Why do Seiko's display back movements *look* so plain?

[Rdenney]

There is a difference between good finishing and decorative finishing. I've seen many inexpensive movement that had decorative finishing but that didn't particularly have good finishing. Good finishing means the jewel holes are smoothed (they would be polished on a high-end watch), with decouverture to prevent chipping when the jewel is inserted. Likewise, the screw holes would have accurately machined and finished countersinks or bearing flats (depending on the design) so that the screw does not make debris when tightened, and so that tightening it doesn't bend and weaken it. Merely decorative movements have fly-cut striped graining, which is easy to see as such with a loupe. The high-end movements have polished graining, which is fine enough to actually prevent oil creep, which is the whole point of not just mirror-polishing it.

But a smoothly brushed surface without striped graining is still effective finishing, even if it is not too decorative.

There is no need to blue screws other than for the sheer beauty of it, and possibly for a bit of improved corrosion resistance. But lacquering screws blue may look nice from a distance, but I would hardly call it finishing.

Here are two examples. The first is the Tianjin ST-19 chronograph movement, which has a typical Chinese finish. It's decorative, and the chronograph function is fun to look at, but behind the showy skin and complexity, the finishing is really rather rough.



And, just to show that I'm not complaining base on the movement being Chinese, here's a very old Tianjin ST-5 in a Dong Feng, from maybe 1971, that has a plain, undecorated finish that I think might be more effectively finishing than the movement above:



The jewel holes, screw holes, screws, and wheels are actually better finished on the old Dong Feng.

The 8R is a lower-line Seiko movement, as has been stated, and it actually looks pretty nicely finished to me, for what it is. Finishing that is both effective and decorative needs a higher price point.

But I fully agree with the notion that a movement that is not finished for show probably ought not to be shown. Although that Glashutte isn't a sport watch, and the display back doesn't really threaten the 50m water resistance.

Rick "who doesn't really need to see the balance wiggling" Denney

[geoffbot]

This would've done

[Domo]

^^
It's even prettier nowadays

[Nokie]

A bit bland, but still great watches, IMHO.

[whatmeworry]

I don't mind plain movements on relatively affordable watches - there's an appropriate honesty about it. Fancy finishing on a low-cost, mass-produced movement can look a bit 'tarted up' to me.

And I like the fundamentalist plainness of the movement in my Rolex.

Agreed, I'd rather have a solid, reliable undecorated movement than a pretty one. Seiko seem to me to be very much about value for money and so I suspect the decision not to pretty up their movement is a very deliberate one. Better to spend the money where it will be seen more or provide utility.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[geoffbot]

Yeah, but put a solid caseback on it then.

[iyonk]

a friend of mine thought that the idea of having a display back on his seiko 5 sport is so he could check if there are water or not inside the watch after some water activities..

[whatmeworry]

Yeah, but put a solid caseback on it then.

I dunno. Does a solid caseback have benefits? I guess it's cheaper, but aside from that?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[whatmeworry]

a friend of mine thought that the idea of having a display back on his seiko 5 sport is so he could check if there are water or not inside the watch after some water activities..

Ha ha that would work.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Steppy]

I dunno. Does a solid caseback have benefits? I guess it's cheaper, but aside from that?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Thinner watch and easier to seal for water resistance I guess