"John S." wrote:

"Those circular displays with the pointers are pretty anachronistic"

JS In what way are analog displays anachronistic. They are much
easier to tell at a glance whether the target location is in darkness
or light.

" and beset with problems such as lack of shock resistance"
JS Are you aware that for the past half century almost all mechanical
watches use shock absorbtion devices like Kif or Diashock. Modern
mechanical movements are surprisingly robust. If the last new watch
you tried was in the 1940's, then I could understand why you might make
such a statement.

", parallax error when reading,"
JS Unless you were trying to read the dial from an extreme angle it
would be all but impossible to experience noticable parallax error. At
such angles digital displays disappear from view entirely. Most of us
have learned that dgital and analog watches are most easily read when
the wrist is turned toward the eyes and not away.

" wear and tear on mechanical elements, etc."
JS What mechanical or electronic device have you found that does NOT
experience wear over time. That said, a mechanical watch movement can
be kept running for over 100 years with nothing other than simple
periodic maintenance. (I have several of them).

"That being said, a Rolex GMT Master has the extra 24 hour analog hour
hand."
JS What an utter watse of money. There are several highly accurate
quartz and mechanical GMT watches that provide the same GMT timekeeping
features with movements that are as accurate or more so at a tiny
fraction of the cost of a Rolex.

Seiko is among the leaders when it comes to producing highly accurate
GMT watches that have a rotating 24 hour bezel, an independently
adjustable 12 hour hand that allows the date to be rolled over and a 24
hour hand. The Seiko will run circles around the Rolex when it comes to
accuracy.

Perhaps, but one is liable to get more dates with the Rolex!

dxAce
Michigan
USA