Hamilton shows up in a lot of movies and games. The Call of Duty collaboration, the Ventura in Men in Black. Those watches I love, and I think they look great. But I fail to see the connection between The Odyssey and Hamilton here.

More info about the watch here

Take the James Bond watches. We get to see them in action, even the ones from the games, like the Seamaster Chronograph 007 First Light. Watching them on screen, even as a render in a video game, builds a real connection between the movie, the character, and the watch. That might not happen here. Actually, I know it won't happen, because they didn't have watches back in Odysseus' time...Barbarians!!!

That makes me a little sad. This might be the most beautiful watch Hamilton has ever made for a collaboration.

Quick update on the movement database project I’ve been building.

The main recent change is that the platform has been completely rewritten. This was the real 2026 project behind the scenes: rebuilding the core system so the database can scale properly, search more reliably, and handle parts/interchange data with fewer hidden assumptions.

A few headline numbers:

• 300k+ curated part records
• 25k+ calibers covered
• 1,200+ automated tests written across the platform
• rebuilt search logic
• rewritten matching/interchange logic
• cleaner links between calibers, parts, references, supersessions, and equivalents

🔍 Rewritten search and discovery
The search layer has been rebuilt from the ground up. The goal is to make it easier to find a caliber, part reference, manufacturer, base movement, or related family even when the input is incomplete, inconsistent, or uses a variant reference.

A lot of the work went into making searches less brittle, especially for old references, alternate formats, and manufacturer-specific numbering.

🔧 300k+ curated parts
The parts catalog is now much larger and more structured. It includes spare part references, related calibers, supersessions, stated equivalents, and interchange data where available.

For a part, the system can surface:

• calibers it fits
• stated equivalents
• replacement / supersession chains
• related references
• possible compatible calibers

The goal is still the same: make it easier to move from a caliber to the parts that fit it, and from a part back to all compatible calibers.

♻️ Donor and interchange tooling
The shared-calibers / donor explorer is still one of the areas I’m most interested in getting feedback on.

From any caliber, it compares other calibers by shared parts and produces two scores:

• Donor %: how much of the selected movement another caliber can supply.
• Overlap %: how interchangeable the two movements appear overall.

Movements that appear to share the same base ébauche are flagged as likely same base. This is meant to help identify donor movements or possible interchange options when the exact part reference is hard to find.

⏱️ Movement specs before opening the watch
The caliber encyclopedia is still being expanded. Each caliber page collects practical specs such as dimensions, height, jewels, frequency, lift angle, escapement / winding / rotor type, shock protection, complications, and related families.

The idea is to have the basic technical context available before opening the watch or digging through scattered sheets.

🕵️ Movement identification
The identification tool is also still part of the project. It helps narrow candidates for unmarked movements using size, height, jewels, shape, frequency, complications, and physical traits such as import codes, balance support type, hairspring stud type, and stem release position.

🧪 Rebuilt with test coverage
One of the biggest invisible changes is testing. I wrote over 1,200 automated tests to cover the platform logic, search behavior, part relationships, supersession handling, permissions, and expected workflows.

That does not mean the data is perfect, but it should make the system much safer to change and easier to improve without breaking existing behavior.

👥 Community corrections
The data is still incomplete, and I expect mistakes, especially around parts and interchangeability.

I’d especially appreciate feedback from watchmakers, parts suppliers, and anyone who works with donor movements on things like:

• incorrect equivalents
• broken or questionable supersession chains
• missing calibers or variants
• donor matches that do not make sense in practice
• parts linked to the wrong caliber
• manufacturer-specific reference numbers that are ambiguous, duplicated, or incorrectly normalized

The encyclopedia/spec side is open to browse. Some of the deeper interchange tools are still limited while I validate the data, but the main reason I’m posting is to get technical feedback, corrections, and real-world edge cases rather than to promote the project.

At this stage, the most useful feedback is not “nice project,” but corrections: places where the data disagrees with bench experience, parts books, supplier references, or real donor-movement behavior.

Une montres ELVES mécanique à remontage manuel des années 50/55.
Assemblage français à Besançon.
Échappement à ancre 15 rubis.
Calibre Cupillard 233
Boîtier laiton
15€ en brocante.

I wasn't sure what to expect and I've been pleasantly surprised.

In my random accumulation of watches I like every new watch to offer something original - in design, complication or colour (or a combination).

For some time I’ve been looking for a watch with a purple dial - I initially thought that box would be ticked by a Lavender dial Oyster Perpetual, but then I saw the GO Sixties Chronograph Annual Edition https://www.glashuette-original.com/en/watches/vintage/sixties-chronograph-annual-edition-1-39-34-08-22-04/

The standard strap is black, but this is a “large” in green. I used the inverted commas on “large” since it’s barely bigger than the standard strap, but at least I can wear it on the last but two hole, whereas the standard strap is still a bit snug on the final hole. I’m awaiting delivery of a Delugs custom strap in purple leather which I’m hoping will be perfect.

The gold hands and indices look amazing against the textured purple dial - the overall effect is extremely elegant and classy.

Downsides? Only two that I’ve discovered , but neither are deal breakers:

1. The synthetic straps are fine, but they just look a bit cheap against such a refined watch. I think it’s a shame that there’s no bracelet or leather option, forcing you to look to other manufacturers. I feel the same way about Omega woven nylon straps, and they’re of higher quality than the GO synthetic straps, but at least Omega can supply alligator straps in various colours, or a superb mesh bracelet.

2. The chronograph can only time up to 30 minutes whereas my others (Speedy, Navitimer) have a third subdial that counts up to 12 hours. This isn’t a disaster (first world problems!) but it limits its use ability - fine for timing coffee brewing, but not enough to time dog walks!

Another thing that isn’t really a downside but is slightly annoying is the Subdial layout - in every other chronograph I’ve seen the running seconds is at 9 o’clock, with the chronograph 30 minutes counter being at 3 o’clock, whereas they’re the other way round on this. This is very minor though, and in reality you adapt very quickly.

So overall I’m extremely pleased with my first Glashütte Original - I just wish there was a GO boutique where it’s possible to see and try on the entire range; my nearest AD has a pathetically small selection and a ridiculous bureaucracy in getting one in to try on (ten days after requesting one the request had still not got to GO, despite GO offering to expedite things, it was stuck at “I’ve asked my manager if…”)

Oh, and as an afterthought, for those relics like me who actually use a watch for telling the time, it’s timekeeping is excellent!

My mom's got this Movado, but I had trouble identifying it - even when I tried putting the info on the back into google.

Help with identifying is very appreciated, please and thank you!

Long story short, I've been building a microbrand watch discovery platform and, in the process, am accruing a LOT of data (6,500+ watches and 370 brands). As someone who has experience generating figures from large datasets, I couldn't help but make a couple of plots (and actually found some pretty cool use cases). It isn't perfect: anything visual, like distinctiveness and boldness, relies on CLIP image-similarity, which only sees what a watch looks like, not its actual lineage. But I still thought I'd share it with you all as I find it quite cool.

Basically, you can plot the whole catalog on whatever axes you want (price, case size, thickness, water resistance, visual boldness, distinctiveness, dial color, movement, brand tier) across X, Y, and Z. Adding a Z axis rotates it into a 3D scatter. You can also color the dots by a fourth variable, including how well each watch matches your taste, if you've been using the site or app for a while. You can hover over any dot to see which watch it represents.

Then, and here's the fun part, you can lasso-select a region, and it filters the entire catalog down to those exact watches. And any of the site's pre-existing filters also apply to any plots you generate. As a quick example, lasso the cheap-but-nobody-else-makes-it corner of a price vs. distinctiveness chart, and it essentially surfaces "standouts" for anyone saying that they're too boring these days.

Microbrands score highest on distinctiveness of any tier. The other tiers sit fairly close to each other; what separates microbrands is that they skew toward the extreme outliers (one-of-a-kind watches), and those standouts are almost all under $2k and time-only 3-handers. My guess is it's a risk-reward calculus, less to lose in going weird. Seems obvious, but nevertheless cool to see in the data. Homages sit lowest, which is fair.

There are also clusters, which are t-SNE (where proximity of points is a measure of similarity), so it's useful for local groupings, but the distance between two far-apart clusters doesn't really mean anything. My favorite is clustering by design families. Watches that look visually similar (as determined by image similarity) cluster together onto their own islands: divers here, Bauhaus dress over there, skeletons, pilots, etc., and you can visualize these relationships for a ton of different watches and brands. Basically, "I like this one, what else looks like it?" across a vast number of watches.

Across all of this, you can also highlight by archetype to see how styles shift across the variables.

It's a desktop thing for now; the charts and clusters need the screen real estate. It's free, and you don't need an account to use it (though I'd appreciate it. I’m still trying to grow the platform!).

Let me know if you find it as cool as I do, if you come up with any interesting plots, if you have feedback/improvements, or anything else.

Enjoy!

While modern computational history often begins with Babbage or Ada Lovelace, the conceptual lineage of programmable hardware was already beating in the heart of 18th-century European horology.

To understand how a mechanical sequence transforms into a logical algorithm, we must look at the work of Pierre Jaquet-Droz (1721–1790), a master clockmaker from La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland.

The Context: Horology in the Age of Enlightenment

During the 1770s, Europe was fascinated by the mechanics of life. Clockmaking wasn't just a craft; it was the peak of precision engineering. After a successful presentation to the Spanish Royal Court in 1758, Jaquet-Droz gathered the resources and the elite social standing necessary to push mechanical boundaries. Along with his son Henri-Louis and Jean-Frédéric Leschot, he aimed to prove that complex human behavior could be entirely discretized and replicated through continuous clockwork logic.

The Masterpiece: The Writer (L'Écrivain, 1774)

Presented in Neuchâtel in 1774, L'Écrivain is a 24-inch mechanical android of a barefoot boy sitting at a mahogany desk. Containing over 6,000 custom-engineered parts, this is not a simple wind-up toy that repeats a static, closed loop. It is a physically programmable device.

How it Works: Hardware as Software

The true breakthrough lies in its internal stack of interchangeable cams (levas intercambiables) located in the boy's torso:

• The Program (The Cam Wheel): The internal system features a massive wheel made of individual, teeth-like wedges. Each wedge represents a specific letter or instruction (like a space or a line break). By physically reordering or replacing these cams on the wheel, the operator alters the mechanical "code."
• The Processors: Three separate sets of cams control the three-dimensional movement of the right arm—governing the horizontal stroke (X-axis), vertical stroke (Y-axis), and the delicate pressure applied to the paper (Z-axis).
• The Feedback Loop: The machine executes subroutines autonomously. When the quill runs dry, a mechanical transition shifts the arm to dip the pen into the inkwell, followed by a slight flick of the wrist to prevent blotting before returning exactly to the next logical coordinate of the text.

L'Écrivain can write any custom message of up to 40 characters without any human intervention once the mechanism is wound. It represents a physical Read-Only Memory (ROM) device built out of brass and iron a century before the first electronic vacuum tube.

The European school of clockmaking didn't just measure time—they provided the mechanical framework that proved logic could be stored, modified, and executed physically.

I inherited this watch from my late grandfather years ago and discovered it again the other day while unpacking and I will be honest, I know hardly anything about time pieces so, hopefully the reddit community can help?? I can add any other pictures of the watch if needed.

Hello there!

We got this clock as an inheritance from our great grandmother.

We were wondering if anybody knows any details about it or a year of fabrication.

We didn't see any serial numbers, just the stamp and signature on the mechanism.

The key is nowhere to be found, we unfortunately we are unable to check if it works.

Any guidance or info about it would be of great assistance.

The history of digital technology frequently overlooks a fundamental truth: long before algorithms were encoded into silicon, they were physically sculpted in brass and steel. During the mid-nineteenth century, a singular individual recognized that mechanical illusion and temporal measurement shared the exact same mathematical foundation: Jean-Eugène Robert-Houdin. For Robert-Houdin, illusionism was not a matter of mysticism, but rather the logical extension of high-precision micro-mechanics.

I. The Horological Vision: Universal Order within the Gear

Before ever stepping onto a theatrical stage, Robert-Houdin spent years in his family’s workshop cleaning pinions, tempering mainsprings, and calibrating balance wheels. This rigorous training shaped a distinct philosophical perspective: the physical world operates as a regulated mechanism, and behavioral sequences can be systematically programmed.

While contemporary illusionists relied heavily on rudimentary sleight of hand or concealed drapery, Robert-Houdin introduced the analytical mindset of the horological workshop to the theater. His inventions were not mere tricks, but patented systems of physical transmission. Notably, he was an absolute pioneer in applying electricity to horology, creating some of the earliest precision electric clocks. His vision centered on utilizing invisible kinetic forces to alter human perception. To him, an automaton was never a decorative toy; it was a definitive demonstration of absolute control over matter, sequence, and time.

II. The Mechanical Masterpiece: The Marvelous Orange Tree

In 1845, Robert-Houdin debuted his most celebrated creation in Paris: an automaton that openly defied the laws of botany and linear time before a live audience. The operation of the Orange Tree was not a product of chance; it required a rigorous choreography of internal micro-mechanisms that modern engineering identifies as a rigid, hardware-implemented sequential program. The illusion progressed through three strictly timed phases:

1. Mechanical Efflorescence: Upon receiving an impulse from the operator, the tree trunk—which concealed a dense array of nested, telescopic control rods—distributed kinetic force to the lower branches. Metallic leaves parted subtly to reveal small white buds crafted from silk, which unfolded progressively to simulate blooming.
2. Fructification Sequences: Utilizing a system of dual-profile cams (irregularly shaped discs that transform rotary motion into precise linear displacement), the silk buds retreated invisibly. Concurrently, thin-skinned orange spheres were mechanically pushed outward from the interior of the foliage, simulating real-time growth and ripening.
3. The Lepidopteran Release: The primary orange at the apex of the tree, possessing a segmented structural design, split open into four symmetrical quadrants via a timed spring escapement. From its core emerged two mechanical butterflies attached to ultra-fine steel wires. Driven by a miniature clockwork motor hidden in the base of the fruit, they flapped their wings naturally, completing the cycle.

>The Antecedent to Code: Each operational phase of the orange tree strictly required the precise, millimetric termination of the preceding step. If a single cam deviated by a fraction of a degree, the logical flow collapsed. It was, in essence, a physical algorithm executing a complex sequential function.

Happy weekend friends 🤝

Wearing my 38 mm Onyx dial Laureato on my 18+ cm wrist. One of 88 pieces made for the Infinity collection in August 2020.

Girard-Perregaux only makes about 450 or so watches a month (5,000 a year) so when they say "limited edition" ... It's very rare to see another in the wild.😘