In Praise of Stubbornness in Watchmaking
Stubbornness in watchmaking is no minor trait - it has played, and still plays, a leading role, seldom discussed but fundamental. We will look at the mechanics of this stubbornness, see how these mechanics contribute to watchmaking and also get to know the roles of its two exponents: pessimism and optimism. Our aim is to understand this technical obstinacy which, far from being mere whim, is often the silent engine of horological progress.
The Portuguese word teimar, “to be stubborn”, itself goes back to the Vulgar Latin timare, linked to timidus (“fearful”, “apprehensive”), a root that also gave rise to “timid”, “timidity” and “intimidate”.
Paradoxically, in watchmaking this semantic legacy sometimes evolves into something quite different: a disciplined persistence, able to repeat, correct and refine until the mechanism achieves accuracy, stability and functional coherence.
Etymology: from stubbornness to persistence
From an etymological point of view, stubbornness points not to courage but rather to an underlying fear or mistrust, since teimar is related to the Vulgar Latin timare and to timidus (“fearful”). In this sense, the stubborn person, at the semantic root of the word, is not “afraid” of anything concrete in the outside world, but instead reveals an inner resistance: a fear of giving in, of abandoning a conviction or of accepting an uncertain alternative. Obstinacy thus emerges as a form of defensive firmness, a persistence that historically evolved from the realm of fear and mistrust to its present meaning of rigidly insisting on a position. In the light of its etymology, teimar evolves towards the sense of insisting and not giving in, which brings stubbornness close to the idea of persistence whenever that fascinating phenomenon occurs in which this inner resistance turns into productive capacity.
The horological mechanics of stubbornness
In watchmaking, persistence is a historically indispensable quality: the meticulous repetition of gestures, the patient correction of manufacturing errors, the regulation of the rate and the search for technical solutions all demand a disciplined kind of “stubbornness”, directed towards precision.
Figures such as John Harrison, who persisted for decades in solving the longitude problem with his marine chronometers, Abraham-Louis Breguet, who pursued continual technical improvements in escapements and complications, or George Daniels, who persevered with the design of the co-axial escapement against the industry’s initial scepticism, are fine illustrations of this persistence turned into technical progress.
In this context, stubbornness ceases to be mere obstinacy and comes to mean enlightened perseverance: the ability to hold on to a technical conviction, to test, correct and insist until the solution works with mechanical rigour and stability over time. The unbearable lightness of stubbornness
There is, however, an often forgotten dimension: that of the apprentices, employers, patrons and institutions that have had to deal with obstinate watchmakers throughout history. Workshops that tolerated years of imperfect trials, backers who funded research of uncertain outcome and pupils who watched the same adjustment being repeated meticulously until a stable rate was achieved. John Harrison relied on the intermittent but decisive support of institutional figures and patrons who allowed his work to continue despite decades of controversy; Abraham-Louis Breguet benefited from the trust of demanding clients who accepted long, experimental technical processes; George Daniels pursued the development of the co-axial escapement for years until he found an industrial opening, thanks to his personal persistence and the industry’s eventual acceptance. In all these cases, the watchmaker’s technical obstinacy had a human counterpart: someone willing to put up with delays, doubts and insistence, understanding that mechanical refinement rarely comes about immediately, but rather from a slow, repetitive and deeply demanding process.
The pessimists and the optimists
In the context of watchmaking, the opposition between pessimists and optimists takes the form of a productive tension — but also, at times, a paralysing one.
In The Uses of Pessimism, Roger Scruton defends pessimism as enlightened prudence: anticipating failure, respecting complexity, distrusting easy solutions. This attitude is structural to the watchmaker’s craft. The good watchmaker is a technical pessimist: he foresees thermal variations, calculates minimal tolerances, tests for wear, measures before he trusts. It is this scepticism that guarantees rate stability and mechanical durability.
Yet there is another side:
The same pessimism that protects can also block.
Many horological innovations met with resistance precisely from those who, in the name of prudence, considered change too risky. History shows that the balance is a delicate one: the pessimist makes sure the mechanism does not fail; the stubborn one pushes the limits of the possible.
When scepticism turns into systematic obstruction, it holds back those who insist on testing new solutions.
When obstinacy ignores critical scrutiny, it produces error.
Technical evolution is born of the tension between the two: creative stubbornness needs to be challenged in order to mature, but not stifled before it has proved its worth.
Let us meet those who, through the strength of their disciplined obstinacy, managed to bring forth concrete results where before there had been only trial, error and the resistance of matter.
I. Pioneers of precision (18th–19th centuries)
1. John Harrison
He persisted for decades in solving the problem of longitude at sea, building the chronometers H1 to H5 in succession. He faced strong institutional resistance from the Board of Longitude before his work was finally recognised.
2. Ferdinand Berthoud
He devoted much of his life to perfecting the marine chronometer, maintaining a scientific persistence in the pursuit of chronometric precision in naval and astronomical contexts.
3. Pierre Le Roy
He worked continuously on the detachment of the oscillator and on temperature compensation, contributing to rate stability in marine chronometers.
4. George Graham
He perfected the deadbeat escapement and devoted himself with obsessive rigour to the stability of oscillators in high-precision astronomical clocks.
5. Thomas Mudge
Creator of the lever escapement applied to the portable watch, he persisted in adapting solutions from clockmaking to the pocket watch, despite the technical limitations of the period.
6. Abraham-Louis Breguet
He pursued constant technical improvements, including the hairspring with a raised terminal curve, the natural escapement, more efficient repeating systems and the tourbillon, redefining standards of precision and mechanical elegance.
II. Technical persistence in modern artisanal watchmaking (20th century)
7. George Daniels
He developed the co-axial escapement almost single-handedly over years of research, facing the industry’s scepticism until its later adoption and industrialisation by Omega. At the same time, he insisted on making his watches entirely himself — from design to execution by hand — in an era dominated by industrialisation.
8. Derek Pratt
He stood out for his extreme dedication to the historical reconstruction of complex mechanisms and for his rigorous work connected with the technical legacy of Harrison and classical chronometry.
III. Contemporary independent watchmaking (late 20th – 21st century)
9. Philippe Dufour
He persisted in championing traditional hand finishing and classical haute horlogerie, maintaining demanding artisanal standards for decades, against the dominant industrial trend.
10. Kari Voutilainen
He insists on fully artisanal production, on the continual refinement of his movements and on preserving historical techniques such as guilloché, displaying a technical and aesthetic persistence that is rare in contemporary watchmaking.
11. François-Paul Journe
He developed his own technical solutions, such as the modern remontoir d’égalité and high-precision chronometers, maintaining his creative independence from market trends.
12. Roger W. Smith
A direct pupil of Daniels, he obstinately continued the development of the co-axial escapement and of entirely handmade watchmaking, producing almost all of his components in-house.
13. Vianney Halter
He persisted with an independent mechanical and aesthetic language, developing original complications outside conventional commercial codes.
14. Denis Flageollet
(Co-founder of De Bethune) He sustained years of continuous research into materials, hairsprings and oscillators, introducing innovative technical solutions of his own.
15. Robert Greubel and Stephen Forsey
They persisted for years in the development of multiple and inclined tourbillons, facing enormous technical complexity and construction challenges.
IV. The new independent generation (21st century)
16. Rexhep Rexhepi
He founded a young independent manufacture and insisted on a classical approach with the very highest standard of hand execution, progressive technical development and extreme rigour.
17. Bart Grönefeld
He maintains a technical persistence in family watchmaking, with a strong focus on mechanical robustness, reliability and functional precision.
18. Konstantin Chaykin
He insists on original mechanical solutions and unconventional complications, backed by his own research and technical patents.
19. Naoya Hida
He is characterised by an extreme persistence in aesthetic purity, constructive precision and limited production, with an almost obsessive rigour.
20. Dann Phimphrachanh
He stands out for a technical obstinacy centred on hand construction and independent mechanical research, embracing long development processes and an auteur approach that favours functional coherence, rigorous execution and fidelity to the original design.
The horological triangle: Stubbornness - Pessimism - Optimism
In the end, the history of watchmaking reveals that technical progress is born of a delicate triangle of stubbornness, pessimism and optimism.
First there is stubbornness — understood as disciplined persistence — which drives research and compels repetition, correction and continual refinement until the solution works with mechanical rigour and stability over time.
For its part, optimism makes it possible to conceive what does not yet exist, to believe that a new escapement, a new gear train or a new movement architecture is possible.
As for pessimism, it performs an indispensable critical function: it tests limits, anticipates failures, imposes prudence and protects the functional reliability of the mechanism.
However, when pessimism ceases to be a method and turns into systematic obstruction, it starts to hold back the progress of the most obstinate and slows the adoption of innovative solutions in the name of excessive safety.
Watchmaking evolves precisely in the tension between these forces: creative stubbornness insists, optimism projects, and pessimism verifies.
History shows that many of the great horological advances came about only because technical obstinacy withstood the prevailing scepticism long enough to prove itself in practice.
It was in the worked material, in the finely adjusted tolerances and in the verified rate stability that innovation ceased to look like recklessness and began to reveal itself as mechanical maturity. What was first seen as a risk became, after repetition, testing and validation, a new standard of rigour.
The Portuguese horological triangle
If we transpose this tension between stubbornness, pessimism and optimism to the Portuguese reality, the question becomes particularly clear. For decades the idea was repeated that fine, quality watchmaking could not be built in Portugal. The pessimists argued that industrial structures, an unbroken tradition, capital and production scale were all lacking. In part, this caution was well founded: in terms of contemporary manufacturing the territory was practically virgin. However, pessimism often went beyond its healthy critical function and turned into a cultural block, discouraging initiatives before they had even been tested in practice.
On the other side came the optimists and the stubborn. Those who, despite the absence of established factories, decided to press ahead with what they had: accumulated technical knowledge, international networks, experience gained by Portuguese watchmakers working for Swiss brands, a capacity for rapid learning and the will to structure local production. In uncharted territory, you start with small series, national assembly, the progressive development of components and the creation of an identity of your own. They did not start from an established industry; they started from technical conviction and persistence.
Until a few years ago, the pessimists clearly had the upper hand over the optimists in Portugal.
Many plans for watch production faded away under the weight of scepticism, mistrust and lack of recognition.
In recent years, however, the balance has shifted. A new generation of creators — stubborn in the best sense of the word — has managed to launch brands, structure ideas, develop products and show that it is possible to do in Portugal what once seemed unfeasible. Obstinacy is no longer seen as naivety and has begun to reveal itself as a growing maturity.
If the history of watchmaking teaches us anything, it is that no territory is born with an established industry; it has to be built. Portuguese innovation in watchmaking will depend precisely on this tension: enough optimism to move forward, enough stubbornness to persist, and enough technical pessimism to guarantee quality.
What is changing now is that, for the first time in a long while, the obstinate seem ready to withstand scepticism long enough to prove, in the material and in the rate, that Portuguese watchmaking is not recklessness — it is potential in the making.
Comments