And I guess, does it depend on which ones?

For me it's very rarely and not for very long. I just enjoy that they are there and what they are doing, these wondrous micro-mechanical engines.
Perhaps it's that none of mine are particularly spectacular, hand-finished or whatever.

I do wonder if something with a lot to look at, like a hand-wound chronograph where you can see things happening, might get more of my attention, but not so sure about that?

So: do you enjoy some "loupe time" or am I just a bit dull?

I suppose it depends on the watch. Some can be quite plain to look at with minimal decoration so I don’t look too often.

Others I’m happy to take off during the day and watch what’s going on back there.

Not often, but it's especially nice that you know you do have a pleasantly decorated movement to look at now and again.

Well, I only have three watches and only one of those is an auto. Going forward any further watches will be mechanical, I love 'em! My auto is powered by a Miyota, hardly a tour de force of a movement, but it's appealing to the eye with some visual interest. Somehow it manages to run quite close to COSC tolerances without being a chronometer - better still. I'm forever interested by the spectacle of a mechanical watch living and breathing, typically the back and forth of the balance wheel, even the rotation of a winding wheel as it transfers the motion of the rotor to the balance spring. Yep, I like to see 'em, after all a mechanical movement is a wonder of engineering; a bit like an orchestra where you have so many different components coming together to create something quite beautiful and fluid.

Des

iain wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 10:38 am I suppose it depends on the watch. Some can be quite plain to look at with minimal decoration so I don’t look too often.

Others I’m happy to take off during the day and watch what’s going on back there.

I would constantly be looking at that. Absolutely stunning...and very hypnotic I'd imagine.

Des

Never

When I saw the title I was rather apprehensive about opening the thread.

I thought that I may have wandered into a specialist interest forum on the dark recesses of the internet!

Neil

nbg wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:38 pm When I saw the title I was rather apprehensive about opening the thread.

I thought that I may have wandered into a specialist interest forum on the dark recesses of the internet!

Neil

Me too Neil. I was ready to confess I always look down in the bowel afterwards, but once I realized what the thread was really about decided against it

Thats a great question.
1. Before I put the watch, with clear case back, on.
2. When I take the same watch off.
3. If that second hand is moving at a rate greater than a quartz, then I suppose it could be said, i am looking at its movement?

I only have a couple of watches with a glass/sapphire back. For me the watch face is number one, very rarely does the movement come into question.

Rgds
Steve

I like the industrial look of the in house movement running my Tudor North Flag.

scooter

Very rarely, although to be fair I do prefer an exhibition back to a steel one.

When I change the strap / bracelet on my Oris diver, which is fairly frequently at the moment. One reviewer said that the double barrel set-up was clearly designed to depict a Teddy bear’s face (the teddy bear is a symbol of Oris!)
??????!

Not often. The Sealander and Glycine are nice but fairly plain. The C5 Mk1 has nicer decoration. Overall I’d prefer looking at a hand winder but only have the C9 5-day SS. Lovely but has an enormous bridge covering a lot of it. The prettiest was definitely the Alpha on my Nomos Tangente.

My other watches have solid backs.

I occasionally may take off a watch to look into the works but for the most part I don’t bother. I’m not as interested in exhibition cases but if the watch has one I’ll flip it over at times. A majority of my watches have solid backs.

Often. Some may say too often. Sometimes the rotor gets in the way, but that’s fine by me.