she's updated her TV a few
times but does surround sound hold any attraction to her?

millions of people who could never have scraped
Post by Jack Denver
together the $ to buy a jeweled watch even if the jeweled watch is the
better value over the long run (which it really isn't if you have to pay for
a $100 cleaning every 5 years).
It wasn't always $100. When I started collecting watches 20 years ago a
CLA on a simple manual wind was $15, autos were $20. Trivial parts like
generic crowns, common crystals and mainsprings were included in the
price.
Jack Denver
2008-02-09 00:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moka Java
It wasn't always $100. When I started collecting watches 20 years ago a
CLA on a simple manual wind was $15, autos were $20. Trivial parts like
generic crowns, common crystals and mainsprings were included in the
price.
And 20 years from now it will be $250 or $500. Even $20 years ago, $20 was
more than (or a significant % of) the price of a new Timex, so they never
were intended to be CLA'ed by traditional watchmakers. They may have had
some limited program of factory service but once the warranty ran out the
idea was always that you'd throw them in the trash, not take them to a
jeweler for repair.
Alex W.
2008-02-09 01:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Denver
Post by Moka Java
It wasn't always $100. When I started collecting watches 20 years ago a
CLA on a simple manual wind was $15, autos were $20. Trivial parts like
generic crowns, common crystals and mainsprings were included in the
price.
And 20 years from now it will be $250 or $500. Even $20 years ago, $20
was more than (or a significant % of) the price of a new Timex, so they
never were intended to be CLA'ed by traditional watchmakers. They may
have had some limited program of factory service but once the warranty ran
out the idea was always that you'd throw them in the trash, not take them
to a jeweler for repair.
As a point of interest, what would $20 back then have been as a percentage
of disposable income, versus $250 now?
Alex W.
2008-02-09 02:08:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Denver
You've got it all wrong - American consumers don't particularly care about
"buy American". What they do respond to is a well organized marketing
campaign for goods with a strong brand identity (particularly when it is
accompanied by good products at attractive prices) , but the product could
be Japanese (Toyota, Sony) or Swiss (Rolex, Swatch) or whatever. Many of
the great marketing powerhouses were and are American, but increasingly
their manufacturing is done overseas and the only thing "American" about
them is the brand name (as you can see from the Timex gallery , Timex was
doing this as early as the '70s and even before). Again from a
watchmaking POV, Timex was always crap, but they weren't meant to be
looked at from a traditional watchmaking POV - they were never meant to be
repaired - the customers who bring them into your shop just don't
understand this (not that Timex went out of it's way to tell them) but
they should have understood that if you pay $30 for a watch instead of
$300, something has got to go (and that it will never be feasible at
modern labor rates to do any sort of repair beyond the most trivial on a
$30 item - even a strap replacment may cost more than a new watch).
Generally speaking , "the cheapest is the dearest" is good advice - if you
look at lifecycle costs, it's better to pay 10x as much and buy a product
that lasts a lifetime than it is to pay 1/10th for a product that you will
need to replace every 6 months. But often nowadays that advice doesn't
hold in all cases. For things like DVD players, MP3 players, digital
cameras & such, what good is a "lifetime" product if the technology will
be obsolete in 2 or 5 years? If you "overbuy" then you will just end up
with something that begs to be replaced with current technology but you
don't have the heart to do it because the old one still works perfectly
and so you live with the old, while the $29 Chinese DVD player will be
doing you a favor when it breaks because now you'll have a reason to get
that Blu-Ray. Not long ago, I visited my elderly aunt and there in her
den was the Grundig hifi I remember seeing in her house when I was a child
in the '60s - it must have cost a pretty penny then, in a lovely
lacquered wood cabinet. It still worked, though it is monophonic and only
plays phonograph records. She did not buy a "cheap crap" product and what
did it get her - a lifetime product but one that has been laughably out
of date for 30 of its 40 years.
On the upside, a clean and overhaul coupled with an investment in a decent
tone arm and pick-up will give her instant audiophile credibility.
Post by Jack Denver
So yes, in a way, Timex was one of the pioneers of "built in
obsolescence", for better or for worse. What you have to understand is
that the market chooses this stuff, not the other way 'round - Timex made
this stuff because people bought it, bought a lot of it and that this was
a fundamentally democratic thing - they may be "cheap crap" but they made
watches affordable for the first time to millions of people who could
never have scraped together the $ to buy a jeweled watch even if the
jeweled watch is the better value over the long run (which it really isn't
if you have to pay for a $100 cleaning every 5 years). The whole
revolution that Henry Ford started was the idea of the mass market - that
the guys who worked in the factory would actually be able to afford its
products. The European and British markets were not like this back in the
day - the factories made really high quality stuff, but the bloke in the
factory putting together Rolls Royce motor cars would never be able to
afford one of his own. So that's basically the choice - zillions of
products sold for "rice" so the average Joe can afford them, or really
high quality products that are out of reach for most people, so they do
completely without - which is better, a really bad hifi or no music at
all?
That really only holds for wristwatches. The Swiss flooded the markets with
cheap and very affordable pocket watches well before Timex, and the Germans
did the same with clocks.

Nor am I so sure that it was Henry Ford started the mass market revolution
(or any other firm or industrialist). Not only did the British do the very
same decades before, but what really caused these changes, IMO, was the
truly massive demographic change precipitated by the Great War. It gave a
big push to ongoing urbanisation, broke up old social structures and freed
entire social classes to pursue both political power and more profitable
wage slavery. This process was not dissimilar to the American Civil War
where the demands of the war forced industry to develop new and more
efficient means of production (in the course of which they gave rise to the
US watch industry) which continued after the war, creating new wealth, new
jobs and new consumer goods to spend the wages on.

The sad thing about this is that as societies, we have largely lost the
appreciation for craftsmanship. Brand counts for more than quality, and
disposability is seen as a virtue because it allows the consumer to recycle
goods and go out shopping again all the sooner. But that's a topic for
another day (sayeth the old fogey) ....
SWG
2008-02-09 13:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jack Denver
You've got it all wrong - American consumers don't particularly care about
"buy American". What they do respond to is a well organized marketing
campaign for goods with a strong brand identity (particularly when it is
accompanied by good products at attractive prices) , but the product could
be Japanese (Toyota, Sony) or Swiss (Rolex, Swatch) or whatever. Many of
the great marketing powerhouses were and are American, but increasingly
their manufacturing is done overseas and the only thing "American" about
them is the brand name (as you can see from the Timex gallery , Timex was
doing this as early as the '70s and even before). Again from a
watchmaking POV, Timex was always crap, but they weren't meant to be
looked at from a traditional watchmaking POV - they were never meant to be
repaired - the customers who bring them into your shop just don't
understand this (not that Timex went out of it's way to tell them) but
they should have understood that if you pay $30 for a watch instead of
$300, something has got to go (and that it will never be feasible at
modern labor rates to do any sort of repair beyond the most trivial on a
$30 item - even a strap replacment may cost more than a new watch).
Generally speaking , "the cheapest is the dearest" is good advice - if you
look at lifecycle costs, it's better to pay 10x as much and buy a product
that lasts a lifetime than it is to pay 1/10th for a product that you will
need to replace every 6 months. But often nowadays that advice doesn't
hold in all cases. For things like DVD players, MP3 players, digital
cameras & such, what good is a "lifetime" product if the technology will
be obsolete in 2 or 5 years? If you "overbuy" then you will just end up
with something that begs to be replaced with current technology but you
don't have the heart to do it because the old one still works perfectly
and so you live with the old, while the $29 Chinese DVD player will be
doing you a favor when it breaks because now you'll have a reason to get
that Blu-Ray. Not long ago, I visited my elderly aunt and there in her
den was the Grundig hifi I remember seeing in her house when I was a child
in the '60s - it must have cost a pretty penny then, in a lovely
lacquered wood cabinet. It still worked, though it is monophonic and only
plays phonograph records. She did not buy a "cheap crap" product and what
did it get her - a lifetime product but one that has been laughably out
of date for 30 of its 40 years.
On the upside, a clean and overhaul coupled with an investment in a decent
tone arm and pick-up will give her instant audiophile credibility.
Post by Jack Denver
So yes, in a way, Timex was one of the pioneers of "built in
obsolescence", for better or for worse. What you have to understand is
that the market chooses this stuff, not the other way 'round - Timex made
this stuff because people bought it, bought a lot of it and that this was
a fundamentally democratic thing - they may be "cheap crap" but they made
watches affordable for the first time to millions of people who could
never have scraped together the $ to buy a jeweled watch even if the
jeweled watch is the better value over the long run (which it really isn't
if you have to pay for a $100 cleaning every 5 years). The whole
revolution that Henry Ford started was the idea of the mass market - that
the guys who worked in the factory would actually be able to afford its
products. The European and British markets were not like this back in the
day - the factories made really high quality stuff, but the bloke in the
factory putting together Rolls Royce motor cars would never be able to
afford one of his own. So that's basically the choice - zillions of
products sold for "rice" so the average Joe can afford them, or really
high quality products that are out of reach for most people, so they do
completely without - which is better, a really bad hifi or no music at
all?
That really only holds for wristwatches. The Swiss flooded the markets with
cheap and very affordable pocket watches well before Timex, and the Germans
did the same with clocks.
Nor am I so sure that it was Henry Ford started the mass market revolution
(or any other firm or industrialist). Not only did the British do the very
same decades before, but what really caused these changes, IMO, was the
truly massive demographic change precipitated by the Great War. It gave a
big push to ongoing urbanisation, broke up old social structures and freed
entire social classes to pursue both political power and more profitable
wage slavery. This process was not dissimilar to the American Civil War
where the demands of the war forced industry to develop new and more
efficient means of production (in the course of which they gave rise to the
US watch industry) which continued after the war, creating new wealth, new
jobs and new consumer goods to spend the wages on.
The sad thing about this is that as societies, we have largely lost the
appreciation for craftsmanship. Brand counts for more than quality, and
disposability is seen as a virtue because it allows the consumer to recycle
goods and go out shopping again all the sooner. But that's a topic for
another day (sayeth the old fogey) ....
It seems that Timex nowadays sell attractive watches at equally
attractive price, and on top of that offer After Sales Services. Next
to their basic brand, they own and operate several different other
brands, each aiming with "niche" products at some big enough market
"niches". As far as I know, they own factories on some South Sea
island.

Anyone having more and better information on Timex Inc as such?
Jack Denver
2008-02-09 14:42:36 UTC
Permalink
This is what Wikipedia says:

"Timex survived the 1970s and 1980s and came back strongly. The company
remains profitable and competitive and the Timex brand continues its
dominance. Its primary market remains the United States and Canada, although
the Timex brand is sold worldwide due to its ability to capitalize on its
strong brand image and reputation for quality. In addition, Timex Group
sells many other brands addressing all segments of the watch market, such as
Guess, Nautica, Ecko, Opex and, in a successful foray into the luxury watch
market, Versace. ...Today, Timex Group products are manufactured in the Far
East and in Switzerland, often based on technology that continues to be
developed in the United States and in Germany.

As of 2006, it had 5,500 employees on four continents. It is owned by the
Norwegian company Fred. Olsen & Co. and does not have a published annual
report."

And slightly more up to date:



Timex Group B.V. announced today that Hans-Kristian Hoejsgaard has been
appointed President and Chief Executive Officer, effective February 11,
2008. Mr. Hoejsgaard was formerly President and Chief Executive Officer of
Georg Jensen, a leading luxury goods company.
...

Timex Group is one of the top watch companies in the world, and possibly the
largest by unit volume. Its revenues are approximately US $700 million, with
over 6,000 employees. ...Timex Group companies manufacture and sell watches
under numerous brands in many different market segments, including Timex,
TX, Timex Ironman, Timex Expedition, Valentino, Salvatore Ferragamo, Vincent
Berard, Versace, Versus, Guess, Guess Collection, Marc Ecko and Nautica."



http://www.pr-inside.com/hans-kristian-hoejsgaard-joins-timex-group-r336063.htm



The most interesting brand is Vincent Berard, which is a tiny haute horology
Swiss brand that sells fewer than 100 (very expensive, hand made)
watches/year - "purist" watches that are the very opposite of Timex's
historical identity.

http://blog.breitlingsource.com/2007/12/02/the-future-of-timex-watches/



It seems to me that Timex is really trying to go in the direction of a
European luxury brand - someday (soon) it will be less like an American
mass market supplier and more like Richemont or LMVH. I'm guessing that the
owners have seen the handwriting on the wall - that the low end of the
market must someday belong to the Chinese, so it pays to move upscale.
Already a company that ends with "BV" (Dutch private limited liability
company) instead of Inc. and with a CEO named Hans-Kristian does not sound
very American to me.



As the articles state, Timex is closely held so there is no publicly
released financial report.
Post by SWG
Post by Alex W.
Post by Jack Denver
You've got it all wrong - American consumers don't particularly care about
"buy American". What they do respond to is a well organized marketing
campaign for goods with a strong brand identity (particularly when it is
accompanied by good products at attractive prices) , but the product could
be Japanese (Toyota, Sony) or Swiss (Rolex, Swatch) or whatever. Many of
the great marketing powerhouses were and are American, but increasingly
their manufacturing is done overseas and the only thing "American" about
them is the brand name (as you can see from the Timex gallery , Timex was
doing this as early as the '70s and even before). Again from a
watchmaking POV, Timex was always crap, but they weren't meant to be
looked at from a traditional watchmaking POV - they were never meant to be
repaired - the customers who bring them into your shop just don't
understand this (not that Timex went out of it's way to tell them) but
they should have understood that if you pay $30 for a watch instead of
$300, something has got to go (and that it will never be feasible at
modern labor rates to do any sort of repair beyond the most trivial on a
$30 item - even a strap replacment may cost more than a new watch).
Generally speaking , "the cheapest is the dearest" is good advice - if you
look at lifecycle costs, it's better to pay 10x as much and buy a product
that lasts a lifetime than it is to pay 1/10th for a product that you will
need to replace every 6 months. But often nowadays that advice doesn't
hold in all cases. For things like DVD players, MP3 players, digital
cameras & such, what good is a "lifetime" product if the technology will
be obsolete in 2 or 5 years? If you "overbuy" then you will just end up
with something that begs to be replaced with current technology but you
don't have the heart to do it because the old one still works perfectly
and so you live with the old, while the $29 Chinese DVD player will be
doing you a favor when it breaks because now you'll have a reason to get
that Blu-Ray. Not long ago, I visited my elderly aunt and there in her
den was the Grundig hifi I remember seeing in her house when I was a child
in the '60s - it must have cost a pretty penny then, in a lovely
lacquered wood cabinet. It still worked, though it is monophonic and only
plays phonograph records. She did not buy a "cheap crap" product and what
did it get her - a lifetime product but one that has been laughably out
of date for 30 of its 40 years.
On the upside, a clean and overhaul coupled with an investment in a decent
tone arm and pick-up will give her instant audiophile credibility.
Post by Jack Denver
So yes, in a way, Timex was one of the pioneers of "built in
obsolescence", for better or for worse. What you have to understand is
that the market chooses this stuff, not the other way 'round - Timex made
this stuff because people bought it, bought a lot of it and that this was
a fundamentally democratic thing - they may be "cheap crap" but they made
watches affordable for the first time to millions of people who could
never have scraped together the $ to buy a jeweled watch even if the
jeweled watch is the better value over the long run (which it really isn't
if you have to pay for a $100 cleaning every 5 years). The whole
revolution that Henry Ford started was the idea of the mass market - that
the guys who worked in the factory would actually be able to afford its
products. The European and British markets were not like this back in the
day - the factories made really high quality stuff, but the bloke in the
factory putting together Rolls Royce motor cars would never be able to
afford one of his own. So that's basically the choice - zillions of
products sold for "rice" so the average Joe can afford them, or really
high quality products that are out of reach for most people, so they do
completely without - which is better, a really bad hifi or no music at
all?
That really only holds for wristwatches. The Swiss flooded the markets with
cheap and very affordable pocket watches well before Timex, and the Germans
did the same with clocks.
Nor am I so sure that it was Henry Ford started the mass market revolution
(or any other firm or industrialist). Not only did the British do the very
same decades before, but what really caused these changes, IMO, was the
truly massive demographic change precipitated by the Great War. It gave a
big push to ongoing urbanisation, broke up old social structures and freed
entire social classes to pursue both political power and more profitable
wage slavery. This process was not dissimilar to the American Civil War
where the demands of the war forced industry to develop new and more
efficient means of production (in the course of which they gave rise to the
US watch industry) which continued after the war, creating new wealth, new
jobs and new consumer goods to spend the wages on.
The sad thing about this is that as societies, we have largely lost the
appreciation for craftsmanship. Brand counts for more than quality, and
disposability is seen as a virtue because it allows the consumer to recycle
goods and go out shopping again all the sooner. But that's a topic for
another day (sayeth the old fogey) ....
It seems that Timex nowadays sell attractive watches at equally
attractive price, and on top of that offer After Sales Services. Next
to their basic brand, they own and operate several different other
brands, each aiming with "niche" products at some big enough market
"niches". As far as I know, they own factories on some South Sea
island.
Anyone having more and better information on Timex Inc as such?
SWG
2008-02-08 09:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Denver
While no one individual feature on the Timex was entirely new, the whole
package put together ( the manufacturing method, the sales and marketing
methods and channels (TV advertising, drug and discount stores), etc.) was
new and revolutionary (as indicated by their "take the country by storm"
sales that took off immediately). The American "dollar watches" had all
(AFAIK) been pocket watches -there was no popular "dollar wristwatch". Even
the original Roskopf watches, though unjeweled, were closer to traditional
watch construction than the Timex which was designed for mass production at
the lowest possible labor cost. However there were other Swiss 1 jewel
writswatch movements of the Roskopf type (e.g. Agon) as seen in the
"character" that were basically the same idea as the Timex, but they never
really had a good marketing channel or a well known brand name associated
with them. Having unique technology is not necessarily the key to success
in business.
Exactly! I have been a manager at Agon in my youth, at the time
incorporated within Economic Swiss Time, an SSIH subsidiary holding,
just before the Quartz swept those kind of watches away in about 6
months' time.

BTW Timex was also well known in France and their watches were sold
through the "Tabacs" stores.
dAz
2008-02-07 22:47:16 UTC
Permalink
)
Post by Frank Adam
Post by dAz
some photos of timex movements
http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/t/timex/index.php?l=en
Please. I'm about to have dinner..
if someone brings a timex into my workshop I show them my special timex
servicing kit, this consist of a wooden block with a 4lb mash hammer,
strangely I don't seem to get many timexs in for a service ;)
John S.
2008-02-09 17:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement?
I doubt that you will find a 21 jewel railroad grade movement in any
Timex. Many but certainly not all Timex movements were unjewelled and
incorporated loose tolerances to allow them to labor many years with
no maintenance. Pop the back and you will have a lot of information
about the movement at hand.
Post by Tom Charlton
Thanks,
Tom
Jack Denver
2008-02-10 14:01:59 UTC
Permalink
He was joking about the railroad thing, I think. Unfortunately, attempts at
humor are often missed on usenet.

There were a few jeweled movements sold by Timex, but never "railroad
grade". There was this one made for Timex by A. Schild - crude looking by
normal watch standards, but by Timex standard, "high end":

http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/a/as/as_1941.php?l=en

This is as close as Timex ever got to "railroad grade" and it wasn't very
close.

Then there was this strange movement, which was basically a regular Timex
pin lever with jewels added (but they did not jewel the balance):
http://www.christophlorenz.de/watch/movements/t/timex/timex_m72.php?l=en

It has "21 jewels" but they ain't railroad grade, that's for sure.
Post by Tom Charlton
Like many people in this group I'm very fond of mechanical watches, and am
curious about the ones I own, no matter how cheap. With this in mind, I
recently found an old hand-wound Timex while rummaging thru a drawer. It has
a gold-colored case, silver dial with date window at 3, and black numbers
and hands. At the bottom of the dial it's marked Dial England, and below
that are the numbers 27820 and 10580. The dial and snap-back are also marked
Water Resistant. It's been keeping good time now for 3 days, after not being
wound for many years.
Do the numbers offer any clues as to when it was made, or any other
information about it, such as whether it's a 21 jewel, railroad-grade
movement?
I doubt that you will find a 21 jewel railroad grade movement in any
Timex. Many but certainly not all Timex movements were unjewelled and
incorporated loose tolerances to allow them to labor many years with
no maintenance. Pop the back and you will have a lot of information
about the movement at hand.
Post by Tom Charlton
Thanks,
Tom
Loading...