When browsing the comments sections of websites and various social media, one often comes across one-sided and recurring remarks. As soon as a watch falls within the aesthetic field of the 1970s integrated case and bracelet style, or that of a vintage diver’s watch, it is accused of being a copy. A poor imitation. Of not living up to the two or three icons that dominate the prevailing watchmaking discourse. Yet this is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. The watch industry is a dense and varied ecosystem, featuring immense depth of which many self-proclaimed commentators are clearly unaware. The latter notably focus on obvious similarities and neglect, refute or even refuse to see what makes the difference. In a nutshell, they are blind to details – and hence to essentials.
Trifles
Watchmaking is indeed all about details. In this object whose volume on the wrist is around 15cm3, roughly half a shot of bourbon, the distinctive features compose almost the entire personality. It takes an attentive gaze to spot them. You don’t even need an educated eye. After all, one can immediately tell the difference between a Renoir and a Pissarro, a Porsche and a Ferrari. They all operate in the same register, but in patently different aesthetic or aerodynamic ways. The fact that these differences are easy to perceive on such objects is due both to their large size and to their familiarity. Being that much smaller, watches naturally require more effort.
Trivia
Such effort is nonetheless indispensable if one wants to converse on the topic in an articulate manner and in good faith. The most striking example of this is provided by the integrated wristwatch style currently dominating the watch scene. Laureato, Overseas, Royal Oak, Nautilus, Aikon, BR05… Double standards are applied to the vintage timepieces – born at the time this style first emerged – and more recent introductions. A lack of culture and hindsight leads certain commentators to focus attention on and grant legitimacy to the most obvious models, while discrediting the others. Yet this is a generic style, which has become almost commonplace due to the profusion of designs sold by the master of the genre, Gérald Genta. He described himself as a design workaholic and sold his work to anyone who was interested, with minimal variations in style. Moreover, the common principle of the case naturally flowing into the metal bracelet without any transition through add-on lugs gives rise to unlimited potential variations. Finally, the dial is the most visible element of the watch and also the most malleable.
Little things
However, above and beyond these superficial similarities, the watch continues to leverage its ability to interpret three elements – case, dial and movement – in countless different ways. A multitude of shapes, patterns, textures, lines, curves, inflections, shades and color combinations open up the infinite possibilities of watch design. What’s more, this sense of detail is fully expressed in the movement.
The means of producing the mechanism span an equally immense field, ranging from industrial utilitarianism to artistic mechanics and virile machinism. It is here that the ultimate subtleties of watchmaking are expressed. In the springs that hold the barrels. In the shape of the balance bridges. In the finishes of the component edges. In the shape of the bridges. In the choice of a curve and its counter-curve. Three hundred years of precious watchmaking live on through these tiny variations around the necessary core. They usher the watch into the realm of the superfluous, of details – and hence its very essence.
