(no subject)
Nov. 29th, 2005 09:04 amMore unreadable art watches! Yay!
Although I'm actually holding out for a late-90's Swatch Irony Body & Soul (a surprisingly cheap skeleton watch, exhibition back, pretty nice-looking, and typically about 200 bucks on eBay) or a Swatch Jellyfish (older, plastic and totally clear). And eyeing Russian mechanical watches (which are a good combination of cheap and pretty classy-looking).
If I still think all this stuff is cool come, say, February of next year, I will finally go ahead and sign up for Time Zone Watch School, which isn't an accredited program and is aimed at aspiring amateurs who want to see if this is something they can actually do. This might be another passing obsession, although it's hung around for a good six months now. Either I'll get bored soon or it'll turn into one of those things that I find interesting basically forever. I've looked around, and I'm kind of disappointed that there aren't any full-time accredited watchmaking schools around here-- it's surprising, actually. The closest to Massachusetts is in New Jersey. If I were to drop everything and move someplace to go to watchmaking school, I sure wouldn't move to New Jersey to do it-- I'd be MUCH more likely to go to Seattle, where the North Seattle Community College 2-year program is WOSTEP-accredited and apparantly highly-regarded. There's the first part of a writeup here (that's part one-- the other parts are also on that site).
Of course, watchmaking requires cleanliness, attention to detail, and a steady hand, none of which have exactly been my forte in years past. Maybe it's a good excuse to get some discipline. If nothing else, at the end of the TZ Watch School thing, you end up with a nice watch...
Although I'm actually holding out for a late-90's Swatch Irony Body & Soul (a surprisingly cheap skeleton watch, exhibition back, pretty nice-looking, and typically about 200 bucks on eBay) or a Swatch Jellyfish (older, plastic and totally clear). And eyeing Russian mechanical watches (which are a good combination of cheap and pretty classy-looking).
If I still think all this stuff is cool come, say, February of next year, I will finally go ahead and sign up for Time Zone Watch School, which isn't an accredited program and is aimed at aspiring amateurs who want to see if this is something they can actually do. This might be another passing obsession, although it's hung around for a good six months now. Either I'll get bored soon or it'll turn into one of those things that I find interesting basically forever. I've looked around, and I'm kind of disappointed that there aren't any full-time accredited watchmaking schools around here-- it's surprising, actually. The closest to Massachusetts is in New Jersey. If I were to drop everything and move someplace to go to watchmaking school, I sure wouldn't move to New Jersey to do it-- I'd be MUCH more likely to go to Seattle, where the North Seattle Community College 2-year program is WOSTEP-accredited and apparantly highly-regarded. There's the first part of a writeup here (that's part one-- the other parts are also on that site).
Of course, watchmaking requires cleanliness, attention to detail, and a steady hand, none of which have exactly been my forte in years past. Maybe it's a good excuse to get some discipline. If nothing else, at the end of the TZ Watch School thing, you end up with a nice watch...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 03:20 pm (UTC)http://www.sovietski.com/
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 03:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 03:40 pm (UTC)I think watchmaking is really really cool. You'd probably be very good at it, given your other affinity for machinery with tiny parts. Given that you've messed with and etched your own circuit boards, I bet you'd be fine with wee gears and such.
Also you should really come down here and meet Todd, as I think Ari mentioned last time this came up. Maybe he'd let you look on while he's working?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 05:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 06:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 06:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 06:40 pm (UTC)Cell phones actually are cutting into watch-wearing, I've read... Plus, most watches these days use quartz movements (with batteries and stuff) which, while they still need servicing every so often (if they last very long, anyway), are significantly cheaper and simpler.
It's an anachronistic interest (ha ha, I am a punster), but it's still fascinating...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 08:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 08:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 08:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 10:13 pm (UTC)or whenever i'm done it. it'll be done soon. really.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 08:57 pm (UTC)I dunno. They might. If they do, I'd guess ThinkGeek would have them, or something like them. Or other wanky design sites or something...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 08:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 08:53 pm (UTC)But I can see where I worded this poorly for getting my message across, and also where it makes me realize that I have a lot more love for analog synths than mechanical watches (although I can certainly understand why someone else would love mechanical watches).
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 09:08 pm (UTC)You're right, too-- if somebody wants a mechanical watch, it's not because they want a cheap watch, it's because they want something mechanical, with everything that implies. There are actually lots of parallels between synthesizers and watches, I think, as much as there are to any other technology that has changed drastically in the past few decades... There are aficionados and collectors, and people who can work on and repair the older technology are revered for their abilities even as the world works to make them obsolete.
Watches have the advantage that rich people like to buy fancy timepieces as status symbols, meaning that as long as there are rich people there will be a place for people to build and repair status-symbol watches.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 09:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 09:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 10:18 pm (UTC)Actually, having a roomful of Moog might really be a stupid status symbol at this point, since I'm not at all convinced that keeping Moog and only Moog stuff around is either the most cost effective approach to having a modular synth or the most musically flexible approach to having a modular synth. For example, Doepfer has some modules that do some things that aren't really directly doable with pure Moog stuff, I believe (some of the audio filters, for example).
(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-29 10:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-11-30 12:19 am (UTC)Or something. heh.