Making Time With the Watchmakers

PreacherTom writes "In the age of watches that have more computational power than Apollo 11's computer, one would think that the watchmaker has gone the way of the cobbler, the blacksmith and the Dodo. Quite the contrary. With the rise in interest for mechanical watches (especially luxury models), Rolex has sponsored a new school to train horologists in the arcane art. From the article: 'We were facing a situation today where we needed to foster a new generation of watchmakers,' says Charles Berthiaume, the senior vice-president for technical operations at Rolex and the Technicum's president 'Thirty to 40 years ago, there was a watchmaker at every jewelry store. That's not the case today,' he notes. Included are some remarkable examples of their training, dedication, and intricate patience as they take technology in an entirely different direction."

Comments

good pun!

[fox1324]

"For the next generation of horologists, it's about time." thought that was clever

Re:PreacherTom is an Astroturfer

[Rob the Bold]

"PreacherTom is an astroturfer for BusinessWeek magazine"

No, not really.

He's what in the "old media" world we would call a "crier." He directs traffic to a given site, by saying how interesting it is. The fact that a given article actually is interesting should not be based in any way on who submits it -- be it a bored geek or a profit-seeking crier.

So are you saying "No, not really: there is no such thing as astroturfing" or "No, not really: I know PreacherTom, and he's neither a paid shill or a figment of the imagination of a Business Week marketeer"? Because if he has a financial/business interest in the story he's submitting, that should be disclosed. As you say, an interesting story is still interesting even if hyped by a "crier", disclosure notwithstanding, right?