Quartz tech can be every bit as fascinating. The issue is that $10 quartz movements are already better at the job than all but the priciest mechanicals — so demand falls off rapidly at higher prices.

That democratization of cheap, accurate timekeeping is among the great consumer-electronics technological achievements of the previous century in my opinion. It’s absolutely appropriate for the watches themselves to show off a bit.

And the way Swiss firms have successfully cast it as a bad thing is one of the great marketing achievements of the previous century…

Pre Quartz Crisis: “Swiss watches are more accurate and practical! Everybody should have one!”

Post Quartz Crisis: “Accurate and practical watches are for proles!”

A quartz watch on a fresh, tested battery would be an order of magnitude more accurate than, and have fewer failure points than, any mechanical watch, at substantially less weight and cost. Truer still if it’s all digital. That’s without even considering kinetic- or light-energy charging.

And if every passenger is wearing one, or if you double-wrist an F91W as your SHTF option, the combined probability of multiple quartz watch failures on the same excursion is getting into “God just wants you dead” territory.

I’ve heard just one ”practical” justification for modern mechanical movements — that there are parts of this earth where watch batteries can’t be had.

But that too is an argument for simple / cheap / repairable / replaceable, not for overbuilt survivability. In upcountry Whereverstan you’d be better off with a recently serviced Seiko5 than a Fortis.