It's odd, as I said to my uncle this evening, I'm coming to value things which are not mass produced (at least, not in the modern sense). I wear mechanical chronometers and chronographs by preference, my working cameras are a Rolleiflex and a Leica (courtesy of my uncle and father), and my newly acquired turntable is a Thorens (a 20+ year old belt drive).
All of them are near the pinnacle of design in the Mechanical Age (generally accredited to have started shortly after the 1st World War). The Rolleiflex, I might argue is at the pinnacle of that design. First-rate optics, second to none in the industry, married with precision mechanical gearing. Even forty-five years after its manufacture its shutter keeps perfect timing. Clockwork gears internally and lenses generating negatives so crisp that no digital made can compare.
What these items have in common other than my appreciation for them is that they represent evolved mechanical design. But not finicky things which will not survive, too delicate to be used. All are quite functional many years after their initial design and creation simply because they were well cared for (or restored after some neglect). No batteries, no circuit boards to deteriorate. With some care, there is no reason that they might not live well over a century.
Contrast that to our experience with a modern DVR or CD player (or computer). The repair costs typically exceed the value and the best option is frequently to simply junk the object in question and buy the next generation.
With some study these Mechanical Age products could be repaired by someone with the interest and proper tools. I despair of ever repairing a DVR. And I'm university-educated, technically capable, and build computers from components for fun.
Maybe my interest in these devices grows as a bulwark against the despair I feel for our society's inevitable decline towards disposable consumerism?
Posted by artandscience at April 29, 2005 09:56 PM