Whenever I read reviews about the finish and quality of watch movements, I see several features thrown around that more or less appear to be markers of high quality: gold chatons, diamond endstones, Guillaume balances, swan’s neck regulators, etc. Assuming watch movements are finished to an equally exacting standard, would you say the more such characteristics a movement embodies, the better, or are they just stylistic flourishes?
For example, I am perplexed because I have seen a Patek Observatory Chronometer pocketwatch movement (which I can assume is probably close to a gold standard) with only one chaton-ed jewel at its center, whereas Lange and Greubel Forsey seem to try putting gold chatons on all their jewels. Also, Glashutte Original seems to be the only brand I know that puts two swan’s neck regulators in their movements…
I have been interested in watches for a couple years now, but most of my interests have been aesthetic, and my sad lack of real scholarly knowledge has led me searching for your wisdom.
Be aware that finish is a separate issue – there are many very beautifully finished watches with no chatons, no swan’s neck regulators, no diamond endstones, and so on; they are however magnificently hand-finished from stem to stern, and to a real connoisseur far more interesting than a watch that adds on anachronistic features but cuts corners on finishing.All of the features you mention can be found in high quality watches, but they are, alas, not necessarily sure indications of a high quality watch, or a high quality movement. The question of whether any feature in and of itself represents inherently better quality is almost always, to some extent, an open one. Take those lovely gold chatons. They are in fact a terrible anachronism: difficult to do, yes, but offering additional complexity not for any gains in performance, but for its own sake. Diamond endstones are likewise a throwback to a time when natural gems had to be used for balance pivots, as synthetic rubies had not yet been developed.
All I can suggest is to keep reading as much as possible, and understand the basics of mechanical horology as much as possible, the better to be able to judge what value a feature really adds — and be aware, furthermore, that most flashy talking-point features don’t really offer much more than the chance for the maker to realize a better margin on the watch.
Watch Utility
This time, I submit to your judgement this question: what are the limits between true horological value and mere shallow virtuosism? I have in mind the newest issue by Greubel Forsey: the all-sapphire encased Double Tourbillon 30° Technique Sapphire.
I have no doubt that the making of this timepiece encompasses some truly groundbreaking achievements in terms of technology; nevertheless, given the purely esthetical goal (in my point of view) this effort addresses itself to, one is compelled to ask if such an achievement, for the sake of embellishment itself, is worthy of appreciation in terms of horological value.
This conundrum reminds me of an operatic anecdote, involving the great soprano Adelina Patti and the legendary composer Gioacchino Rossini: in one occasion, Patti sang Rossini’s aria “Una voce poco fa,” from “Il barbiere di Siviglia,” to the composer himself. She added some virtuosic “fioriture” to the music, to showcase her proficiency in the bel canto style. Rossini’s answer: “Very beautiful. Who is the composer?”
This parody summarizes, to me at least, the spirit of the question above: does a virtuoso-like execution have some artistic value on its own terms or is it merely an episode of self-indulgence from the artist, to obtain easy applause — a selfish act, so to speak? Or should we surrender to pure beauty and adhere to Oscar Wilde’s peremptory declaration about that matter: “We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless.”
Dr. George Daniels writes, in Watchmaking, that the fact that a remontoire d’egalite is useless merely adds to its charm. We may say the same of the tourbillon, the minute repeater, and indeed, virtually every element of mechanical horology, which from a practical standpoint has been completely and irreversibly overtaken by quartz. The question then becomes, how much of an admission of the utterly pointless (from a practical standpoint) nature of mechanical watches is one willing to tolerate? The sapphire-cased Greubel Forsey watch you mention is an interesting case in point; as you mention it is a bravura (and indeed, an operatic) piece of watch design but it has about as much to do with practical considerations in horology as a rubber ducky with a battleship.
However, if we were to discard all such pieces of bravura watchmaking simply for their ambition and histrionic nature we would throw out much that is of interest along with much that is merely striving for attention and novelty. Bear in mind always that the primary function of a mechanical watch today is not to tell the time, but to separate a client from as much money as possible, and Greubel Forsey, like every other watch company, is obliged occasionally to make rather more excessive timepieces than not in order to keep the lights on. If such a piece is also well made, and appealing from a design standpoint, so much much the better. In the case of the GF I think that that is the case but Lord knows, it ain’t necessarily so.
Rolex vs Tag Heuer
I am a watch enthusiast from India and have collected a couple of watches that I like, but now I want to buy another watch that costs under $11,000 to add to my collection and am really confused!
Right now I own a Breitling Navitimer (Blue) and an Omega Seamaster (Rose Gold and Leather).
I am thinking of adding a steel watch to my collection because I think during traveling Steel/Rubberwatches make sense.
I was thinking Rolex Submariner Date, but when I tried it I found it a tad bit small for my wrist…I know it is a great watch and many people suggest it but just because of that should I buy it? I do like the design…
I also like the leather version of Tag Heuer’s Monaco (The only Tag Heuer I like) and am also looking at IWC, Panerai, Chopard, JLC (Reverso)
I really appreciate those companies who have their own in-house movement.
Can you please give some advice?
The Rolex Submariner Date is indeed a great watch. The only disadvantage to it is that to own one is to become aware of how many other people have made the same decision. Still, I am going to advise you to buy one. It is technically a hundred times the watch that most others in its price range can claim to be and while every brand you mention also makes some very wonderful steel watches, I think you ought to experience Rolex ownership if for no other reason than to have a context for future decision making. You may perform this experiment with confidence with Rolex, by the way — if a year from now you have decided you do not care for it after all, you will find you can sell it for not much less than you paid for it; and having lost almost no money, you have gained some valuable (horological) experience into the bargain.