zach blas
Last week I attended the 10th Watch Forum organized by Dubai Watch Week in Hong Kong and had a lot of fun. Among other things, the three-day festival was primarily centered around panel discussions with industry experts. Much of the discussion on these various panels centered around the innovations that have taken place in mechanical watchmaking and what innovations and complications might emerge in the future. But by the end of the week, I found myself wondering – isn’t it time to make watches simpler, rather than pushing complexity even further? Or maybe it’s already the case, but more Is it good?
Let’s take a step back. I previously shared an interesting segment on “Is the era of mechanical innovation over?” During the panel, TAG Heuer Heritage Director Nicolas Biebuyck commented on the growing consumer interest in quartz. The topics or prompts for the entire panel were: “For a quarter of a century, luxury watch companies have used advanced movement technology to drive mechanical innovation, establish their reputations and attract a new generation of buyers hungry for performance and dynamic movement design. But with rising costs and image-conscious consumers becoming more concerned about brands and style, has the time for mechanical innovation passed? If so, the watch industry has replaced it. What should we focus on?”
This was followed by London-based author Ming Liu as moderator, followed by Benoît Mingtian (Founder of Ressence), Ming Thein (Founder and Chief Creative, Watchmaker Ming), and Professor Heiwei Tang (Vice Dean). ), a panel discussion entitled “To Infinity & Beyond” will be held. , HKU Business School), we set out to ask and answer the question, what is the next truly useful complication? Interestingly, the two watchmakers here are known for paring things down to the hilt. While Min has explored more complex special projects, he is primarily known for his two-handed hand designs (although the dials require complex engineering).
But it was the words of Benoit Mintiens of Ressence that sent me down this rabbit hole. First he declared: “The best way to conceive of a watch is to start with relationships. I believe that if you conceive of a watch in terms of relationships, you will probably end up with a good product.” The relationship Benoit is referring to is between the watch and its relationship. It’s about the wearer. As he later points out, if you buy shoes and your feet hurt, the relationship between the shoe owner and the shoe will deteriorate, and you will be less likely to wear them. Second, he mentioned the idea of ”simplifying” rather than complicating, and that Ressence has a clear intention of what its design is intended to deliver, and that the product It says it only delivers what it intends to deliver.
Min Thein agrees, pointing out how high-end mechanical complications are not praised for their usefulness or functionality, but rather for their complexity and interactivity. We expanded further. Think of the feeling of pulling the slide on the case to chime a minute repeater. He made an important point and explained: “The challenge is that if you want to develop something that’s unique and hasn’t been done before and has that level of interactivity, you start pricing it into the stratosphere, and that’s not the case.” It doesn’t really make sense to us. It goes against our philosophy of trying to make things interesting and accessible.”
If you think about it, the last time there was any visible mechanical innovation for entry-to-mid-level watch buyers was by brands that pushed power reserves to “weekend-worthy” levels, or more generally. This was when silicon was incorporated into the escapement to improve its magnetic resistance. The world is becoming increasingly electronic. These improvements can be made in a sub-$5,000 watch and are far more important than creating a million-year accurate moonphase, which most people can’t afford or experience. So what’s the next leap forward that will actually be accessible to the larger watch-buying market in a few years when weekend movements and silicon escapements become more commonplace?
It became clear that this discussion would not lead to the elucidation of the next useful complex mechanism. Because there’s really nothing useful (or anything as useful as the various digital devices at our disposal) that can be deployed. Therefore, watch brands can make things even more complicated, resulting in more expensive products that receive critical acclaim. But what about the average watch buyer?
This accumulation led me to my conclusion that perhaps answers both the question of what the watch industry should focus on and the development of new mechanical complications. In my opinion, the answer is to innovate to “simplify”. Consumers are starting to value design over specs, paving the way for the adoption of analog watches instead of smartwatches. Yes, niche people are more knowledgeable about watches than ever before, but at the same time, casual collectors and their enthusiasm for watchmaking are also on the rise. This generation is a watch enthusiast, but they are not necessarily otaku; they value design and want to actively adopt the style of wearing analog watches.
This hypothetical casual generation I mentioned may, for whatever reason, be less keen on understanding all the little quirks and nuances of mechanical watches that watch enthusiasts enjoy or put up with. . On a more substantive note, I suggest that rather than rotating the tourbillon around more axes, we take a closer look at the complication that most people are involved with: the date. I recently purchased a Tissot PRX 35mm for my family, but I don’t wear it very often. It’s not because they don’t like the watch, but because they like the design and the idea of wearing it. But setting it up causes stress and anxiety.
why? Because when I mentioned the “danger zone” of date complexity, I unintentionally put the fear of God into it, and you can’t always set a date. Normally, changing the date between 9pm and 3am risks damaging the movement. So, I explained that when you pick up the watch after the 80-hour power reserve has expired, you should rotate the hands forward until the date clicks together, then release the hands at about 6:30 a.m. I was then able to safely advance the date and set the correct time later. For watch enthusiasts with watch muscle memory, this is simple and harmless, but for those who casually enjoy watches, it’s complicated enough to turn to a cell phone or smartwatch, and why comfortable autonomous watches? You’re probably wondering if you need to step away from your digital devices.
A question arises here. In a world of 27-complication pocket watches, multi-axis tourbillons, and secular calendars, why couldn’t at least the larger watchmakers develop a calendar movement that didn’t include danger-zone nuances? Is it? Why haven’t basic movements like the ETA 2824 and 2892, movements that many first-time watch owners experience, evolved? This may seem foolish to watch enthusiasts, but… Despite increased education and awareness about watchmaking, there are still many watch owners who visit boutiques looking for mechanical watches with dead batteries.
The motivation for making watches complicated is obvious. The more complex it is, the more expensive it is. But if we have truly reached a saturation point in useful mechanical innovations, and experts in respected horology forums cannot suggest new useful mechanical innovations, then in my mind… The logical conclusion is to evolve what already exists to create better relationships. The watch and the wearer. Even if it doesn’t make the operation of the complication more complicated or evolves nothing internally, we’re sure many would like the brand to catch up externally with bracelet clasps that can be tweaked on the fly. The Ming Tians and Teins of this world value relevance and usefulness, so what helps improve brand-buyer relationships is not to make useless things even more useless and more expensive. , it seems to me that it is about making what exists even better.
