Fantastic post Jack. I appreciate the nod to the legendary Walt Odets review of the Rolex 14270, which is likely known to many readers and may not be worth mentioning in this comment. But alas. My own lowly criteria for a watch on my wrist is: look good, feel good, work good.
Marvelous article, Jack--how do you maintain such consistently delightful standards of thinking and writing, article after article, year after year?
As for me, I keep wondering "what would Breguet be doing if he were alive these days?" What was his goal? What would it be now? Seems to me that a credible argument might be that his goal, or at least one of his main goals, was accuracy--else why did he develop the tourbillon? And if so, and if he was still pursuing accuracy today, well, wouldn't he be following the path of, say, Citizen, with its 0100 quartz movement accurate to a second a year without radio or GPS intervention? How much would he care about sharply finished interior angles? And, for that matter, how much would he care about mechanical watches as a category? (Let the debate begin! I certainly don't have any definitive answer, but I love the question!)
Personally, I love a beautifully finished movement, even if I'm not sure how much of it was crafted by lovingly skilled and patient hands versus carefully calibrated machines. I only have two watches that I put in that league--a Calatrava 5026 from the '90s and an Arnold & Son 8-day, complete with screwed gold chatons! The rest are clearly industrial productions, but I enjoy them for other reasons, mostly the semi-philistine criteria that I once laid out on either ThePurists or maybe Hodinkee's comment section: I love the way they look and feel, they keep time accurately enough for me, and I can afford them.
this is why i adore rolex, they can make a million watches of that quality. sure lange are better, but lange can only make five thousand. rolex make two hundred times as many watches, that is mind boggling!
Casio can make even more, and they are more accurate and have other functions. My watchmaker mostly works with Rolex, but when I dropped off my Omega Aqua Terra and my Casio Oceanus, they could service the Omega, but the Casio was simply beyond their abilities. When it comes to watch manufacturing, Casio really does it best. I will take an Oceanus chronograph over a Daytona any day, and I suspect most Rolex customers would too if the dial had a more prestigious name on it.
The longer I stick around, the more convinced I am that the correct answer to the majority of watch related questions is: “it depends” ! Very enjoyable read, thank you.
Interesting article. In my opinion there are many things we are willing to pay premiums for like rarity, design, history, story etc... But I think most of all, and what I think your trying to define, would be better described more broadly as "craftsmanship". We as a community often use terms like finishing, hand work, traditional techniques (and all of those things are worth paying for) as substitutes for the broader term but none of them fully describe the x-factor modern collectors crave across all levels of the market. Less informed collectors might be chasing what is only the illusion of fine craftsmanship, like a swiss made label or stamped striping and chemically blued screws. More educated mass-market buyers might be impressed just knowing that Rolex is using state of the art machinery and consistently producing to tight tolerances as a mark of craftsmanship. More experienced collectors are typically enamored with things like Anglage and interior angles but as you prove with your Breguet example many of us would still kill for a handmade piece from the likes of George Daniels, because despite the lack of Anglage or some of the other hot terms mentioned above, we can recognize that it is the epitome of fine craftsmanship.
"Is my watch worth what I paid for it?... The answer to the first question is always, No."
And yet many of us fall captive to the external and internal stories which timepieces weave. I wonder if on my deathbed if I am asked the question, "Were your watches worth what you paid for them?" if I could answer "Yes." I'm going to dwell on that thought experiment because if I cant answer with an emphatic "Yes," then I am overdue for reckoning.
Thanks for offering the reference point of all the watches made and sold by Waltham and Ingersoll long ago. I am often unaware and unappreciative of the historical antecedents in this industry. Awareness and perspective matters, otherwise I fall victim to what you laid out towards the end of the essay: " [ignoring] context, and which flattens out the considerable nuance and considerable challenge in really evaluating finish in particular, and quality in general.
Very pleasant to read Jack, I appreciate all the links you shared as well, including SteveG's watch launchpad... It's SUCH a good OG site for photo nerds.
You forget that the brands sell tradition, craftmanship and authenticity and ask for big money in return. Big money *1,05 two times a year… for industrialized products. Watch manufactures are now financial SA with no passion in their products as some managers admit in private: they don’t care about what they sell.
What is most interesting is that Rolex, the firm without reporting requirements or angry investors, Rolex is the worst of them. I love Zenith under LVMH, and Tag Heuer has grown with them, especially releasing a solar quartz Aquaracer. Similarly, Lange has fared well under Richemont (I will avoid the evil 800 lb gorilla). It turns out that evil capitalist shareholders are less evil than the monsters who call non-profit home. If you have ever had the misfortune of dealing with non-profits/NGO's you will know that the general level of power-hungry dishonesty and manipulation dominate. Rolex senior management has likely been fully assimilated into that world.
Fantastic post Jack. I appreciate the nod to the legendary Walt Odets review of the Rolex 14270, which is likely known to many readers and may not be worth mentioning in this comment. But alas. My own lowly criteria for a watch on my wrist is: look good, feel good, work good.
Anglage? Is this economy??
Marvelous article, Jack--how do you maintain such consistently delightful standards of thinking and writing, article after article, year after year?
As for me, I keep wondering "what would Breguet be doing if he were alive these days?" What was his goal? What would it be now? Seems to me that a credible argument might be that his goal, or at least one of his main goals, was accuracy--else why did he develop the tourbillon? And if so, and if he was still pursuing accuracy today, well, wouldn't he be following the path of, say, Citizen, with its 0100 quartz movement accurate to a second a year without radio or GPS intervention? How much would he care about sharply finished interior angles? And, for that matter, how much would he care about mechanical watches as a category? (Let the debate begin! I certainly don't have any definitive answer, but I love the question!)
Personally, I love a beautifully finished movement, even if I'm not sure how much of it was crafted by lovingly skilled and patient hands versus carefully calibrated machines. I only have two watches that I put in that league--a Calatrava 5026 from the '90s and an Arnold & Son 8-day, complete with screwed gold chatons! The rest are clearly industrial productions, but I enjoy them for other reasons, mostly the semi-philistine criteria that I once laid out on either ThePurists or maybe Hodinkee's comment section: I love the way they look and feel, they keep time accurately enough for me, and I can afford them.
"And when everyone's super, no one will be". Syndrome, The Incredibles.
this is why i adore rolex, they can make a million watches of that quality. sure lange are better, but lange can only make five thousand. rolex make two hundred times as many watches, that is mind boggling!
Casio can make even more, and they are more accurate and have other functions. My watchmaker mostly works with Rolex, but when I dropped off my Omega Aqua Terra and my Casio Oceanus, they could service the Omega, but the Casio was simply beyond their abilities. When it comes to watch manufacturing, Casio really does it best. I will take an Oceanus chronograph over a Daytona any day, and I suspect most Rolex customers would too if the dial had a more prestigious name on it.
Wonderful post Jack.
The longer I stick around, the more convinced I am that the correct answer to the majority of watch related questions is: “it depends” ! Very enjoyable read, thank you.
Interesting article. In my opinion there are many things we are willing to pay premiums for like rarity, design, history, story etc... But I think most of all, and what I think your trying to define, would be better described more broadly as "craftsmanship". We as a community often use terms like finishing, hand work, traditional techniques (and all of those things are worth paying for) as substitutes for the broader term but none of them fully describe the x-factor modern collectors crave across all levels of the market. Less informed collectors might be chasing what is only the illusion of fine craftsmanship, like a swiss made label or stamped striping and chemically blued screws. More educated mass-market buyers might be impressed just knowing that Rolex is using state of the art machinery and consistently producing to tight tolerances as a mark of craftsmanship. More experienced collectors are typically enamored with things like Anglage and interior angles but as you prove with your Breguet example many of us would still kill for a handmade piece from the likes of George Daniels, because despite the lack of Anglage or some of the other hot terms mentioned above, we can recognize that it is the epitome of fine craftsmanship.
Thought-provoking, as always. It's always good to enjoy the craft, but also be asking awkward questions.
Bravo.
"Is my watch worth what I paid for it?... The answer to the first question is always, No."
And yet many of us fall captive to the external and internal stories which timepieces weave. I wonder if on my deathbed if I am asked the question, "Were your watches worth what you paid for them?" if I could answer "Yes." I'm going to dwell on that thought experiment because if I cant answer with an emphatic "Yes," then I am overdue for reckoning.
Thanks for offering the reference point of all the watches made and sold by Waltham and Ingersoll long ago. I am often unaware and unappreciative of the historical antecedents in this industry. Awareness and perspective matters, otherwise I fall victim to what you laid out towards the end of the essay: " [ignoring] context, and which flattens out the considerable nuance and considerable challenge in really evaluating finish in particular, and quality in general.
Very pleasant to read Jack, I appreciate all the links you shared as well, including SteveG's watch launchpad... It's SUCH a good OG site for photo nerds.
You forget that the brands sell tradition, craftmanship and authenticity and ask for big money in return. Big money *1,05 two times a year… for industrialized products. Watch manufactures are now financial SA with no passion in their products as some managers admit in private: they don’t care about what they sell.
What is most interesting is that Rolex, the firm without reporting requirements or angry investors, Rolex is the worst of them. I love Zenith under LVMH, and Tag Heuer has grown with them, especially releasing a solar quartz Aquaracer. Similarly, Lange has fared well under Richemont (I will avoid the evil 800 lb gorilla). It turns out that evil capitalist shareholders are less evil than the monsters who call non-profit home. If you have ever had the misfortune of dealing with non-profits/NGO's you will know that the general level of power-hungry dishonesty and manipulation dominate. Rolex senior management has likely been fully assimilated into that world.
This is a perfect Jack Forster article, unpolished with box and papers.