The 3/4 bridge is part of German watchmaking history. The transition from the 2/3 to the 3/4 bridge in Germany happened in the 1860's.
In a watch movement, each bridge is located and fastened to the main plate via screws, but also posts that do the actual locating. The locations of each jewel in the bridge determine the location of the wheel, and the spacing of these needs to be accurate. If the hole locations are out of tolerance, it can lead to spacing that is too far apart, too close together, or a wheel ends up tilted too much inside the movement, leading to power transmission problems. By making one large bridge instead of several small bridges, it was easier to prevent the stacking up of tolerances from each individual bridge causing a problem.
So in effect, the movement was able to be made more precisely this way. But today, it's more about tradition than anything technical.
Cheers, Al
The 3/4 bridge is part of German watchmaking history. The transition from the 2/3 to the 3/4 bridge in Germany happened in the 1860's.
In a watch movement, each bridge is located and fastened to the main plate via screws, but also posts that do the actual locating. The locations of each jewel in the bridge determine the location of the wheel, and the spacing of these needs to be accurate. If the hole locations are out of tolerance, it can lead to spacing that is too far apart, too close together, or a wheel ends up tilted too much inside the movement, leading to power transmission problems. By making one large bridge instead of several small bridges, it was easier to prevent the stacking up of tolerances from each individual bridge causing a problem.
So in effect, the movement was able to be made more precisely this way. But today, it's more about tradition than anything technical.
Hard to disagree with your points but would like to add a point. Lange uses gold chatons that are attached to the bridge using 3 screws. The degree of accuracy to do that is very impressive, perhaps even greater than having separate bridges????
Cheers, Al
It's hard ask - I would probably go for Journe; the watches have more warmth and approachability, and the movements are incredibly beautiful.
Points for ALS though: very durable and robust, while colder, incredible design language, impeccable movement finishing. I just always feel underwhelmed when hold one; they just don't feel 'me'.
As always, a personal choice though. When made honestly and authentically, you can't make a wrong decision.
You’re very correct.
And you pointed out one thing that I absolutely love about Lange: that durable feel. These things feel like they can stop a bullet. Part of the reason why I went in this direction:
That is a stunner! The Richard Lange collection is amazing (as are the 1815 chronograph and Dato lines). Those three collections are always worth a deep consideration and opening of the wallet.
You’re very correct.
And you pointed out one thing that I absolutely love about Lange: that durable feel. These things feel like they can stop a bullet. Part of the reason why I went in this direction:
Old-school Journe with 38mm cases
That large plate secured the components from shocks and vibrations. Makes the movements more reliable and less likely to fail. Also, that large plate reduces finishing work for Lange, helped keeping costs down.
I will bet you that the parts in a Lange watch you dont see, are finish to exactly the same standard as the parts you see. There is no cost cutting with ALS
i have read prior in numerous places that Lange is more consistent in their finishing on their entry level pieces and their higher end pieces versus Patek where the lower end pieces do not have as good finishing.
does it matter from a functional or aesthetic perspective that more material is removed?
i have read prior in numerous places that Lange is more consistent in their finishing on their entry level pieces and their higher end pieces versus Patek where the lower end pieces do not have as good finishing.
Do you see that Archer when the watches go your way?
