Concord C1 QuantumGravity watch defies reality, shows itself
By Donald Melanson 
posted March 27th 2009 4:01PM
posted March 27th 2009 4:01PM
We're still trying to wrap our heads around some of the indecipherable verbiage the company has used to describe it, but it looks like Concord's C1 QuantumGravity watch is at last very much real, and one step closer to actually being available (to a very select few). As you can see above, while there's still a few finishing touches remaining, the watch itself is pretty faithful to all those early renders that the company has been teasing us with since January, right down to the magical "fluorescent nanoparticle liquid" that's used to indicate the life remaining in the 3-day power reserve. Those curious about all things mechanical and tiny can also get a look at the complete build process by hitting up the read link below, or simply head on past the break for a video full of much spinning and unnecessary Matrix-style imagery.
[Via Watchluxus]
[Via Watchluxus]
I'm sorry, but I have to say it.
This thing is AMAZING.
No, there are other time pieces that make this thing look like a Casio from Wal-Mart...
This is all flash and no substance...
@Hed
Such as? Have any links?
The Patek Phillipe 5002 Sky Moon Tourbillon comes to mind. http://www.patek.com/patek-philippe.html?pageId=44395&backgroundId=3&lang=en&
@JamesR
That's the beauty of watch collecting... there are all sorts of watches for all sorts of people. I like this watch, but don't like the open space and the extra decoration that seems useless. Neat watch, though.
Personally, I like the motion of the Freak:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_vIjMSBRLo
But a 3d tourbillion is amazing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWdlPMQlig4
Of course, if it doesn't play Asteroids, it's crap ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glud1WLrQsQ
I agree, watch collecting isn't about one defined standard, rather it's an appreciation of how the watchmaker incorporates craftsmanship and technology into their product.
While I'm not really a Tag fan (well, maybe the original Monaco), I really like the belt-driven Monaco V4.
http://www.wristdreams.com/archives/2004/05/tag_heuer_monac.html
I like the Concord very much!
As the owner of a Tag Kirium F1, the things are amazing.
I'm sorry, but [totally unoffensive comment].
So what! My Timex keeps the time just as well and for far less money.
I do not understand the video
I agree... I think maybe it's rotating in seconds?? I don't know.
The problem with that video (aside from the shakycam) is that I have absolutely no idea what I'm looking at. A description of the parts being assembled, and *why* they're so awesome might be helpful.
It's the clock escape mechanism that supposedly keeps its accuracy despite which way gravity pulls on it. They call it a tourbillon. Here's the bigger picture of where it fits. http://www.c1-quantum.ch/themakingof/wp-content/themes/quantum/images/fullsize.png
The video is of the tourbillon cage. A tourbillon is designed to make it so that gravity has no effect on the accuracy of the watch. The part of a watch that alternates back and forth is called the balance wheel. Now if you held the balance wheel perpendicular to the ground it would beat slightly differently than if it was held horizontal to the ground. A tourbillon puts the balance wheel in a cage that is constantly rotating along one or two more axis than a regular balance wheel so that it spends an equal amount of time in all positions so that gravity doesn't have any effect on it. Now there is some debate as to whether this is actually needed but it is considered to be one of the highest complications in haute horoliogy and is very desirable to have in a high end watch.
Thanks Mr. You've got a lot of knowledge in that bucket of yours.
OK, assuming all that is correct and actually works, shouldn't the stupid thing be named Concord's C1 Quantum ANTI-Gravity watch? Course it does not matter a feted pair of dingo's kidneys what they call it because it is still butt ugly.
that video was confusing
that doesnt look anything like the watch
...iPhone is still wayyyy better, but I'd be willing to give this a go -- is it hackable?
Uh... that's weird, I'm pretty sure I commented on the Meizu page... what the fuck?
For a second I thought we had a new troll...
No Jack. what you meant to say is go fuck off and die. If they are still around they can still bother us. How much happier the world would be if the superficial Mac users of the world would all just jump off a cliff.
John Doe, I was thinking the same about typical PC zealots.
I don't get why this watch is so special... Does it disturb gravitational fields when I wear it, allowing me to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Because I'm totally in if it does.
You never seen Ultraviolet? it allows you to walk on the ceiling!
Ohhhh wonderful - it has a spinny thing
thats what she said.
"The first thing one notices about this manually wound Concord C104 movement is the "green stuff" in a cylinder. It almost looks like a wacky scientist experiment that could explode at a moments notice. In actual fact this liquid is the three day power reserve, a far cry from the traditional dial. Nothing boring or traditional about this baby. The cylinder operates on a pressure system whereby the green-stuff (actually photo-luminescent green liquid) rises and falls in proportion to the amount of power left in the main spring.
As depicted in the image adjacent to this text, a "Quantum Tourbillon" is visible, suspended via cables and attached to a bridge. The bi-axial motion is visible through the dial so that one may perceive the horizontal and vertical movement of the Tourbillon. A Tourbillon was initially invented in 1795 by French watchmaker Abraham-Louis Breguet,to reduce the effect gravity has on a pocket watch. I have a feeling the Tourbillon in this watch is to increase its out of this world experience.
In order to enjoy all the superb complication, the Concord C1 Quantum Gravity Tourbillon has no less than 5 separate Sapphire Crystals, so that nothing misses the eye.
Other unique features are scattered throughout the watch like the seconds hand which is placed vertically on the side of the watch. The crown is hidden probably at the 2 'o'clock position, but it is on to BaselWorld where the hidden crown shall be revieled. Now the great aspect about this watch is the decision by the watchmakers to make the dial, traditional and simple. If the dial would have been complicated mechanisms like the Urwerks (which I truly love), it would have been too much.
Built from 511 parts and countless of hours in research, development and crafting, this watch is a fascinating plethora of unique components as well as exuding a distinct Sci Fi feel which will attract many watch enthusiasts who relish in high tech luxury mechanical timepieces"
comment... not a short story.
and yes, the green stuff is extremely decent
...you need to get out more. ;-)
No really.....
Too bad Concord, you're about 600 years too late. I already have a watch. It shows the date (although handling lengths of months automatically would be nice) and it makes ticking noises just fine thank you.
In other words: Maybe they should use that time they waste firing off horribly done "Matrix effects" to actually demonstrate what is so cool here.
The watch is far too thick!
22 mm, that's almost an inch thick.
Tell that to my watch that can travel through time. Whatever time it says, it IS.
The thing that makes this amazing is that it a mechanical tourbillon movement outside of the body of the watch that rotates in three dimensions. This is a pretty amazing feat. Just because it's mechanical doesn't mean it's state of the art (NASA still uses Omega mechanical watches as the astronauts' primary personal time pieces). In fact, you really can't buy a very high end watch that's anything but a mechanical movement.
Not quite. Although the watchmakers would prefer you to buy their mechanical models, and I prefer them myself, most Swiss "prestige" brands offer quartz movements. Quartz is orders of magnitude more accurate, and to some watch buyers, that accuracy is a serious matter.
For instance Omega Seamaster Professional Quartz http://www.bacario.com/Details.asp?ProductID=1212
Rolex Cellini Quartz http://www.thefinestwatches.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/catalog.viewProduct/productId/2790
Longines DolceVita Quartz http://www.prestigetime.com/item/Longines/DolceVita-Quartz-Chronograph-XL/L5.680.4.71.6.html?utm_source=GBase&utm_medium=fpc&utm_campaign=GBase
ETA makes several quartz movements used in high-end brands...
No, you're right about the accuracy... I specifically said "very" high end (talking $15,000+) for that reason. I don't know of a quartz movement that comes close to that new and I'm pretty sure this watch is going to bust 15 grand with room to spare.
Just for giggles:
I had to look a little, and it is a Ladies watch, but here's a $120,000 Patek Phillippe Quartz
http://www.alanfurman.com/noframes/pp4911g.htm
But, I agree. Quartz watches at that level are exceedingly rare, primarily because they don't exhibit the soul of a mechanical movement. Accurate, but cold and silent.
isn't the price tag due simply to the 5+ carats of diamonds though....That patek isn't really meant to be a showpiece of masterful engineering like most high end watches.
It seems to me, and i'm no expert, that the engineering required to produce an impressive mechanical movement is much greater than throwing a simple, albeit more accurate, quartz movement into a watch. Besides....quartz just lacks the classiness of a mechanical movement.
LOL @ Sam
A you implying that cutting, matching, and setting that many diamonds is any less a craftsmans' marvel than a finely tuned clockwork? Some chaps from Amsterdam would like to have a word with you, son.
/I'll wear my automatic Helbros tomorrow for you
It all sounds like marketing garbage , who needs a gravity defying watch? No point
Welcome to the wonderful world of high end watches, or as someone called it elsewhere "haute horology."
Where priceless and pointless go hand in hand.
Never heard of Quartz? Guess that is probably beside the point....
Hey, there is no such thing as unnecessary Matrix-style imagery.
There is when it's just the screensaver behind the video. When someone says there's Matrix-style imagery, I expect things like the fancy camera moves and slow motion effects... to heck with the screensaver... which ought to be just a screen saver.
Surely it will not be for this thing that I will replace my Breitling Aeromarine Avenger Seawolf Chrono or my Omega Seamaster Chrono Diver (only a Rolex Cosmograph Daytona st. steel and black would make me do that)
Does anyone still wear wristwatches? Look around and you'll find most people pulling their cell phone out of their pocket to see what time it is. I used to be an avid watch wearer - was always in the market for another one. Had a bunch in a drawer too. As of 2009, I stopped wearing watches. I find not having to see the time on my wrist everytime it enters my field of vision means I'm less aware of its passing. The side effect of this is I'm more "in the moment" than thinking about what comes next. My day passes faster and I still have an idea of what time it is (and can set my phone alarm if an important schedule needs to be kept).
[quote]Does anyone still wear wristwatches? Look around and you'll find most people pulling their cell phone out of their pocket to see what time it is.[/quote]
You can consider going retro that the next step ... As phones are getting smaller & smaller, the next step is probably a wirst watch phone, using your bones structures as a transmitter / receiver ( they are already doing esearch on that ). Basic idea is, phone is your wristwatch, somebody calls, you hold one finger under your ear, and one on your throaty ( physical contact is needed to transfer the vibrations ), aka, a L ...
It sound silly, but compared to how people look hold a PDA to there ears, or those old cell phones ( 1kg bricks ), its a lot less odd looking...
Benjiro: Why?
Ever heard of those things called Bluetooth headsets?
There _are_ already a few wristphones around, and they all work that way: Hook up to your Bluetooth headset.
I still wear a normal digital wristwatch. For me it looks good enough, and it's cheap so I don't need to take any care of it.
I'm too young to appreciate mechanical movement. Digital is more practical :-)
That thing looks very pointless and very cool. like most of the things I want.
And I still wear wristwatches, but only at work were Im not supposed to bring my phone out on to the floor and my hands are usually to busy to grab for it anyway.
I would prefer to see coverage of watches that mere mortals might be able to afford.
Or at least watches that have really cool technology rather than just being absurdly weird and expensive.
I like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AlD0cMHGIM&NR=1