a provocative question- tourbillons

one week ago I picked up a new watch from my AD...no pictures, since as it happens also to other forumers...this time it's not an IWC...
but, while being there the AD seemed to be closing a deal over the phone for a constant-force tourbillon ingenieur...
so I was basically thinking- tourbillons are considered to epitomize watches to really very high levels...also price-wise....but, originally, the mechanism has been invented to counteract the effects of gravitation on the movement and my interpretation is that would positively impact the accuracy of mechanical watches...
my very simple question- anybody there outside that could comment on this, i.e.,do watches with a tourbillon perform better in terms of accuracy??
greetings,
yitzhak

Cool topic you bring up. First, I hope you did not scoop some forum member's big reveal with the arrival of an Ingenieur Constant Force....

Tourbillons were first put into pocket watches which have a very different environment than wrist watches. A pocket watch would mostly be in the same position in the pocket whether the owner was waving his arms, sitting, walking or standing - so the tourbillon in the pocket watch context probably did mean well.

However, I think it's more of a "trophy complication" and something challenging to engineer and assemble - we prize the tourbillon for far more than the promise of timekeeping performance.

My guess is, there is no significant advantage in that realm.

I agree with Richard. The technological achievement was amazing and very few watchmakers could pull it off. But today every company produces tourbys. I believe it makes the movement run more accurately but it still would not approach the accuracy of a simple quartz movement.
Depending on its placement on the dial it can be mesmerizing to watch for a short period of time but ultimately it is a very large additional investment for a very small incremental improvement in accuracy.
Others may disagree, and if they can afford it, all the better.

Hi Richard and Alan,
great comments from both of you...and thanks for helping stirring this point...
well, I just hope that we might have here a chance to get some feedback on that 'from the horse's mouth' directly...meaning, from someone's own experience..I have heard already indeed the perception that in the case of pocket watches tourbillons indeed managed to evoke a 'correction' and thus helping accuracy...
and by the way Richard, I do hope I did not scoop anybody concerning the constant-force tourbillon inge...but honestly saying, I would guess that we are talking about two different 'cases'...
cheers,
yitzhak

My Portuguese Regulateur Tourbilon has been very accurate, but no more than some other watches.

Fine watchmaking is all about craft, and s Tourbillon is about high craft. Utility and cost-benefit are not issues, at least to me, any more than asking if a Vacheron is more accurate than an Audemars. They --and IWCs-- need to be reasonably accurate, but then different values become paramount.

Hi Michael,
thanks for the comment...well, I just ask the question from a practical perception...this this complication that has been invented in the 18 century has survived to these days, my interpretation is that its survival is linked to an extra value....a practical extra value, which in this case is translated to accuracy...however, I do see very well the reasoning why it might act better in pocket versus wrist watches...
do you know if from various tourbillon available variants, there are modifications that would impact corrections also in wrist watches??
cheers,
yitzhak

I guess a tourbillon on wrist watches is all about craft, and the knowledge that you have something very special indeed. And sometimes they look nice too, at least they are almost mesmerizing to look at while in motion.

Maybe they make the watch extra accurate too, but sometimes there is no need to have a tourbillon for that. My newest VC Ingenieur with a 80110 movement happens to be within one second per day: sheer luck maybe, but I don't mind.

Kind regards,
Paul

Hello Simius,
I own an IWC Tourbillon Mystère and I second MF's observation that the Tourbillon - if properly regulated - may be an accurate watch, but not necessarily more accurate than a standard watch design. The Tourbillon is a challenge for a watch maker and nice to look that's why I went for it.
There are other watch brands that claim an increased accuracy of Tourbillons, e.g. the specialists Greubel and Forsey. They build highly complicated Double-Tourbillons where the Tourbillon wheels are oriented with different angles to the plane of the caliber. The "angles" shall be selected especially to account for a wrist watch and perform better. Whether this is really the case I don't know.
Urs

Hello Urs,
The Tourbillon Mystère is indeed a majestic watch...I am sure you enjoy it.
I am not an expert in the field, so I am a bit surprised that in this case a tourbillon is coupled with an automatic movement and not as usual seen with a hand-wound movement...
still, a beautiful looking watch..
best,
yitzhak

In that respect, I agree with you Paul, my AT VC that is also powered by the movement as your new nice-looking VC ingenieur also has in the routine a deviation of ~+2sec/day..

best,
yitzhak

The shorter answer to your question is: it depends by the toubillon :)

Contemporary springs solve most of the problems Breguet had to face his times when he thought of the tourbillon. Breguet wanted to reduce problems related to frictions and lubrication, problems still present in contemporary watchmaking but consistently eased by technology, just thing of current fabrication's tolerances, much more accurate nowadays.

Worse, a tourbillon could be less accurate because of the further factors to consider when projecting it. A heavy cage, for instance (taking its inertia by the seconds' wheel pinion) will suffer of bad isochronism in case of a ineffective/inadequate energy given by the barrel.

In short, I agree with the above comments, you don't buy a tourbi for more accuracy. In the last decades, tourbillons became the main field for a watchmaker to show his skill, talent and crafstmanship. That's the actual reason to buy a tourbi today.

When dealing with mature technologies (such as watches), improvements in primary metrics (such as accuracy) are virtually always incremental and often come at a very high price. To escape this typically requires a new paradigm (such as quartz). Regardless of its impact on accuracy though, I could watch something like a spherotourbillon all day.

Roberto,
thanks for your scholar response..
still, when you get information from the brand web site that Urs was mentioning, one gets the impression that they indeed believe that using two or according my interpretation, four tourbillons (!!!) might indeed affect the precision of the watch...
just amazing how one stretches these practices to the edge of technologic abilities..
cheers,
yitzhak

In your case, accuracy, depends by the differential system adopted by the manufacturer. I don't believe such a solution can leverage the accuracy of a watch, not considerably - imho!

~ 3 years ago I kept all my watches fully operational at all times. This would mean each morning winding up to 20 watches. I loved it. It was therapeutic for me. I don't do it anymore.

But there was a clear trend. I had around 10 Calibre 8541 watches ! After one year on my wrist in the safe over night or hanging around they were nearly all +/- 10 seconds PER YEAR !!!

For accuracy a tourbillon is not required relative to the IWC legacy Peloton invention. Each morning I would complete a table on an excel sheet stored somewhere in my computer. There would be a few days in a row some watches were +/- 0 seconds ! And sometimes + 5 etc but after one year of wearing / testing I was impressed. Hence I kept adding these watches to my collection. The Ingeneiur 866 kept the best time followed by a Yacht club, then Polo Club. I can't recall the full list. Just for info.

well, to take this discussion even further- so if I to summarize what has been told here by now, this is quite interesting, and the point that I wish to make is really on the practical level...
I totally agree and understand that having nowadays (as in past times) a tourbillon in a watch is considered as top and challenging craftsmanship...
still, having the complicated perpetual calendar is also craftsmanship, however, it is very much translated on the practical level to a particular outcome- such a watch has the ability to perform as a perpetual calendar...moon phase watches also require craft, which is translated to the ability of the movement to show the daily moon phase...so the tourbillon complication with all the craftsmanship involved in its construction and assembly into the movement does not have practical benefit??

Yes, I agree with you. Building a good tourbillon shows amazing craftmanship, but it has almost no practical value. To me it is mesmerizing to look at, for a few minutes. Often I find a watch with a tourbillon not very attractive to look at, the hole in the dial attracts too much attention. To me, a perpetual calendar is the top complication, making for a balanced dial and some practical use, although one should not exaggerate. Therefore I bought my Portuguese Perpetual Calendar, but I will never contemplate buying a watch with a tourbillon.

Kind regards,
Paul

You are clearly the man of science, Andrew! Not to mention, that something similar I have done as well with my collection :o) but no chance for that long. Respect. And thanks for this interesting information.

Well my girlfriend thought I was nuts and obsessed. But once one starts its difficult to stop......a bit like Pringles crisps or Leffe blonde beer ;-)

I really did enjoy though - look back fondly - but don't have the discipline at the moment for that.