Yes, I didn't bother to describe the Seiko Spring Drive because it's absurdly expensive and exceedingly rare. And no, it's not because of the cost of the jewelled movement, it's because Seiko are deliberately targetting it at the top end collector market.
I was mates with the Service Manager of Seiko in the UK, and he showed me an example of the very first Spring Drives for sale in the UK. I asked if I could buy one, but at that time Seiko were actually choosing their customers and I wasn't of sufficient stature! Different story now, of course.
The first ones were hand wound, so there was no particularly limit on the energy available to run the watch. This makes it *much* easier to implement the technology. You can just fit a longer and stronger mainspring and make the owner work a little harder each morning.
The biggest and most impressive breakthrough came in making an "automatic" version, which used the wearer's wrist movements to wind the mainspring. Much greater economy of power is required, but it was achieved and resulted in a wonderful watch.
Johny, you are doing it again! Sounding authoritative when you know almost nothing of the subject.
You've just described a normal analogue quartz watch, except one which steps somewhat faster than 1Hz (fast enough to be smooth and continuous)*.
This isn't related in any way to Seiko's breakthrough technology, so is in no way a "cheaper variation". The magnificent breakthrough was using a quartz resonator to control a *mechanically powered* gear train, by not only powering the circuit from the train it is controlling, but also regulating said trains speed. This dual function was brilliant.
The reason faster-than-one-second stepping hasn't found its way into quartz analogue watches (I mean commonly available ones) so far is to do with battery life. The stepper motor consumes most of the power, and the less often it steps, the longer the battery will last. That's why quartz analogue watches with no seconds hand will often step only every 15, 20 or 30 seconds. Quite often ladies watches are like this: quartz analogue with no second hand. Borrow one from your wife, take it to a quiet room, and listen carefully - you will almost certainly find it does two to four ticks per minute; no more.
Now that high-speed (virtually continuous)* quartz clock movements are available, I don't suppose it will be long before someone launches a watch equivalent. I'll be the first in the queue outside Argos to buy one, as long as it isn't silly money, of course. I would have thought that modern, low power movements/motors combined (perhaps) with a lithium battery would make it entirely feasible.
Or none. Steel-on-plastic and plastic-on-plastic bearings are very common (almost universal) in lower cost quartz watches. Despite jewels still being used in higher quality quartz movements, the case for them is really quite questionable (apart from marketing reasons, obviously). The train in a quartz analogue clock is under virtually zero torque, so wear is essentially non-existent. In fact, I've never found a single quartz watch with wear at the pivot or hole.
Jewels allow for a lower level of friction than the alternatives I mentioned, which is why they still find their way into mid-range and posh quartz watches. But basically there is no mechanical requirement for them.
This is very different from mechanical watches, of course, where the train is under a high torque and wear is common.
*Recall that synchronous motors and stepper motors are variants of the same theme. Operate a stepper motor quickly enough and its inertia ensures that it doesn't stop between steps, thus working like a synchronous motor.