Strangely, nobody has mentioned the possibility of playing with a digital clock set incorrectly (whether deliberate or not). The first question I ask when I sit down to play with my opponent’s digital clock is about time delay. I recall a game (at an adult tournament) where one side had a 3 second delay and the other side had 5 seconds.
Michael Aigner
Yeah, I always ask if there’s delay. And usually in the first couple of moves, I watch the clock to make sure the delay’s really working, because I had an opponent once who thought he’d turned on delay, but really didn’t know how to work his clock. This is why I own a clock and know how to set it. If my opponent can’t figure out his, then we use mine.
Some BHBs had an “anti-delay”. If you pressed the button hard enough, the opponent’s clock would actually run faster for several seconds –
TICK-TICK-TICK - TICK - tick … tick … tick …
– before slowing down to the normal speed. On a wind-up clock, the tick rate is directly proportional to the clock speed. Most BHBs operated at 120 tick-tocks (120 ticks and 120 tocks) per minute, but a few operated at 135 (different internal gear ratios).
Bill Smythe
I can reply from my limited experience: I have yet to see one scholastic player who brings an analog clock to the board. Those who have clocks here locally have digital. (Except that our local organization does have and uses analogs to place on boards.)
That doesn’t, of course, mean that no scholastic players ever use analog. Just that I have yet to see one. 
I’ll stipulate that the youngest players rarely bring a clock at all. Clocks seem to be the very last piece of gear that a parent will buy (including, in at least some cases, after an electronic scoresheet.) Ironic, because almost invariably the longest games occur for those players who use clocks from move 1.
And I, too, am not sure that analog watches have triumphed over digital. The best watch I ever owned was a Citizen model, analog/digital, akin to this one. The analog hands are utterly controlled by a digital controller. I understand that attempts have been made in the past for an ana-digi fusion in chess clocks. I’d love to see an analog that could do delay / increment / multiple time controls. (And, full disclosure, my current watch is also an analog for one and only one reason: tritium hands/hour markers.)
I’m not a scholastic player, but a younger one at most of the tournaments I go to (22yrs, but I don’t go to very big tournaments) and actually prefer the analog clock. More satisfying to push and gives it more of the classic chess feel. I understand that they’re not as “exact” but it’s not like I’m playing for the world championship. I certainly don’t mind using digital clocks (and just so it gets said I don’t think the digital clocks where you actually depress something are as satisfying as knowing that you’re changing internal gears, hearkens to the physicist in me) and will do so if my opponent is black and has one. However if I get to chose my equipment then I’d prefer my clock, and since there’s no USCF rule yet I’d resent going to a tournament and finding out that I was unable to use my personal preference clock as black, regardless if there were plenty of digital clocks to spare for the game. Just me maybe
Analogs can be a lot of fun to play on. In fact, I mentioned to another TD at a tournament earlier this year (faced with choices of at least three different digital models for board placement,) that analogs have the advantage of being easy to set. And I even like the ‘thunk’ of a button depression - I’d buy an INSA if I didn’t have/use/love my Chronos.
As to rules, um… Please don’t shoot the messenger, but there already is a rule that if a tournament is being played with sudden death or increment, a player who brings a properly-set delay/increment clock does get to use that clock over an analog clock even if White. (42D and 42E/E1. 42D has been present since the 5th Edition Rules, and 42E concerning increment is an addition.)
I started playing tournament Chess circa 1988. From then until 1996 the clock of the USCF was a Quartz clock. Yes, it was an analog model but used batteries and used the Quartz mechanism for timing just like Quartz watches.
There were no mechanical, mechanized, mechanizations in that clock except for the little second dial turning is a clicking manner every second, the minute hand clicking forward every minute and the hour hand doing likewise on the hour. The buttons remarkably worked and felt exactly like the current Excalibur II and the Saitek Competition Pro clocks.
I did own one of the INSA clocks as well as a Blitz clock with the time on the face covering 15 minutes instead of one hour. Those were fun to play with except for the unpredictability of knowing exactly when the flag would fall. I would calibrate all these clocks with my digital watch as they all had a manner to adjust the timing of each clock. I do recall one fellow having his clock run a little slower than the one on his opponent’s side. That was a problem though if his opponent played Black and wanted the clock on the wrong side of the board for the owner to have the slower running clock! This really wasn’t a problem then. There also would be the occasional problem if one of the two clocks was not wound up enough or even if it was wound too much, making it so the clocks would not run.
Today I have the ubiquitous Chronos clocks (4 of them) and I just sold my Excalibur II and purchased a Saitek Competition Pro for playing at Barnes and Noble. I really like the green LED’s in the buttons to show who is on the move.
I guess I would say I currently would only have a problem with the analog types because there is no delay and because the timing might not be accurate with either or both clocks. I started playing better and more serious, taking more time in my moves lately. I really do not want a sudden death with no delay. That would cause a lot of grief and stress that does not need to be in the game.
Even though I hugely prefer digital chess clocks, when it comes to watches I really like my present analog (a gift from my wife several years ago) because the hands are thick and white, and the background is black, for easy readability. Digital watches all seem to have black digits against a dark greenish-gray background, not very good contrast. But I dislike analog watches with gold hands, regardless of background, because they are hard to read. Ditto for watches with really skinny hands, regardless of color.
Garde had a hybrid like that a few years ago, but it had several problems. I think they’ve discontinued that model in favor of pure digital.
Bill Smythe
Glenn Petersen has a relevant story in You are Old, Father William http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=181514#p181514
Its certainly true that low end department store watches, regardless if digital or analog, have declined precipitiously in sales over the years due to the prevelance of cell phones, but high end watches will always be around as a fashion accessory. (As a rule, most high end watches are analog). Of course, we’re talking at a minimum hundreds of dollars, and the sky’s the limit as to how much you really want to spend on a watch. Rolex certainly has no problem selling watches for 10’s of thousands of dollars.
But in common usage? The percentage of the US population wearing watches today is significantly lower than 20 years ago. Cell phones have pretty much completely replaced them as the primary portable timekeeping device of choice for the masses.
I actually use a Chronos to keep my normal time,… 
No, really I use a Timex Ironman watch. It is a digital watch that also has a nice chronograph for when I run. I have worn one of these for over twenty years. Because they’re waterproof, the watch literally lives on my wrist. Of course I take it off for showering and bathing, but that’s about it.
What we really need is a system of digital watches that can be wirelessly connected and together can act as a Chess Clock.
I am directing a tournament tomorrow where a delay clock is mandatory. I own 4 Chronos Clocks and 1 Saitek Competition Pro. If someone needs to borrow one, I’ll have mine.
I totally expect that I will not need to loan out any clocks though. Today the digital clocks with delay are the standard at tournaments. On occasion we will see one individual that brings an analog clock, but they are the exception, not the rule by a long shot.
I remember the Garde clock that was an analog with a delay feature. The delay part was a little window with a digital display, while the main time was on an analog face. I don’t see any of these available any more, though.
It might be nice to have an analog with a digital delay and perhaps a digital second display. There are currently watches that have both analog and digital displays combined.
At the U.S. Amateur Team Championship in New Jersey, there were 80 team boards in the main ballroom, which translates to 320 individual games. In the last round, I counted about 40 games in the room using analog clocks (several games had finished before I had completed the count, though). Even though this event has a lot of young players and scholastic teams, the teams are mostly adults. I would guess that this event has a good number of players who only play in just this one event every year, probably more than almost any other tournament.
The percentage of digital clocks is certainly very impressive, but the core group of players who use analogs is not yet extinct.
I keep hearing statements like this from the east and west coasts. I find this strange, because in the Chicago area analog clocks have all but disappeared.
Bill Smythe
Yes and they are also very stubborn and erstwhile in their love of their precious analog clocks.
I don’t understand it though. Unless it is an old classic like a Jaeger, there is too much a possibility of error in the time keeping. I have seen clocks like the INSA or BHB actually stop from either being not wound up enough or wound up too tightly.
I also just don’t get it that people don’t want the delay. It is a proven fact that the better players use their time. They use most or all of their time. The delay just keeps the crazy time scrambles away.
Also, even if you love your chess clock, it becomes a piece of the scenery during the game. Yes, it’s important the action of the buttons is good. Yes, it is also good the time is well displayed. But, get that accomplished and most all of us seem to forget the clock for the game.
Yes Bill, we in the Middle are far ahead of our coastal brethren…
I have and have presented my reasons for wanting a digital, delay clock. Of course I wouldn’t mind an analog with digital delay and second indicator.
Other than saying they prefer the analog clocks, I don’t hear any good reasons for wanting an analog over the other. I mean, give us good reasons why an analog is preferable.
The one statement that the analogs are easier to set doesn’t hold water when it comes to a Chronos. Really, just have the time control saved in one of the first four memories and you get to it by simply pressing the center red button quickly, from the clock being turned off, until the desired time control setting is there. To change the clock time is also very easy. Just hold the same button until the LCD display starts flashing. From there just short or quickly press the center red button until the digit you want to change is flashing. Use the game button over that time display to change to the desired number. Continue this until you have the desired time change and then hold the center button until the display stops flashing and it is set.
Once a person sets or changes a time on a Chronos once, they are and expert at doing it.
This is not true. I have known many A- and B-class players who are helpless when setting their Chronos clocks. One problem is too many modes to choose from, and another problem is some of the codes are not exactly intuitive.
Your solution of using the programmed-saved settings helps IF the player has set it up correctly before the tournament. But invariably the chief TD makes an announcement about the clocks that sends 5% of the players scrambling to change theirs. (Or maybe they just waited until after the announcements to set up their clocks. 
)
I think it’s the type and size of the tournament which governs the likelihood of an appearance of analog clock, and also the type of tournament activity in the area as well. But to test out your theory, I’m going to try and count the analogs in tournaments around the country, to see which area is the most stubborn and old-fashioned.
I don’t think it’s so much ‘old fashioned’ as frugal, Steve. Clocks aren’t inexpensive, why replace one if it still works and if 95% of the time having an analog clock is sufficient?
I did a count during two rounds of the 2009 US Open, and in both rounds about 60% of the clocks were digital, though it’s possible some may have been old enough that they don’t have all the delay/increment modes that more recent clocks would have.
I also did a count in the Open and Reserve sections of the 2009 Cornhusker Games (much smaller event), and it was about 50-50 there.
Wow. That’s a LOT more analog clocks than I’d expect to see. We occasionally see older guys who haven’t replaced their 20 year old analogs here, but that’s about it. Actually, one of my teammates at USAT South last weekend had an analog clock. He was hoping to win one of the digitals that they were giving away as prizes.
I am directing a tournament today. I have 21 participants/10 boards. I don’t see one analog in the lot, and that includes more than 10 clocks because most players brought their own equipment.
I know, I know, you guys will point out that I am making the delay mandatory so there can’t be any analogs. Gosh, are you ever being picky 
Seriously, no one has even mentioned wanting to use an analog clock or regretting the fact that they can’t use one. Seriously, the clock is not the center of attention. The sets are and really the play on the board is the most significant thing.