Watch journalism isn’t dead. Even if watch journalists seem to write as much about watch journalism as they do about watches, sometimes. Or maybe that’s just the ones I read on Substack!!
To be able to pay the bills writing about watches is a pure privilege, so you absolutely must respect your audience. Some websites I used to highly respect are now generating AI slop… so I no longer visit.
There aren’t many good honest watch sites now, you just have to try watches yourselves if you can find what you’re looking for and if you live near a city that has sone watch stores.
I think (I genuinely do so) that the way forward is independent content creation, via subscription.
If we think about it, paying for content has been rooted deeply in the way we consume entertainment/information. We buy tickets to the movies, we subscribe to platforms, we subscribe to publications. Why not subscribe to those who produce the content we cherish and value? Journalist/content creators get paid, and the public gets authenticity and fairness.
Everyone is biased to a certain extent, and opinions are formed by a variety of factors, so discussing those attributes is precisely what makes reading about watches so interesting in the first place. I think we are on the verge of a deeper change in content consumption — one for the better.
I hope you're right. Of course you're correct about paying for content – subscriptions have been a major revenue model in publishing for a long, long time (either that or you paid at the newsstand). These publications existed alongside free high quality journalism (TV network news, radio news). I pay to read the Substacks I follow; in general, I'm philosophically opposed to paywalls but I have a day job that pays the bills (and which still lets me write about pretty much whatever I want) so I can afford to not paywall everything, at least for now.
how could anyone miss the lament about people chasing status over complications from a man who never misses a chance to buy the status watches for himself?
we are now cursed with knowledge. incomplete as it may be, but it is enough to make us angry. an angry consumer is less inclined to be generous.
Couldn’t agree more. From your comments on Joe to the fact that we need to leave arrogance at the door and be smart enough to know that someone always knows more.
Jack, before WatchTime, Joe published (albeit just a few issues) a mag called American Time or maybe it was American Watch. I have those issues somewhere in a box in my garage. Say hi to Joe for me!
No, it's not dead, although I do wonder where Walt Odets would be able to publish his (in)famous takedown of the Rolex Explorer other than in his own Substack, if he had one. But speaking for myself, the main reasons I read watch journalism are (a) to get detailed descriptions of the mechanisms that make these wonderful gizmos tick, so to speak, (b) to read opinion pieces about watches as cultural objects of interest (and for both of these, Jack, there's no one better than you), and (c) to find out about the latest releases, for which press releases, undigested, will do just fine on damn near any online site.
But watch reviews? I never much cared about them. The more or less objective data, e.g. seconds per day variation, always led me to wonder whether the one watch provided to (or bought by) the reviewer is in fact typical of the entire run. How much variance from watch to watch is there, anyway? I have no idea. And as for the rest, the reviewer's opinion of the layout of the dial or the design of the numerals or the placement of the date window or any number of other more or less entirely subjective reactions, however educated they may be, I'll listen (or read), and agree or disagree, but that's about it. But to buy or not to buy, that is the question; whether to suffer the slings and arrows of reviewers' opinions, or by ignoring them, end them, well, on that score my opinion is the only one that counts.
Hi Rip! Always great to hear from you. On your point about opinions; I think informed opinions offer valuable context but absolutely, you ultimately have to consult your own taste (and budget). A lot of us start out wanting what we think we should want, rather than what we do want and developing one's own taste can take some time and I think that's where informed opinions can be of value.
On the subject of things like precision, it is true that a sample size of one is not statistically significant. If a watch runs off spec straight from the factory, though, I do think that reflects or at least, can reflect issues with quality control. A well made movement can be adjusted by hand to run to ± two seconds per day but doing that consistently, over tens of thousands of watches, is a whole 'nother challenge and the fact that Rolex can do that is part of what makes Rolex Rolex (and Tudor Tudor, and Omega Omega, the latter two in the context of Master Chronometer certification).
Thanks, Jack, for taking the time to reply! Regarding informed opinions, I agree completely that reading such opinions from reviewers (and commenters 🤓) can be a very valuable part of the learning process, on a cumulative basis. I'm sure many of my own opinions have been shaped by reading watch magazines and online commentary for decades (sigh...), without my conscious awareness. But one or two or four individual reviewers' "the 4:30 placement of the date window ruins the sleek elegance that otherwise characterizes the dial" is not going to dissuade me from buying the watch if its overall aesthetic, value, affordability, etc speak to me.
Not dead, but certainly has lost its identity. Hot take, but I really appreciate watches with “real” in-house movements. And the fact I have to preface that statement with “real” is why watch journalism has lost the technical appeal.
When every watch company was claiming an in-house movement by slapping a new rotor on a Sellita, the watch journalists didn’t push back. They didn’t bite the manufacturer’s hand, but they did slap the reader’s intelligence. Now that advertising is drying up and they are looking for reader based revenue, that dereliction of duty is coming back to haunt them.
I want that technical analysis you speak of, but I fear that you are one of the few who are left who can deliver it.
Clear technical writing that is also engaging and interesting for a non professional audience is pretty difficult. One of the most useful books in terms of technical information that I have in my collection is De Carle's "Complicated Watches And Their Repair" which covers everything from simple calendars all the way up to grand et petite sonneries. It is extremely dense and I use it as a reference constantly but it was written by a professional for professionals and boy, a page turner it is not.
Not while Jack is still alive! I think that the best articles you've written about watches haven't actually been about watches, but just an opportunity to write about something else. In fact, I think somewhere on the interwebs you may have admitted the same thing.
That is a hundred per cent true. The great thing about watches, of course, is that they touch so many worlds – physics, design, mechanics, many of the most important decorative arts, and then things like navigation (at sea, and air navigation as well) and on and on.
Watch Journalism, like a lot of journalism in general, if it's just reporting facts (in this case on hairspring alloys, colorways, case width etc.) can be a little tedious. What I like are personal stories, history, cultural context etc.. "About Time" by Rooney is a great read, "A Man and his Watch" by Hranek is a great read. "Your piece A Mouse-Eye View Of The History Of The Character Watch" was a great read. Someone should write a book on the history of the watch industry 1965-85, or at least compile/distill the best 20 or 30 articles on the subject.
Yeah there are times when what is called for is really straight reporting – new product launches in general, especially line updates, are a good example. I like the idea of power to weight ratio – a line extension, for instance, isn't someplace you should let yourself go purple in the prose unless you want readers to feel like they're being had. A new technical innovation, or a watch that involves some significant craftsmanship (miniature enamel painting, for instance) are subjects where it feels appropriate to go on a bit as there is so much more to unpack.
I really enjoyed reading your take on this, Jack. I think the quality that some of watch writing’s elder statesmen (you’re at the head of that pack) routinely published back in the day has been relegated to the back-burner by most in the industry- whether that be on blogs, magazines, podcasts, YouTube, etc.
The bulk of the watch industry’s reporting at this point is comprised of loads of generic, homogenized “opinions” that are not unique to the writer. As you alluded to, keywords get clicks, and a video titled The Top 10 Watches You Should AVOID is just simply going to do better with engagement than a long form article about Lange’s balance cock engraving.
While there is certainly a lot more noise to get through, I think the proliferation of cookie-cutter “journalists” has caused people with actual knowledge and viewpoints (like yourself and a handful of others) stand out from the pack. That whole “cream rises to the top” type logic.
I say all this as a long-winded way of saying I appreciate your consistent effort to inform, entertain and challenge us readers and will continue to consume whatever you publish.
Thanks so much! I appreciate the support. Yeah, there is tremendous pressure in publishing these days to write for the algorithms and for SEO. I don't think there is anything wrong at all about enthusiasts writing for other enthusiasts but journalism is a profession and writing is a craft.
I'm not much of a fan of the "next generation" of watch writers that have come up on the usual suspect, high traffic web sites. Thankfully, most of the writers worth reading still publish, mostly on their own Substacks.
One thing I will note, as I subscribe to 5 or 6 paid Substack watch writers, is that they tend to talk about the same topics week after week. A bit too homogenous and reactionary.
The basic problem with any solo Substack is that you tend to write about what you're interested in, which if you're not careful can lead to somewhat monotonous content. The other bigger problem with subscription based content is that at some point, you just get subscription overload; it's death by a thousand cuts. And of course, there is the bigger problem in publishing, in general, when pretty much all decent journalism is behind paywalls; it's harder than ever for folks to get outside the echo chamber of their own opinions.
Of course you can ask Joe, however, I believe when he got the offer to run WatchTime, which at that time was a publication with a much larger and worldwide circulation. Ah, the dark ages of watch collecting when we had to wait 2 months between issues. Of course, in those dial-up days patience was a real part of collecting.
Watch journalism isn’t dead. Even if watch journalists seem to write as much about watch journalism as they do about watches, sometimes. Or maybe that’s just the ones I read on Substack!!
I SWEAR the next one won’t be navel gazing industry and media analysis just gimme a chance 😂
I feel very seen!
I may have been thinking of you, indeed!! 😂
To be able to pay the bills writing about watches is a pure privilege, so you absolutely must respect your audience. Some websites I used to highly respect are now generating AI slop… so I no longer visit.
There aren’t many good honest watch sites now, you just have to try watches yourselves if you can find what you’re looking for and if you live near a city that has sone watch stores.
Keep up the great journalism!
I think (I genuinely do so) that the way forward is independent content creation, via subscription.
If we think about it, paying for content has been rooted deeply in the way we consume entertainment/information. We buy tickets to the movies, we subscribe to platforms, we subscribe to publications. Why not subscribe to those who produce the content we cherish and value? Journalist/content creators get paid, and the public gets authenticity and fairness.
Everyone is biased to a certain extent, and opinions are formed by a variety of factors, so discussing those attributes is precisely what makes reading about watches so interesting in the first place. I think we are on the verge of a deeper change in content consumption — one for the better.
I hope you're right. Of course you're correct about paying for content – subscriptions have been a major revenue model in publishing for a long, long time (either that or you paid at the newsstand). These publications existed alongside free high quality journalism (TV network news, radio news). I pay to read the Substacks I follow; in general, I'm philosophically opposed to paywalls but I have a day job that pays the bills (and which still lets me write about pretty much whatever I want) so I can afford to not paywall everything, at least for now.
how could anyone miss the lament about people chasing status over complications from a man who never misses a chance to buy the status watches for himself?
we are now cursed with knowledge. incomplete as it may be, but it is enough to make us angry. an angry consumer is less inclined to be generous.
Couldn’t agree more. From your comments on Joe to the fact that we need to leave arrogance at the door and be smart enough to know that someone always knows more.
Thank you Tracey. I will miss seeing you in Geneva by the way – I would have loved to hear what you have to say on this subject in your panel!
Jack, before WatchTime, Joe published (albeit just a few issues) a mag called American Time or maybe it was American Watch. I have those issues somewhere in a box in my garage. Say hi to Joe for me!
It was American Time! You can pick up back issues on eBay. I wonder when they ceased publishing.
No, it's not dead, although I do wonder where Walt Odets would be able to publish his (in)famous takedown of the Rolex Explorer other than in his own Substack, if he had one. But speaking for myself, the main reasons I read watch journalism are (a) to get detailed descriptions of the mechanisms that make these wonderful gizmos tick, so to speak, (b) to read opinion pieces about watches as cultural objects of interest (and for both of these, Jack, there's no one better than you), and (c) to find out about the latest releases, for which press releases, undigested, will do just fine on damn near any online site.
But watch reviews? I never much cared about them. The more or less objective data, e.g. seconds per day variation, always led me to wonder whether the one watch provided to (or bought by) the reviewer is in fact typical of the entire run. How much variance from watch to watch is there, anyway? I have no idea. And as for the rest, the reviewer's opinion of the layout of the dial or the design of the numerals or the placement of the date window or any number of other more or less entirely subjective reactions, however educated they may be, I'll listen (or read), and agree or disagree, but that's about it. But to buy or not to buy, that is the question; whether to suffer the slings and arrows of reviewers' opinions, or by ignoring them, end them, well, on that score my opinion is the only one that counts.
Hi Rip! Always great to hear from you. On your point about opinions; I think informed opinions offer valuable context but absolutely, you ultimately have to consult your own taste (and budget). A lot of us start out wanting what we think we should want, rather than what we do want and developing one's own taste can take some time and I think that's where informed opinions can be of value.
On the subject of things like precision, it is true that a sample size of one is not statistically significant. If a watch runs off spec straight from the factory, though, I do think that reflects or at least, can reflect issues with quality control. A well made movement can be adjusted by hand to run to ± two seconds per day but doing that consistently, over tens of thousands of watches, is a whole 'nother challenge and the fact that Rolex can do that is part of what makes Rolex Rolex (and Tudor Tudor, and Omega Omega, the latter two in the context of Master Chronometer certification).
Thanks, Jack, for taking the time to reply! Regarding informed opinions, I agree completely that reading such opinions from reviewers (and commenters 🤓) can be a very valuable part of the learning process, on a cumulative basis. I'm sure many of my own opinions have been shaped by reading watch magazines and online commentary for decades (sigh...), without my conscious awareness. But one or two or four individual reviewers' "the 4:30 placement of the date window ruins the sleek elegance that otherwise characterizes the dial" is not going to dissuade me from buying the watch if its overall aesthetic, value, affordability, etc speak to me.
There hasn't been a truly great article about spring bars in almost a decade
There bolt action now,so the ripped leather scratches etc.have entered the realm of nostalgia.
Quick-release spring bars are the quartz oscillator of spring bars
So true,probably the same person who put wheels on suitcases.
this thread 😂
Not dead, but certainly has lost its identity. Hot take, but I really appreciate watches with “real” in-house movements. And the fact I have to preface that statement with “real” is why watch journalism has lost the technical appeal.
When every watch company was claiming an in-house movement by slapping a new rotor on a Sellita, the watch journalists didn’t push back. They didn’t bite the manufacturer’s hand, but they did slap the reader’s intelligence. Now that advertising is drying up and they are looking for reader based revenue, that dereliction of duty is coming back to haunt them.
I want that technical analysis you speak of, but I fear that you are one of the few who are left who can deliver it.
Clear technical writing that is also engaging and interesting for a non professional audience is pretty difficult. One of the most useful books in terms of technical information that I have in my collection is De Carle's "Complicated Watches And Their Repair" which covers everything from simple calendars all the way up to grand et petite sonneries. It is extremely dense and I use it as a reference constantly but it was written by a professional for professionals and boy, a page turner it is not.
Im reading this post at Palmer’s Bar in Minneapolis, and His Girl Friday is on screen!
Marvelous 😍
Not while Jack is still alive! I think that the best articles you've written about watches haven't actually been about watches, but just an opportunity to write about something else. In fact, I think somewhere on the interwebs you may have admitted the same thing.
Yes! I found it! https://jackforster.substack.com/p/there-are-no-secrets-thoughts-on?utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
That is a hundred per cent true. The great thing about watches, of course, is that they touch so many worlds – physics, design, mechanics, many of the most important decorative arts, and then things like navigation (at sea, and air navigation as well) and on and on.
Watch Journalism, like a lot of journalism in general, if it's just reporting facts (in this case on hairspring alloys, colorways, case width etc.) can be a little tedious. What I like are personal stories, history, cultural context etc.. "About Time" by Rooney is a great read, "A Man and his Watch" by Hranek is a great read. "Your piece A Mouse-Eye View Of The History Of The Character Watch" was a great read. Someone should write a book on the history of the watch industry 1965-85, or at least compile/distill the best 20 or 30 articles on the subject.
Yeah there are times when what is called for is really straight reporting – new product launches in general, especially line updates, are a good example. I like the idea of power to weight ratio – a line extension, for instance, isn't someplace you should let yourself go purple in the prose unless you want readers to feel like they're being had. A new technical innovation, or a watch that involves some significant craftsmanship (miniature enamel painting, for instance) are subjects where it feels appropriate to go on a bit as there is so much more to unpack.
I really enjoyed reading your take on this, Jack. I think the quality that some of watch writing’s elder statesmen (you’re at the head of that pack) routinely published back in the day has been relegated to the back-burner by most in the industry- whether that be on blogs, magazines, podcasts, YouTube, etc.
The bulk of the watch industry’s reporting at this point is comprised of loads of generic, homogenized “opinions” that are not unique to the writer. As you alluded to, keywords get clicks, and a video titled The Top 10 Watches You Should AVOID is just simply going to do better with engagement than a long form article about Lange’s balance cock engraving.
While there is certainly a lot more noise to get through, I think the proliferation of cookie-cutter “journalists” has caused people with actual knowledge and viewpoints (like yourself and a handful of others) stand out from the pack. That whole “cream rises to the top” type logic.
I say all this as a long-winded way of saying I appreciate your consistent effort to inform, entertain and challenge us readers and will continue to consume whatever you publish.
Thanks so much! I appreciate the support. Yeah, there is tremendous pressure in publishing these days to write for the algorithms and for SEO. I don't think there is anything wrong at all about enthusiasts writing for other enthusiasts but journalism is a profession and writing is a craft.
I'm not much of a fan of the "next generation" of watch writers that have come up on the usual suspect, high traffic web sites. Thankfully, most of the writers worth reading still publish, mostly on their own Substacks.
One thing I will note, as I subscribe to 5 or 6 paid Substack watch writers, is that they tend to talk about the same topics week after week. A bit too homogenous and reactionary.
The basic problem with any solo Substack is that you tend to write about what you're interested in, which if you're not careful can lead to somewhat monotonous content. The other bigger problem with subscription based content is that at some point, you just get subscription overload; it's death by a thousand cuts. And of course, there is the bigger problem in publishing, in general, when pretty much all decent journalism is behind paywalls; it's harder than ever for folks to get outside the echo chamber of their own opinions.
What I'm hearing here is that Substack's watch writers should band together and form a subscription-driven publication...
Despite the technical, financial and perhaps even ideological challenges, there may be something in this.
You know Chris, the thought has occurred to me. 😀
Of course you can ask Joe, however, I believe when he got the offer to run WatchTime, which at that time was a publication with a much larger and worldwide circulation. Ah, the dark ages of watch collecting when we had to wait 2 months between issues. Of course, in those dial-up days patience was a real part of collecting.