Pellaton system model and in one in real life....

Master 6724 posts

29 May 2010, 7:40 a.m. 29 May 2010, 7:40 a.m.

I recently picked up a display model of the Pellaton winding system. Here the model and the real thing are all in one shot and up close as well.

Have a great weekend all. It's a holiday in the USA.

Bill

i95.photobucket.com/albums/l156/wbarker75/Perpetual%20Calendar/DSC_4994.jpg

i95.photobucket.com/albums/l156/wbarker75/Perpetual%20Calendar/DSC_4647.jpg

link

8541

Master 4484 posts

28 May 2010, 11:50 p.m. 28 May 2010, 11:50 p.m.

link

64 Jewels...now what could that be?

As you all know, I am an absolute believer in the Pellaton system, and I can and do marvel at it pure genius and basic simplicity all in one, many times a week whenever I strap to my wrist one of my IWC's with this brilliant bit of fine engineering inside of it.

It's keeps the heart of my 8541 calibers ticketing - and has done so in some cases for over 30 years....

Best regards
Mark

link

Michael Friedberg

Moderator 11468 posts

29 May 2010, 4:10 a.m. 29 May 2010, 4:10 a.m.

link

without counting, it's always due to a module....

Hi Mark,

No watch "needs" 60 jewels in terms of movement design. However, if one has (a) a base movement and a (b) module, each could be separately jeweled. Here, it has to be a perpetual module on top of a calibre 5xxxx base movement. So --that tells us what the watch is.

Parenthetically, I could add --and some watchmakers might disagree-- that having so many jewels is not eloquent from a horological perspective. An integrated design, where the complication is not separate and then placed on a base, uses less parts, with less space, and less to go wrong. It also usually looks "nicer" or at least cleaner. It is less expensive and less time-consuming to design a complicated movement by adding a module. As a practical matter it may not matter (both keep time) but there is a difference.

This many jewels may be needed or desirable here, but it isn't necessarily a plus.

Regards,
Michael

link