Originally Posted by mafoofan
Well, here's my perspective: mechanical movements are technologically obsolete and much more costly than quartz movements, so it really only makes sense to pay for a mechanical movement if you are getting something that exemplifies interesting or sophisticated watchmaking. However, as you know, plain Jane ETA/Valjoux/Unitas ebauches are a dime a dozen, horologically boring, and are usually materially identical amongst watches less than several thousand dollars. Also, the in-house movements cropping up amongst lower-end manufacturers are unremarkable--they might as well be ETAs. So, if that's all you can get for less then a few thousand dollars, why not just get a nice-looking quartz watch with superior technology and a lower price? After all, it seems like most people buying Nomos and Stowa watches are after the looks, not the substance.
It's like candles. You might buy a few cheap ones to keep around in case the lights go out, but otherwise the only candles that make sense today are the expensive ones that smell nice.
Flawed on several levels, in my opinion.
First, it's not clear that people are seeking an interesting mechnical movement at all; it's just that the watches that appeal to them aesthetically happen to be offered only as mechnicals. They can't find an equivalent with squartz movements. You claim that the Stowas posted in this thread look like any museum gift shop souvenir. Post some, the Stowa appreciators will let you know whether they find them interesting or not.
But let's assume you are seeking a mechanical movement. Maybe you enjoy the ritual of hand-winding every day. Maybe you like seeing the movement through the hardlex back. Maybe you appreciate the fact that an automatic winds itself and never needs a replacement battery. There could be plenty of reasons to seek out a mechnical other than seeking "something that exemplifies interesting or sophisticated watchmaking" from a purely technical point of view.
This is what I dislike in your argument. First of all, it reduces the process of evaluation to a single criterion. Secondly, it expresses the idea that if it isn't the best, it isn't worth having. Accordingly, I shouldn't bother drinking a bottle of wine if it isn't a St-Emilion Grand Cru. Well, I hope you enjoy orange juice with dinner Foo.
Won't even bother getting into your arguments about aesthetics (subjective) or historical authenticity (nonsense).