Watch Snob Explains Why Picking a Watch You Like as a Gift Is a Mistake

Cartier Watches

My wife has hinted that she would like a Cartier watch as an anniversary gift. She has a preference for larger watches and I was thinking about getting her a Tank Solo XL which is marketed as a men’s watch at 41mm diameter. To be honest I’m also tempted by the automatic movement — I don’t understand why similar quartz models for both men and women cost the same. Should I get the 41mm or is that too large? Also am I missing a trick with the quartz/automatic pricing at Cartier?

Hello sir. I’m not entirely sure I follow your question about “similar quartz models for both men and women costing the same.” It seems to me that it would naturally follow that with similar, or even possibly identical movements, in similar models, you would expect to pay about the same — the pricing of watches partly has to do with the movement, with mechanical timepieces almost always commanding a premium over quartz as mechanical movements are more expensive to produce.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Time: GMTs and Trying Not to Be Rolex

As far as the size of the watch is concerned, in this case I would be guided by your wife’s preferences (the same goes for automatic vs. quartz). Some people prefer a more traditionally sized so-called ladies’ watch but as I stagger around this benighted planet of ours, I notice that a number of women prefer larger watches as they make a more direct style statement. I myself, an aging gent with little to recommend me from a style perspective, happen to think the Tank is a happier thing to wear in a smaller size but if the lady wants a bolder look, why not? You’ll both be happier.

Finding the Right Dealer

I am a beginner watch collector. I own a Rolex , Tag Hauer and Breitling. However I have a friend that has a huge collection, I mean huge. He buys one or two per year. He told me he goes to a dealer that sells a lot of watches [and who] has all of the top brands. He also has a lot that are new but they are not the latest models. Maybe two or three years old but still new so he gets them at a great price. Like a end of the year car that didn’t sell. I always ask him about the dealers but he won't tell me. It’s the one thing he has over me. So my question is where can I find watch dealers like this?

My dear sir, your friend didn’t find his obliging retailer, he cultivated a relationship with him. You mention that you are a novice collector and that he is an experienced one, with a “huge” collection as well. What this means, of course, is that he has invested heavily in building his collection and very likely spent a good deal of not only time, but also money, cultivating a relationship with his retailer. It would be the gesture of an altruistic gentleman for him, having devoted so much time, energy, and effort to building this relationship, for him to allow you to drink from the same well, but this would not be a realistic expectation of human nature.

RELATED: The 7 Best Pre-Owned Rolex Watches You Can Buy At Walmart

Retailers very naturally give preferential treatment to their best customers. This naturally is a source of frustration to someone in your position, especially if you want to acquire an in-demand piece associated with a long waiting list, but you can’t blame retailers for being pragmatic in this respect — certainly, the best ones love watches passionately and share that with their customers but they also have a business to run, and not showing due deference to those who support them the most is cutting their own throat. I suggest that rather than hope for your friend to unbend, you put your energy into building a mutually respectful and beneficial relationship with a retailer — you might be in a position to benefit materially from the effort sooner than you think.

Buying Advice

I am, I must confess, a novice in the world of watches. Having grown up working class with a father whose favorite timepiece was an antique Favre-Leuba, I garnered an appreciation for swiss watchmaking without having the ability to buy at the very top-end of that industry. Having built a career of my own, I am now in a position to buy the watches I previously coveted (albeit with some effort in saving up for it). In the first instance, I bought a Rolex Datejust which, though I appreciate is somewhat run of the mill, is in my opinion probably the leading marque watch of our time capable of being worn everyday and still drawing attention of others. I followed this up with the JLC Master Calendar. I am now looking to buy another watch, and this time have a hankering for something more extravagant.

I have read with interest your suggestion that making watches in steel is a current fad which may come to an end. My first, more philosophical question is whether a watch's worth should be in its making or in the materials used to make it. By that I mean, should one pay several thousands for a watch because of its unique and fascinating watch movement, the stature and history of the watchmaker or because the movement is encased in platinum or gold? For someone like me, with a genuine fascination in what is inside the case, the trend towards steel has opened up a world I would not otherwise be able to access. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a banker's son and have never (regrettably) rented a Lambo.

My second question is watch specific. You have never expressed an opinion on the watches of Jacob & Co and I would love to hear your thoughts. At the top end, the watches are extraordinarily fascinating and luxurious. At the other end, (referring back to my point above) I think the five time zone has some very interesting technology. My problem with that watch, which is of interest to me, is ruined by being a bit too blingy.

Last question: do you have any other suggestions for a casual, unique watch akin to the Five Time Zone which would be considered a statement watch without being "in-your-face"?

Well, three interesting queries. As to whether or not one should value case material over the movement, or vice versa, this is a highly personal matter and one is not wrong to value one over the other. You have actually already made your decision, it seems to me, and if you find that a watch with a superlative movement is not affordable in gold or platinum, but is so in steel, and there is no loss to you in enjoyment because of a less precious case material, no one can call you wrong (well, they can but they would be mistaken in doing so).

To your second question, I find Jacob & Co rather weirdly fascinating. There are certainly some pieces in his collections that do not especially appeal to me (the Epics are epically forgettable, at least if your tastes correlate at all to mine, though I suppose someone must be buying them if he keeps making them). Where his work is most interesting is in the domain of high complications, in my view. I don’t necessarily find things like the Astronomia Tourbillon much to my taste either, but it is also a kind of watchmaking that very few if any other brands can afford to do or are interested in doing — exceedingly exotic watchmaking fantasies that are really all about seeing just how far the possibilities of mechanical watchmaking can be pushed.

Now I have just said that I find some of his work more stimulating than others and I am compelled to reply to your third query, by saying that the Five Time Zone watches are to me completely uninteresting. I suppose with a revolver to my temple, I would also be compelled to admit that they are icons of watch design of some sort, but I find them horrendously dated at this point and I do not think the design has aged especially well. If Jacob ever reads this, which I sincerely doubt, he would probably reply that he is as they say, laughing all the way to the bank which would be perfectly fair. As you can imagine, since I don’t care for the Five Time Zone watch, I am not the person to ask for some less “in your face” equivalent either. The whole point of the Five Time Zone watch is to be in your face, and anything that is not, is another kind of watchmaking entirely.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on GMTs and Trying Not to Be Rolex

Value vs Brand

I've come to admire your column, and the unbiased insights you provide. As a watch enthusiast, I'm torn between value vs. brand.

Ball has released the Roadmaster Marine GMT. This is a GMT with Day/Date, that is protected with the Amortizer system. Cosmetically, it looks great in the 40mm case with Ceramic bezel.

How does this stack up on your list? Compared to a similarly priced Longines or Tag, or Oris. I just want to wear a watch that I'm confident is worth the thousands it costs.

As always, your recommendation is very much appreciated.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Birth, Death and Quartz

Ball watches have a rather specific identity, which for many years has meant timepieces built around tritium gas-tube technology. Tritium, as you are undoubtedly aware if you are looking at Ball watches and considering owning one, is a radioactive substance — an isotope of hydrogen, in fact — which when combined with the appropriate materials, can produce a luminous material. This was once used to paint dial markers and watch hands, however tritium, while safer than radium, is still a radioactive substance and moreover, has a tendency to fade over time, so the watch industry in general has passed on to using Super-LumiNova and the like.

Ball, rather than using tritium-based paint, uses tritium gas confined to small tubes, which are lined with additional substances which phosphoresce. The same basic disadvantage exists in Ball’s watches as in any watch that uses tritium, which is that the material will eventually need to be replaced (tritium decays at a half-life of twelve years) but while it is in its youth it glows consistently and brightly, without needing to be charged by light.

The watches made by Ball have never particularly appealed to me personally, but on the admittedly rare occasions on which I’ve had a chance to actually see one they have struck me as very well made, especially for the asking price, if a bit over-large and a bit heavy. Still, the substantial cases, bracelets, and technical features are reasonably compelling especially relative to some of their competition. I suppose the tritium decay might be theoretically troubling, and practically troubling if Ball for some reason fails, and no one can be found to replace the gas tubes, but to some extent that could be said of almost any modern watch.

A Lange Movement

Thank you for your column, which has been a wonderful source of education and entertainment for me over the years.

My question pertains to the caliber L901.2 movement that powers the first generation of Grand Lange 1 watches (e.g., ref. 115.021). Specifically, what distinguishes this movement from the original caliber L901.0? There is abundant information available on the evolution of Lange 1 movements, including those that added complications to the L901.0 base, but I have been unable to find any specific information on the L901.2 (other than dimensions and specifications in online watch databases that appear identical to those of the L901.0).

My best guess is that the difference relates to maintaining balance in the dial layout of the larger watch (perhaps maintaining the golden ratio?). I assume that there must be some difference to warrant the assignment of a new designator, but perhaps this assumption is incorrect.

I understand that my question might not present broad enough interest for publication, but I would appreciate any knowledge that you would be willing to share.

If there is anything that we all should embrace wholeheartedly with respect to the hobby, it is that there is no detail too minute nor insignificant to investigate. After all, this is a field where the most serious enthusiasts can be swayed to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over what, to a non-initiate, are apparently invisible differences in something as trivial as a dial typeface or color, and at least you have demonstrated that it is possible to be engaged in a love of watchmaking and actually care about something more than cosmetics.

RELATED: The 7 Best Pre-Owned Rolex Watches You Can Buy At Walmart

Were there more of your ilk, good sir, it would make the hobby a far richer one than what it has become as it has gained in popularity — a deplorable mob, by and large, of surly, reflexively hostile and reliably strident individuals who would rather defend a mistaken or uninformed opinion to the death, than be educated. In other words a more or less exact reflection of the general state of public discourse in our time.

I am not entirely sure why Lange chose to give the movement in the first version of the Grand Lange 1, which came out in 2003, a different caliber designation because as far as I can remember the L901.0 and L901.2 are exactly the same movement — Lange simply took the existing Lange 1 movement and put it in a slightly larger case. This is partly (again, this is from personal recollection) the reason for the redesigned, and more aggressively overlapping dials on the 2003 Grande Lange 1. The Grande Lange 1 did not get a really new movement, until the L095.1 in 2012, which had among other things, a single large mainspring barrel rather than the double barrels in the L.901.2.

Picking the Right GMT

Last I wrote, I was worried about my too-narrow taste, which leans towards simple, classic, less sporty watches. At that point I was ready to sign my watch funds over to the folks at JLC.

While my taste hasn't changed, my needs have —I've come to need (want) a GMT, but most GMT watches tend to be quite large. For 38mm or below, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interesting options (well, the Patek world time is perfect, but about 10X my budget). Anything that comes to mind for you - new or vintage?

Yes, it is a perennial problem; it is difficult to find a GMT watch that does not want to ape, either in actual design details, or in spirit, the GMT Master II. Patek as you say makes a dual time zone watch that is a lovely and straightforward alternative but of course as with anything Patek does, especially nowadays, you are paying at least as much — probably more — for the privilege of having a Patek on your wrist, as you do for actual watchmaking. Montblanc used to do a two time zone watch in the Heritage Chronometrie collection that wasn’t bad at all but it’s discontinued, or at least so it seems (and I am not entirely sure it was 38mm or less, in any case).

Right now the best solution I can think of for you is a bit larger than 38mm but it is a wonderful watch which has lately achieved something of a cult status amongst watch enthusiasts — it is the ivory dial Grand Seiko GMT, model SBGM221. It is 39.5mm in diameter but I urge you to not let that dissuade you from looking out for one and trying one on if the opportunity presents itself. It is one of the best offerings that Grand Seiko currently makes and is available for $4600, which is a remarkable bargain for one of the nicest, non-sports, non-Rolex GMT aping GMT watches anyone has ever made.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Talks Birth, Death and Quartz

High-End Quartz Watches

Thank you for your continuous effort to educate watch lovers of the world. I think, being able to hear your perspective brings a lot of value, saving us from regretful decisions and orienting towards more mature choices.

My current question is about high end quartz watches. Over time I have overcome the inner resistance to the quartz technology and am now able to appreciate its practicality and ease. I am considering three options for my everyday watch and I would appreciate your input.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Why You Need a Thick Stack to Buy a Thin Watch

First, it is Grand Seiko SBGV245. I like its casework, its lines and geometry. It reminds me of the Royal Oak in that it combines a refined elegance with a dose of sporty self-assuredness. The only apparent drawback is the fabric strap, which I believe could have been better executed in metal or rubber.

Second, another Grand Seiko —the SBGN005. I like that it comes on a well made bracelet, and I like the Explorer II style. The drawback is that I don't really need the GMT function and I would prefer to keep the watch as simple as possible, without the distraction of an unused functionality.

Last, I also consider one of Cartier's old Chronoflex models. I like the value proposition of it - the price, the original design, the perpetual calendar function. A Tank Francaise in steel seems like a pretty versatile model for all life situations.

These are all interesting watches, in somewhat different ways. The simplicity and austerity of the SBGV245 is beautifully offset by the rather luxurious quality of the finish of the case, dial, hands and so on. In this wedding of great restraint and great craft, it is perhaps one of the most purely Japanese of Grand Seiko watches — in some ways even more than the rightly admired and very admirable Spring Drive Snowflake.

The GMT-equipped SBGN005 is actually a quite different watch — while it certainly has all the quality of execution that one expects from Grand Seiko, it is also more conventional and if you really don’t yearn for the GMT function (which is a handy thing to have if you travel enough to benefit from one) I think that for your purposes the SBGV245 is the better watch, at least if you are evaluating the pros and cons of Grand Seiko quartz watches.

As far as the Chronoflex goes, I consider myself a rather broad-minded fellow when it comes to quartz — an absolute advocate if done nicely — but in this case, I would say that the Chronoflex is a less successful watch than either of the Grand Seikos. The Tank is like a very high quality whisky in that it is best taken neat and suffers increasing degradation in quality, the more you add to it. A quartz Tank can be a fine thing, but the Chronoflex has a fussy, cramped quality which is off-putting, at least to me.

A Watch to Pass On

I've long enjoyed your commentary and opinions on all things horological, and would appreciate your thoughts on an upcoming purchase.

As a new father approaching a milestone birthday, I've been looking to add a classic, relatively understated timepiece to my collection that has some intrinsic value beyond the sentimental —something that could be passed down to, and hopefully appreciated by my son. I've settled on two models by Jaeger LeCoultre that fit the bill, though in different ways: the Reverso Classic Medium Thin and the Master Control Ultra Thin Moon.

Why these two? In some way they each possess a bit of what one might call whimsy; the Reverso by virtue of the slide-and-reverse case mechanism and art-deco styling, and the moon phase dial, instant change date, and — to be honest — visible and nicely finished movement of the Master Control.

Having written that, it would seem the appeal of one is in the outward design, including minimal simplicity paired with a novel case, whereas the appeal of the other springs from the movement inside. I suspect you might recommend the Master Control because of this, but I would be curious to know if there are any other features of the Reverso (other than a lower price) that might cause you to recommend it instead?

The subject of the term, “ultra-thin” and Jaeger-LeCoultre, is an especially sore point for me. I have always found, over the decades, much to admire about the Grand Maison, but I do not think I have ever really forgiven them for discontinuing the Master Ultra Thin, which actually had a real ultra-thin movement in it, and which was shockingly affordable in steel. The Master Control Ultra Thin watches can be quite lovely but they do not use a true ultra-thin movement. The JLC 925/1 is a wonderful movement in many ways, and it is certainly a flat movement — with a date, it comes in at 3.30mm vs. 3.05mm for the AP caliber 2121 (these are the dimensions, in both cases, for the movement with a date display added) but it is not in my view really an ultra-thin movement.

This whole business is even more upsetting inasmuch as Jaeger-LeCoultre historically has been one of the most important makers of ultra-thin movements — their “knife” pocket watch movements from the 1920s are legendary — and they certainly have the history and the technical capacity to make a true ultra-thin movement if they wanted to. Here is where it is possible, if you are a suspicious person, to wonder whether there has not been some nefarious behind-the-scenes shenanigans at the Richemont Group, to make ultra-thin watches exclusive to the brand identity of Piaget and thereby deprive JLC of a part of its birthright.

Anyhow, this all may be a personal problem of mine, but I would still do the Reverso. It has a rather specific kind of charm but to me, its handsome elegance is as smooth and refined as Fred Astaire in a tailcoat, and I don’t think you would ever regret allowing it to cast its spell over yourself and, in the fullness of time, your son.

A Watch to Remember Him By

I greatly enjoy your recommendations (“if you want to be mistaken for a billionaire in a strip joint from 5m” was particularly inspired, I thought) but today I write to you on a matter of some gravitas.

My father recently passed away after a short illness after a good innings. He was a good man in many ways and I would like to buy a watch to remember him by.

I've narrowed it down to either a Zenith 146 Heritage in blue, or a Glashutte Original Senator sixties (no date) also in blue.

Both, I think, are nice watches with a classic and elegant way about them and suit the occasion and memory. I'm leaning towards the Zenith but would appreciate your opinion.

Well, first of all my condolences sir, although at the same time I think you have expressed a kernel of important wisdom in your missive. After all we are all gathered up unto eternity sooner or later and if your father was the sort of gent who inspired in you and yours the desire to remember his legacy even as you mourn his passing, why, what more can one ask of life. All passes: fame, wealth, all; but to leave behind kind memories, even if they are themselves doomed to be no more one day, is the noblest of all things to bequeath to one’s descendants.

RELATED: The 7 Best Pre-Owned Rolex Watches You Can Buy At Walmart

That said, I think the Zenith 146 is the more interesting watch. This will not I hope be taken as a slight to the GO. They are a fine and worth company which is for various reasons (perhaps the Byzantine internal politics of the Swatch Group which in their intricacies would have done credit to the Renaissance nobles of Florence) not sufficiently appreciated on their merits. And, I will say, I like the Sixties series in general; they were refreshingly different when they first appeared and continue to be both a great example of classic watchmaking, as well as offering a light-hearted yet elegant design.

But the Zenith I feel, has, to borrow your term, more gravitas. You would know best of course which one is more, shall we say, congruent with your recollections of your late father’s character but as a touchstone for such recollections the Zenith feels a bit more enduring in nature.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Explains Why You Need a Thick Stack to Buy a Thin Watch

Thin Isn’t In

I finally have a somewhat substantial budget for a watch purchase, and I am interested in spending that money on a dress watch. My research led me to what seems to be the single greatest dress watch within my budget ($10,000): The Jaeger LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin 34mm, featuring the JLC's caliber 849. Walt Odets, in his 2002 review of the watch, described it as possibly the finest ultra thin wristwatch ever made, and it is easy to see why. 

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: New Stuff From LVMH Watch Week Dubai

Watches as thin as the JLC at 5.4mm typically have delicate, fussy movements that run with low amplitude and poor performance — yet the caliber 849 delivers the accuracy, durability and serviceability of a movement three times as thick. The design of the case is also ingenious, providing a water resistance of 3 atm. The watch is also correctly proportioned at 34mm across, perfect for my tiny wrists. It also seems to sell for well under my budget on used watch sites around the web.

Unfortunately, there is one little snag preventing me from purchasing, and that’s the dial. It just leaves me cold. I actually think the basic silver sunburst and simple handset fit the personality of the watch very well. It is almost as though it is trying to hide itself from the masses in plain clothes, so that only the enthusiasts who appreciate the genius of its construction and design will ever stop to pick one up. Even so, I can't help but wish the dial featured a more interesting texture, like that of the JLC geophysic true second, and a more striking handset, like the ones found on various Grand Seikos. At this budget, I would like to avoid buying a piece that I don't feel 100 percent in love with, and as much as I respect this watch, I don't think I would feel comfortable spending my money on it.

So, all that being said, my query to you is as follows: Can you recommend a dress watch of classic proportions (5-8mm thick, 33-36mm diameter) that can equal the caliber 839/849 equipped JLC Master Ultra Thin in sheer technical brilliance, while surpassing it in style, all for less than $10,000? I am open to new or used/vintage pieces, although a new watch would be preferred since at these prices, I would like to try on whatever I will buy before I pull the trigger.

Unfortunately true ultra-thin watch movements at anything resembling an affordable price, seem to be extremely thin on the ground these days. It’s a very sad situation. Jaeger-LeCoultre as you are obviously aware, has long since gotten out of the business of producing more affordable steel versions of the watch and now it is, at least new, only available in precious metals and at a price of tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the maker. Vacheron does beautiful things with it but they charge an upsetting amount of money, at least if you remember, as I do, how much a steel Master Ultra-Thin used to cost.

The issue with true ultra-thin watches is that you sacrifice certain things in order to shave off fractions of a millimeter. To understand why, in general, real ultra-thin watches tend to be sparse on the sort of details you mention, it is useful to understand how the makers who produce them have generally viewed them over the years. Making very thin watches was much more art than science for most of the history of watchmaking and sub-2mm hand wound pocket watches at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, and heading into the Art Deco era, were extremely costly and rarely produced. The exercise of art in such cases, was to make a movement as slim as possible and a watch which overall was as slim as possible and anything that added unnecessary millimeters — including more ornate dials and more visually striking hands — would have been discarded. Often such watches would not even have seconds hands, as this would increase, however slightly, the amount of space needed between the underside of the crystal and the dial.

RELATED: The 7 Best Pre-Owned Rolex Watches You Can Buy At Walmart

True ultra-thin movements are still very rare, relatively speaking. However, one model you might wish to consider, though it is slightly over your budget, comes from a most unexpected quarter: Bulgari. The company makes a true, ultra-thin movement, with a platinum micro-rotor — in steel, the Bulgari Octo Finissimo is $12,000 and the only true ultra-thin watch I can think of at that price. The movement, caliber BVL 138, is actually the world’s second-thinnest automatic movement in current production at 2.23mm thick and it is surpassed only by another Bulgari watch, which is an automatic tourbillon. The design is not everyone’s cup of Darjeeling but I think all things considered, it would be well worth your time to look at one.

The Luxury “Pimp” Watch

I have enjoyed your column and advice since discovering it a year ago. You have helped advance my knowledge of horology and have also taught me to look at potential watch purchases more analytically than I might have otherwise. Instead of instantly pulling out my credit card when I see a watch that I’m interested in, I try to consider what its designer was trying to achieve, what they got right or wrong and whether or not it’s overly derivative of a watch I might enjoy more.

For these lessons I am grateful, and I must thank you for your guidance.

I have a small collection of watches (so far) but I’ve tried to buy things that I won’t regret in a year or two. These include a couple of Rolex Submariners (one in steel, and one two tone steel and gold) and an Audemars Piguet Millenary 4101.

My first question for you is what are your thoughts on this model of the Millenary? Most reviews I read seemed to regard it well, but more than a few of those reviews were from websites that sell watches.

My own impression is that it’s well made and beautiful. I don’t ordinarily find myself drawn to larger watches with skeletonized or exposed parts, but the 4101 immediately drew my attention, and the longer it’s been on my wrist, the more I’ve come to appreciate its design. I realize that the Millenary line seems to fall in the shadow of the company’s Royal Oaks, but I find most of those to be well designed, and also kinda boring.

The 4101 is definitely something I think people will either love or hate, but to my eye, it’s design is balanced and aesthetically pleasing. I also like the fact that it’s large without being ridiculous, as I’m a tall and athletic person, and it fits my wrist perfectly without overwhelming it.

Secondly, I am curious what your opinion is on the way some people seem to look down on Rolexes as being déclassé. I have seen numerous people refer to them as being watches that “used car salesmen” or “pimps” wear.

It might be funny to ask an avowed Snob about snobbery, but what’s at work here? Is it because Rolex has been successful at marketing itself as an aspirational luxury item to the average person, whereas a company like Patek Phillipe has not?

I realize that Rolexes are largely fancy, very well made “tool watches,” but surely they seem to draw fire from certain folks as being fit only for criminals or hillbillies who’ve come into a lot of money suddenly. What are your thoughts on this?

RELATED: 14 Statement Watches That Really Stand Out

I have to be honest, I like the Millenary 4101 and for a lot of the same reasons you do. It is absolutely a refreshing change from the absolute deluge of Royal Oak watches to which we have been increasingly subjected since 1972. I do not blame AP for following the money and there is an excellent chance that without the success of the Royal Oak they would either be out of business, or no more than a shadow of their former self under the umbrella of one of the menacing Groups. 

But the Millenary is always a pleasant refuge. It has an unusual and interesting design and has over the years, been the recipient of some truly wonderful, if terrifyingly expensive, complications and there is really nothing like it available from anywhere else. You are quite right that it tends to produce divided opinion but to my mind this simply means that it is a design that actually stakes out a position. It is at its best when it is more assertive, in my view, and the 4101 is everything worth liking about the Millenary.

On Rolex, the company has accumulated so much cultural and historical baggage over the years that it is virtually impossible to see the watches as watches any more. Certainly a Rolex thanks to their conservative design language and combination of wide visibility, and fairly high cost, is a time-honored way for a certain sort of nouveau-riche individual to advertise their newly acquired status. However, it is also true that Rolex today is making some of the most technically superb wristwatches anyone has ever made — their quality of construction and precision in timekeeping takes a back seat to no one. I generally advise folks who are interested in Rolex, to simply buy one if they think they would enjoy it, and buy it for their own reasons, and to please not give a damn what other people think.  

Cold Mechanics 

Thank you for your column, which has been a wonderful source of education and entertainment for me over the years.

As a person who was born and raised in the heat of the Caribbean but later moved to Canada, I learned very quickly to account for the cold weather for any outdoor activities I was planning to do, which brings me to my question: is there a known (cold) temperature at which a mechanical-movement watch would stop working? Also, is there claim to "first watch to Arctic/Antarctica," the same way the Omega Speedmaster is the "first to the moon"?

The primary concern with a mechanical watch in an extremely cold environment tends to be the lubricants. Oils tend to be at their optimum viscosity within a given temperature range and as the temperature drops, they tend to become more and more viscous. With modern artificial lubricants, this seems to be less of a problem although there have been some cases in the past of watches being especially prepared for cold-weather expeditions, that were produced without the usual lubricants in order to circumvent this problem (not a long term solution, obviously, but better than having a watch stop during an especially cold sojourn).

As to firsts, this is a somewhat obscure subject however Roald Amundsen is known to have used a Glashuette-made deck chronometer (made by the unfortunately named Julius Assman, a brilliant maker but one whose brand has not yet been resurrected, for obvious reasons). Explorer Matthew Henson, who is often credited to be the first to reach the geographic North Pole in 1909, on an expedition led by Robert Peary, apparently carried a watch made by the American Waltham Watch Company (a pocket watch, obviously). 

Hamilton watches were used by Admiral Byrd, during both his Antarctic and Arctic expeditions and Hamilton made sure to mention this extensively in their advertising in the 1930s. They also noted in their ads that the watches operated in temperatures as low as minus 70 degrees Fahrenheit, which provides a partial lower bound to your question — modern watches from makers specializing in durable chronometer grade movements, such as Rolex and Omega, would probably fare even better.

Modern explorers often partner with watch brands for sponsorship and promotional reasons — Mike Horn is a Panerai ambassador but is as determined, energetic and tough an explorer as anyone could wish. I generally deplore brand ambassadorships as the vacuous exercises in celebrity promotions which they usually are but every once in a while, someone comes along who it really reflects credit on a brand for sponsoring  — even Panerai.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Takes on the New Stuff From LVMH Watch Week Dubai

Fear in the Desert: LVMH Watch Week Dubai

Something the casual watch enthusiast may not realize, is that when they hear about new watches, is when the watch industry chooses to unveil new releases. There was a time when this happened in a fairly predictable fashion and according to a fairly predictable schedule. There were two major trade shows, which were the Salon International de la Haute Horlogerie, or SIHH, and there was Baselworld. The two shows were separated by a decent interval of time, and if a company did not want to rub shoulders with Cartier and the Richemont Group at SIHH, why, you could be sure they would show later in the year at Baselworld.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: On Why No Watch Is "Worth It"

Trade shows in the watch industry, as elsewhere, are experiencing a bit of a crisis and even casual enthusiasts probably know that many exhibitors have decided that trade shows no longer offer them exposure commensurate with the high costs, and this combined with uncertainties over the dates of the shows have led some brands to decide to do their own independent product launches. Just this last week, the watch brands owned by LVMH, which include TAG Heuer, Zenith, Bulgari, and Hublot, debuted some (although not all) of their new pieces for 2020, in Dubai.

It is of course still quite early in the year, but even taking that into account the overall launch was not especially impactful. Relative to shows like Baselworld this is to be expected, of course, as there are only four brands to contend with, but still, one feels that overall, LVMH Watch Week Dubai, as they called it, was rather more incremental than anything else. I don’t want to be unfair – there is nothing wrong with making relatively minor updates and improvements to existing models; in fact Rolex has made a very lucrative business out of mostly doing exactly that.

But still, things felt tentative. Zenith, for instance, was most notable for cosmetic changes to its Elite line of watches, which through no fault of their own have for many years been nearly invisible thanks to the prominence of El Primero. The new moonphase Elite watches were nicely done in some respects but the overall sense one had was of caution – certainly no new ground was broken. Hublot showed several large, loud, rather bombastic pieces – in other words, remained true to form and again, no surprises; and TAG Heuer contented itself with a limited edition version of a vintage Carrera model, which is virtually the physical embodiment of incrementalism.

Oddly enough, it was the jewelry house of the lot – Bulgari – that showed the most interesting pieces, both from a horological and from a design perspective. I am sure that the insecure machismo characteristic of many so-called watch enthusiasts prevented them from noticing, but they announced an absolutely delicious little shaped tourbillon movement for the Serpenti Seduttori; easily the most beautiful piece of interesting traditional watchmaking from any of the LVMH brands. And Bulgari also offered the most interesting design update. The Octo Finissimo Automatic steel model got a new finish, as well as a screw-down crown and improved water resistance and in a stroke, went from a quite niche watch (the previous steel model had a sandblasted steel finish, and while it set a record at its launch for ultra-thin watches, it also appealed to a rather narrow range of tastes) to one which is now a viable alternative to many other stainless steel luxury sports watches.

I am sure that the watch industry overall is in no mood to take risks – the political turmoil around the world, and in key markets like Hong Kong, has impacted sales and made all our friends in Switzerland nervous. But Bulgari has shown that working within a less wide range of possibilities, does not mean you have to sacrifice quality, nor give up a commitment to good taste.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob Goes Deep On Why No Watch Is 'Worth It'

The Answer Is No

Dear Snob, I write you not so much for advice on a particular choice of watch, but rather a peculiar spot I find myself in. Let me begin.

I have a small assortment of watches that I enjoy very much. This includes a Submariner and Speedmaster in stainless steel, the Submariner is the most expensive watch I own to put this into perspective. Several weeks ago my wife (whom I have been in blissful matrimony with for 16 years) and I were watching the movie "Dr. Strange" and there are a couple of scenes that prominently show a JLC, and a rather complicated one at that. Upon seeing the watch my wife asked if that is what I would like for Christmas! I immediately said “YES." Not realizing what she actually said, we googled the watch and I believe it had a price of around $25K. She then agreed to give me a $20K budget for a watch, only if it is the final watch purchase of my life.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Steel Fatigue, Bezel Fading and Watch Etiquette

This budget puts me within reach of a three hand PP or ALS, or perhaps a very nice JLC. After considering the long-term cost of ownership, service and repair specifically, I started to have second thoughts about the brand I was to look for. Already owning Rolex and Omega, and having them both serviced in the past, I decided to stay with these familiar brands.

The Rolex I was most interested in was a Datejust, stainless steel with a jubilee bracelet and fluted bezel. I was particularly drawn to the blue or dark rhodium dials. I thought the jubilee bracelet made the watch look a bit more dress than sporty. With no gold or diamonds on the dial, these options don’t scream “look at me I have a Rolex” as the flashier models do. The Omega that caught my attention is the Tresor model. A gold dress watch on a leather strap. This watch does have a date aperture, but with its location at six it does not upset the balance of the dial and I find it attractive.

We visited a local Omega AD to see the Tresor in person, and I discovered that they were also a Seiko AD as well. For the first time in my life I saw the Presage line of watches, and especially the latest with a sunburst guilloche finished dial and blue enamel coating (SPB073). This was a beautiful watch. The movement of the watch looks a bit industrial, but it does have what I believe Seiko calls “Tokyo Stripes”. Since a person does not remove their watch and turn it over six or seven times a day to look at the movement, but does look at the dial this often to see the time, the decoration of the movement was not that important to me. What is important is an accurate and robust movement which I believe this is. The watch had a MSRP of $1,600, but we managed to purchase for $1,280. My wife also purchased a piece of jewelry for about the same price as well, this may have helped with the negotiating.

So, as to the peculiar spot I find myself in. I still have my $20K budget for a watch, except now minus the $1,280. The thing is, I cannot stomach the idea of spending this much money after experiencing what Seiko offers in value and quality. Does the path of my search for the final watch purchase of my life actually end at a Presage? Are all Swiss watches over hyped products made by over bloated old companies? How can they be worth the asking price? As a very old and wise man once said, “You must choose, but choose wisely.”

When I was a younger Snob I remember reading the words of a truly wise man who averred that almost all watch questions can be reduced to, “Is my watch a good watch?” and “Is my watch worth what I paid for it?” Amusingly, he then wrote that the answer to the first question is “it depends” and the answer to the second question is always, “no.” 

Behind the risible reply, is a very large grain of truth. The reply to the second question is very much a sweeping generalization so naturally, there are plenty of possible counterexamples. However it is also true that mechanical watches, in general, are more expensive than not, and it is also true that usually the price reflects what the maker figures they can charge, not what the watch is worth in terms of effort expended in making it.

There are many reasons for this, but the chiefest one when it comes to watches, is that they are a luxury rather than a necessity and so they are not priced to a commodity model, but rather to a luxury model. That they cost as much as they do, and that it is easy to feel that there is a disconnect between price and value, is not down so much to the naked greed of their makers as it is to the simple laws of supply and demand. 

All this said, Seiko and Grand Seiko are extremely popular among hard-core wristwatch enthusiasts for a reason. For time out of mind they have been among a minority of watch firms which are widely perceived to dramatically over-deliver on quality. Not all Swiss watches are over hyped products made by bloated old companies, as you put it, but it is true that over the last fifteen or so years prices have doubled in many cases, and in others trebled at least, and it is not because manufacturing costs are triple what they used to be. 

If you understand this, you can more easily accept that in most cases there will be a sense, when you buy a fine watch, of a disconnect between the asking price and the perceived value; this is simply the nature of the beast in this year of our Lord 2020. You may therefore ask a somewhat more relevant question, which is not “is it worth it,” but rather, “can I afford it, and will it give me a degree of emotional satisfaction that justifies the price?” For me personally, the answer for some (not all) Lange watches is still “yes” and to a lesser degree it is still true of some Patek watches as well, though at this point in my life I had rather have a Lange, as I — by a completely irrational and personal set of criteria — find them more charming than Patek.

The one thing I do feel reasonably sure of, is that if you do decide to purchase a Grand Seiko, which you can do for a third or less of your budget, you will have a watch which, at the very least, you can always admire for its beauty and the care that went into making it, and for which you will never feel you have overpaid. I have always found it thought provoking that so many of the serious, really knowledgeable collectors that I know find both A. Lange & Soehne, and Grand Seiko, attractive, and for surprisingly similar reasons.

Don't Buy the Bargain Sushi

I adore brands such as Urwerk, and MB&F for what they are doing to this fine art of Horology. I just love their work. Their timepieces are very exclusive and can be only had by a select few. I recently came across another brand Azimuth (on instagram that too!). They are trying to do something similar, but perhaps at a more affordable price point. My question is two part. What's your take on them, and if I should pursue Azimuth at all? And second, are there any alternatives to Urwerk and MB&F which are, say, affordable (under [about $5,000]) and still interesting?

The answer to your question is unfortunately an easy one; no, there are no real alternatives to either of those firms, and certainly not under [about $5,000], I have seen a total of one Azimuth watch on someone’s wrist in all the years I have been a Snob about watches and it left me cold. I understand what they were hoping to do — make a cool, offbeat design that doesn’t break the bank, which is a thing to praise in the abstract, but it is almost impossible in the concrete simply due to the fact that what Urwerk and MB&F do, is inherently expensive. 

I had a similar conversation once with someone who is lucky enough to own and shoot a couple of side by side, London “best” guns in season — you certainly can get a double gun for not very much money but by the time you are at the low end of the scale in price, you have lost not only much of the cost, but also much of what makes such things enjoyable to use in the first place. (As an American friend of mine once commented on the questionable notion of bargain sushi, some things should cost a little money.) I suppose that is me being a Snob, but there it is.

I don’t say that there are not offbeat, mechanically unusual watches that can be found for a reasonable price but generally, this works best when a maker takes a more minimalist approach. Meistersinger is a good example — quite different from run of the mill watches in the same price range, but much smarter in design and less apt to tire out their welcome than some other pieces competing with them, which will stale quickly when the novelty wears off.

A Maverick Branch Manager

I work in the automotive industry as a small city branch manager, and will soon have my career path to hold the position of branch manager in capital city (which also means I will frequently have meetings with my head office bosses).

I have been wearing only the Citizen CTQ57-1202 Chronomaster that I dearly love and later must prepare to have more decent watch as it has been an "unwritten rule" in the company that someone should have sport watches like Panerai or Breitling, or entry level Rolex, once holding a position as one of the branch manager of the capital city. I'm personally drawn to simple Grand Seiko or Jaeger Le Coultre Reverso as these will keep me low profile when meetings with my bosses who mostly wear Rolex GMT, Submariner and Audemars Piguet. But my simple elegant choice of watch will summon questions from my bosses for not following "tradition" of having Panerai, Breitling or entry level Rolex. While it will not impact my career to have Grand Seiko or Reverso on my wrist, I still want to manage good diplomatic communication with my bosses from watch I choose. Is there sport elegant watches Snob could recommend me?

I don’t know what to say honestly — I would personally, at your time of life, have loved to be employed by a firm which valued good watches so highly, but I would have also hated to be made to feel that if my watch was not from a management approved prestige brand, it would not pass muster. I am less inclined to advise you on a specific watch, and more inclined to urge you in the strongest terms, to not compromise your own tastes. It is your money, and one’s choice of watch is one of the very few places in which a workin’ bloke can express some personal taste. You want something rather more refined than a Breitling or a Panerai, and while I can say with confidence that an entry level Rolex is an excellent watch — an Oyster Perpetual is not only an excellent first good watch, it is an excellent lifelong watch too — why, you ought ultimately to buy what you like, not what others think you should like. 

That goes for any advice from me, as well, of course; if you really conclude after due thought, that not toeing the company line when it comes to watches would really materially affect your career for the worse, and you can live with and to some measure even enjoy a management approved watch, then do what you have to do. I think it would be a shame, though. Who knows, if you bought a Grand Seiko your bosses might, after the first shock, recognize you as a self-assured, tough-minded maverick well suited to be fast-tracked to a more senior position. 

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on Steel Fatigue, Bezel Fading and Watch Etiquette

Is Aikon Akin to an Icon?

What's your feeling on Maurice Lacroix Aikon 39mm Automatic? It seemed to me as a good quality watch, and decent enough for someone trying to get into the whole fad of sports steel watches. What do you feel?

I think that the fad for stainless steel watches on steel bracelets has gone quite far enough without us having to consider yet another one. I admire Maurice Lacroix for somehow continuing to soldier on making watches in a difficult market but the Aikon is not only derivative, it is listlessly so. 

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Death of the Trade Shows

I appreciate the fact that it is very difficult nowadays to design a stainless steel sports watch on an integrated bracelet that is not derivative to some degree, but the fact that the Aikon uses a cheap imitation of the Royal Oak dial does it no favors, and the bezel treatment is simply too tentative for its own good. It makes no clear design statement and seems to have no reason to exist other than to be vaguely evocative of other, more interesting bezel. One may or may not like the Royal Oak but at least there can be no denying that it's design takes a position and commits to it. One does not make a watch that is an Icon merely by misspelling the word.

Handle with Care

Quite a few years ago, I was at [a] party ... and I happened to ask this other guy about his new watch (some sort of Breitling thingy). Now the very first thing that he did was to take it off his wrist, and offer it up to me for a proper inspection! A pretty decent chat followed, and I eventually reluctantly handed it back after some intense horological social intercourse. I can’t say that this happens to me a lot, and I was just wondering, is there some sort of unspoken etiquette in regards to handing ones watch over for a good old fashioned sticky-beak?  

I don’t think that there are any particular rules other than those which common sense would dictate. If you happen to be holding a drink, put it down and handle the watch with both hands. Don’t attempt to operate any of the complications, if it has any, without asking the owner. Don’t manipulate the crown. Don’t, in a misguided attempt to be helpful, wipe off the watch with a paper napkin (or indeed, anything else) before handing it back, lest you scratch it. In short, handle with care and do everything in your power to ensure that you hand the watch back in the condition in  which you received it (it is probably polite to ask before trying it on as well).

As far as handing your watch to someone for inspection, common sense also applies. It is amazing to me that watch enthusiasts so often handle watches so carelessly, by the way, the habit of piling watches on each other is sure to leave at least some of the timepieces in question, in worse shape than when they were added to the pile. Putting watches down on surfaces that will scratch then is equally incomprehensible (brick, marble or what have you). I do not say that watches necessarily should be babied; they’re supposed to be a source of enjoyment, not anxiety after all. But doing the horological equivalent of leaving a case of La Tache sitting out in the sun is unnecessary and avoidable.

Perfect Pepsi Patina

I bought a Rolex GMT II Pepsi-Cola in 1998 and it's been my main watch ever since (I'm tempted to say buying it was one of the few decisions I made in my 20s that I'm still proud of). I've added a couple of others to my collection along the way, but most days it's the GMT I wear. I keep the watch well maintained and clean so it's always in good order, but one thing I have resisted doing to this point is renewing the finish on the bezel, where the red half has faded quite markedly.

I've been asked by the manager of the shop which manages my servicing whether I'd like to get the finish renewed, but for me it's part of the patina of the watch. My godfather has an early '70s GMT Pepsi (I bought mine because I admired his so much) which doesn't seem to have faded at all, so I'm wondering if the fading on mine some sort of defect? Interestingly (to me) I was chatting to a chap at a Christmas party last week who was wearing a similarly aged GMT II with the same fading. I guess my first question is; do they all fade?

On a second, but related, topic; while my main reason for keeping the watch as-is is my attachment to the patination (tied to the sense that I've acquired a fair degree of patination myself over the decades I've been wearing it), I'm also worried that if I did agree to have the work done, it would look worse than it did when new. I'd rather keep my watch original but showing its age than shiny but inauthentic. When Rolex do renew these bezels, what's your view on the quality of the finish?

Love the column by the way!

If you’re attached to the patina on the bezel in terms of what it does for you as a reminder of adventures you’ve had with the watch over the years, of course there is no reason to have it changed if you don’t want to. It’s your watch. The paint on metal bezel watches will certainly fade over time; how much, depends on things like exposure to sunlight, humidity and temperature — the ultraviolet radiation in sunlight being the primary cause.

The reason Rolex and so many other makers have switched over to industrial ceramics of one form and another for watch bezels, is that they are for all intents and purposes fade-proof (they also are basically scratch-proof and although theoretically speaking, they are more brittle than metal I think at this point in history if this were a fatal flaw we would know it; the internet is not clogged with images of cracked Rolex or Omega bezels). 

Bezel finish is not “renewed” by the way, the bezel insert is simply replaced. Though the idea seems to horrify some people, the fact is that for most of the history of wristwatches, replacing worn parts was the rule and it is only recently that a fetish has developed for so-called original condition. The degree to which this shows a superficial understanding of watches and watchmaking, can be clearly seen in the fact that no one worries about replacing a mainspring, which cannot be seen and therefore, can not be boastfully displayed to one’s equally mechanically naive compatriots. 

It is also worth pointing out that a replacement bezel will devalue the watch in today’s market for collectible timepieces, but I don’t have the impression that you would find that to be much of a consideration, so unless you want to preserve the watch for a descendant to monetize (which would mean never polishing the case, never replacing the hands, and never replacing the dial) you needn’t be concerned with hypothetical auction value fifty years from now (or whenever).

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on the Death of Trade Shows

The end of the year is upon us and at such moments, it behooves us perhaps to look at the year gone by, and reflect on the trials and tribulations which have afflicted the watch industry, as well as some of its triumphs.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: The Snob Gives Advice to a Man of the Cloth

In terms of the watch industry as a business, perhaps the most striking development has been the crisis surrounding watch industry trade shows. The first version of Baselworld, the Schweizer Mustermesse Basel, took place all the way back in 1917 and in its heyday it was the trade show for the watch and jewelry industry. Even after the departure of Cartier and some other high end brands to the Salon International de la Haute Horlogerie, which began in 1991, it remained for some time by far the most significant of the two shows, anchored by the participation of Rolex, Patek Philippe, the LVMH Group brands and literally hundreds of others.

Sic transit gloria. Baselworld is now a shadow of its former self. Rolex, Patek Philippe, Chopard and a number of other major brands still participate, but the entire Swatch Group pulled out in 2018, leaving an enormous void — both physical and psychic — at the very center of the main exhibition hall. This year, Seiko and Grand Seiko have both said that they will not return to the show in 2020, and other exhibitors have been leaving in droves as well, including Hermes and Breitling.

Not all is well with the SIHH, either. The Salon International de la Haute Horlogerie is, in fact, no more. Instead, it has been renamed Watches And Wonders Geneva, and from what one hears, there will be a concerted attempt on the part of the organizers to make the Salon — or whatever we are now to call it — into something entirely more engaging for consumers. However even here there are signs of discontent — long-time participant Audemars Piguet will no longer be present, and that most elevated of makers of highly complicated tourbillons, Greubel Forsey, will not participate in 2020 as well.

RELATED: Best Watches Under $5,000

There are vague murmurings from both Baselworld and Watches And Wonders that henceforward, it is the customer that should be king, and that increasingly, the shows must not only address the needs of retailers, but also the interests of those who actually buy watches. This is a reflection of a deeper and more profound change in how the industry does business. It is worth remembering that for most of its history, the watch industry did not sell watches directly to consumers; instead, it sold watches through a worldwide network of retailers, of dizzying and Byzantime complexity. Over the last twenty years, however, we have seen many brands gradually abandon this time-honored system and increasingly, direct sales to clients online, and single-brand, brand-owned boutiques, have begun to displace the traditional retail networks.

We now have a situation where instead of two trade shows, there are a number of smaller events — the Swatch Group luxury brands have their own presentations, in Zurich; Grand Seiko will be doing its own presentations in Japan; Breitling and others, including Greubel Forsey, simply do their own world tours to present new products, and many brands have been very open about the unnecessarily high cost of the shows. Equally vocal are many of the journalists, who especially decry the high costs of attendance (it is not unusual in Basel, during the shows, to find hotels and restaurants tripling their prices; nothing says Welcome To Switzerland like good old naked price gouging).

Now, the real question is, what difference will all this make to watch enthusiasts?

RELATED: These Are the 12 Best Watches of 2019 According to Our Watch Snob

The answer I think, at least for now, is “very little.” Those of us who love watches pay little attention to the shows as shows. They are relevant only because they affect the timing of new product announcements and as the entire industry is beginning, very belatedly, to realize, you needn’t spend millions on a booth at a trade show to announce new products. Even if you believe that it is essential for people to be able to see watches in person, this can be done at a fraction of the cost simply by bringing them to various markets, rather than getting robbed by a trade show once a year; moreover, you need not compete with hundreds of other brands for attention.

It is both hilarious, and rather sad, to see just how out of touch the trade shows and their organizers have become. The world has moved on – and the notion that things can somehow be salvaged with unclear mutterings about becoming more consumer focused give no assurance that Baselworld, Watches And Wonders and the like, can ever recover. These shows for most of their history, specifically rejected the notion of being exposed to the public, for them to somehow miraculously, and in mere months, develop trust with consumers and also the habits necessary to communicate well, is laughable. I am sorry to say so but there it is.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong. I have looked forward to both shows for many years and wish them no ill. But the gravity of their dilemma, is something that they appear to have recognized very late in the game. Nothing, perhaps, makes this clearer than the fact that were the shows to vanish tomorrow, consumers would barely notice — if they noticed at all.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on the @AskMen Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on James Bond Watches

The upcoming James Bond Film, entitled “No Time To Die” (the jokes, as an American friend of mine likes to say, write themselves) will be the 25th time the fictional super-spy has been inflicted upon an apparently insatiable and obviously insensate public. We have had Bond as a scowling womanizer (Sean Connery), Bond as suave womanizer (Roger Moore), Bond as an unconvincing womanizer (Timothy Dalton), Bond as a slightly less unconvincing womanizer (Pierce Brosnan) and finally, Bond as a bluntly sociopathic womanizer, in Daniel Craig’s version.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Sleek Swatches and Rolex vs. Omega

Craig’s James Bond seems to derive as much sensual pleasure, if not more, from extinguishing life as he does from going through the motions of engendering it. I am old enough to have seen all the Bond films — yes, all 25 of them — in the theatre and I will say, I felt with Craig, that we had come full circle, as his version of Bond as well as Connery’s, were the only ones you could plausibly imagine actually killing anyone. All the others seemed incapable of doing genuine harm to anything more threatening than a scolding squirrel, but that is a complaint for another day.

Throughout all this, Bond has worn a watch. Generally speaking, there have been only two types of watches in James Bond films. There have been watches which act as test-beds for technology developed by the redoubtable Q (a buzz-saw bezel Rolex, a Seiko which prints messages on tape, which seems insecure, and so on). And there have been, more to the point for watch enthusiasts, Bond’s “on-duty” watches. These have generally been either Rolex watches, Seiko watches or Omega watches — Omega began its partnership with the Bond films starting with Pierce Brosnan’s “Goldeneye,” in 1995. 

The partnership has continued with Craig and will likely continue with whomever plays the next 007. This means that for nearly a quarter-century, Omega has been the watch of choice of the cinematic James Bond. And that means, of course, that for many now in their mid-to-late 30s, Omega is the only watch that they have ever seen on Bond. 

Predictably, Omega has released a limited edition Seamaster to mark the latest Bond film early enough to tease eager fans. Equally predictably, it has been met with howls of outrage from some quarters of the self-styled enthusiast community. Probably the only thing more worn out than the Bond franchise is complaining about Omega limited editions; the company keeps making the watches because people keep buying them. 

The newest James Bond Limited Edition is (of course) a Seamaster. It has brownish-colored luminous material, Her Majesty’s Broad Arrow insignia on the dial and an anodised aluminum bezel which Omega boasts will show signs of age. (This is how far the vintage madness has come — accumulating damage is now seen as a selling point.) 

The usual objections have been raised. The world, for example, does not need another limited edition. The world needs many things, but mechanical watches are not one of them, and neither is James Bond (except perhaps insofar as fictional heroes help non-fictional drudges get through the day, which is on the whole may not be a bad thing). 

“It’s a cynical cash-grab,” you say? Of course it is a cash-grab — Omega is a luxury purveyor and all luxury is a cash-grab. It may also be other things, and I am not sufficiently a mind-reader to speak to the degree of cynicism in the minds of Omega and Swatch Group senior management. But I will say, it amuses me no end to hear people complain about a business behaving like a business.

Finally, there are those who complain that things like the pre-aged lume, the fatuous boasting that the bezel will accumulate scratches over the course of time and the use of the Broad Arrow (a symbol, in case you have spent the last twenty years, horologically speaking, hiding under a rock, of something being procured for the Armed Forces) are completely inappropriate in a watch meant to connect to Bond, who in his most recent incarnation is a man devoted to brutal expediency. This might be the most hilarious objection of all. Bond, let it be said, is a fictional character. Therefore, expectations of a limited edition which would be worn by an actual spy are not given. 

For all that, Craig’s James Bond seems in some ways more authentic than his predecessors, he remains an imaginary being. Complaining that the latest Bond limited edition is somehow inauthentic is like complaining that a My Little Pony (even Snobs have nieces) watch is unfaithful to reality. 

As usual, we find that the only conclusion it is reasonable to draw, when all is said and done, is that the brand and its “enthusiasts” deserve each other. If you want a watch authentic to real covert operations, go spend forty dollars on a G-Shock.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask a question on Instagram with the #watchsnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on Rolex vs. Omega

Omega v. Rolex

Dearest Snob, I read your column, and should know the answer, but I feel as though I must ask the eternal question for a first time buyer: Omega or Rolex? Your opinion is greatly appreciated.

It’s a simple one but the answer is far more complicated than the question. It will also raise questions of its own. Each of these companies has a very different character but before getting into that let us talk about how they are alike. Omega and Rolex are both industrial firms; they are between them the two biggest makers of luxury watches in the world, and to do that, they must use modern manufacturing methods including computer controlled machine tools, extensive automation and highly efficient production lines. This is not to say that there is no hand-work but at this scale humans are most useful for monitoring and quality control; real hand craft throughout the manufacturing process is much more expensive than the typical price point for either company.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Must-Read Watch Books and Breaking up With Steel

Where they differ is in their technical approach. Rolex represents the furthest development of really traditional Swiss watchmaking. However, everything is done to the highest possible precision manufacturing standards; they do not stint on materials quality and while the criticism has sometimes been made of them, that one Rolex is much like another, that is exactly the point. The average quality of individual Rolex watches is extremely high and there is no Rolex watch which would not be capable of giving a lifetime of service. The firm does innovate technically but in an incremental way, and often consumers are simply unaware of the many constant minute improvements Rolex makes to its watches.

Omega on the other hand, innovates technically rather aggressively and in ways far more apparent to the consumer, than Rolex. The most notable example of course is their adoption of the co-axial escapement, which both Rolex and Patek Philippe declined to attempt to industrialize. The cost to Omega was considerable but they were able to manage it and today they are the only luxury watch brand using a non-Swiss lever escapement in industrial numbers. They have also invested heavily in amagnetic materials; their Master Chronometer watches can resist extremely powerful magnetic fields, and they make extensive use of proprietary alloys as well as ceramic compounds.

Though fans of each brand love to denigrate the other, the fact is that each represents, for now, the pinnacle of two different approaches and watch enthusiasts ought to appreciate each company for what it is (instead of descending into the stupid personal insults of which watch enthusiasts have been fond since time immemorial). Which you will prefer is a matter of personal choice and there are exceptions to these generalizations in each brand’s portfolio, but that ought to give you enough to go on with.

The Banker’s Swatch

When I was working in London, I saw a bunch of pretty successful investment bankers sporting sleek, minimalist Swatch watches. Is that a look I should try to pull off?

Good heavens sir, how the devil am I to know? It has been said that it is possible in matters of fashion as well as in most other departments of life, that to do something with conviction is the best guarantee of pulling it off as you put it, but you have given me little to no data upon which I could make a recommendation.

You must therefore take counsel with yourself (which is what you should do anyway when it comes to watches). Why do you think rich bankers would wear a Swatch? Is it a simple desire to save money? Some sort of postmodern ironic comment on the fleeting nature of wealth? Are they in accumulating riches, reminding themselves, in wearing cheap Swatches, that “vanity, vanity, all is vanity,” as the Good Book sayeth? Or is it simpler than that — do they simply like this type of Swatch on the strength of its design?

These are all plausible reasons, and moreover they are not mutually exclusive. The interesting thing about the thinner Swatch watches (for example metal case and bracelet models in the Skin collection) is that they are versatile owing to being unobtrusive and they are actually elegant, as much as industrial products can be. The nice thing about your question is that it would be very inexpensive for you to find out for yourself so I encourage you to experiment.

Steel Fool

I missed the boat on the AP Royal Oak, the Patek Nautilus and the Patek Aquanaut, what’s the next steel watch that’ll take off and really grow in value?

My dear fellow, I don’t know what you mean about “missed the boat,” — if you mean you missed a chance to invest heavily in these watches and then resell them at a profit, that is still something you can do although the cost of entry has increased (a lot) and the margins may not be very desirable. It is a silly question anyway — a game one can play ad infinitum; I missed the boat on Apple stock, what will be the next tech company that will take off and really grow in value?

There will not be another Apple — there will certainly be other opportunities, but they may have little or nothing to do with the sorts of products and dynamics which made Apple a success.

So it is with watches. The Royal Oak, Nautilus and Aquanaut to a lesser extent all belong to a certain time and a certain context, which will not be duplicated. You must simply keep your eyes open and your wits about you. The entire category of stainless steel luxury sports watches may be overvalued and a correction across the entire category may occur, as people learn more about watches and begin to value other things, in a more nuanced way — part of the reason this sort of watch became popular is because there has been an enormous increase in interest in mechanical watches in the last ten years, and this type of watch is easy for beginners to understand.

That said, the Vacheron Constantin Overseas may well be the next widely desired steel watch; some of the signs are already there. But if you buy one hoping to profit by the purchase (or, I should say more charitably, find that it holds its value as well as a Royal Oak or Nautilus) don’t go blaming the Watch Snob.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask a question on Instagram with the #watchsnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on Million Dollar Auction Records

Record Breaking Time Teller

Love your column, Snob. The Patek Philippe Grandmaster Chime sold for $31 million this week, highest price for a wristwatch in an auction. I understand that it was for a good cause, but, on the other hand, what consequences do you think this sale might bring in an already overinflated market?

Generally, I like to answer about three questions per week but yours raises a number of interesting points so I think that I shall, as the youth of today like to put it, go long on this one.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Must-Read Watch Books and Breaking up With Steel

For those who do not follow the auctions particularly closely (and I suspect many readers here who may have a casual rather than an unhealthily obsessive relationship with watches may not) the Patek Philippe Grandmaster Chime, is a most unusual wristwatch. It can indeed scarcely be called a wristwatch at all — it is a behemoth of a timepiece, at nearly 50 millimeters in diameter and over 16 millimeters thick. Within that case is a movement with 1,366 parts and as the name implies, the watch is one of the most complicated, if not the most complicated, chiming watch ever made. The most complex such watches, contain both a minute repeater (which chimes the exact time to the minute, on demand) with what is called a grande et petite sonnerie. The latter chimes the time at the hours and also at the quarter hours, like a chiming clock (or like the Great Clock Of Westminster, as far as that goes, which Americans will persist in mistakenly calling Big Ben). 

The Grandmaster Chime also includes two complications which have never been made before by anyone else. It has an unusual alarm, which actually chimes the time for which the alarm has been set when it goes off, and on top of that, it also has a date repeater — it chimes the date on demand, which of course, means that it has to have a perpetual calendar or it would chime the wrong date at the end of the shorter months. There are a plethora of ancillary indications as well, including a power reserve for the chiming works, a second time zone indication and so on.

Now, if you combine this complexity with a high level of movement and case finishing, and then add a generous premium for the fact that it is a Patek, you get a watch that at launch, had an announced price of 2.5 million Swiss francs (roughly the same in dollars, at the current rate of exchange; the listing for the current version of the watch, on the Patek website, says, coyly, price on request). This is all by way of saying that the watch is already enormously expensive. 

A little background on the auction is in order as well. This was not an ordinary watch auction. Only Watch takes place once every two years, and the proceeds of the auction go entirely to fund research into finding effective treatments and, one day, a cure, for muscular dystrophy. The disease is a devastating one and so far has resisted any attempts to find a cure; the founder of the auction lost his son to muscular dystrophy. It is in short, an entirely worthwhile cause, and many, many brands from some of the biggest to some of the smallest, participate. Patek Philippe donates a watch to every auction and they have set several records.

Now all this alone is not enough to explain why the Grandmaster Chime in steel, hammered for such a relatively huge sum of money. However, one must consider all these factors together. Patek Philippe watches in steel are in huge demand at the moment, especially the unfindable-at-retail Nautilus. Historically, Patek Philippe has made very few steel watches and at auction, these always sell, for reasons of rarity, for much larger amounts than their precious metal brethren. The Grandmaster Chime has never been made in steel before and according to Patek, will never be made in steel again; indeed, the version they donated at auction, actually says “The Only One” on the dial. All this, plus the fact that it is a charity auction, plus the fact that in recent years increasingly huge sums have been paid for rare or unique versions of very avidly sought watches, contributed to a bidding atmosphere that encouraged extreme results for this particular watch, at this particular auction.

Now, as to your actual question, which is, what effect this will have on the rest of the watch market. I have given the matter a great deal of thought, and discussed it with some friends of mine who are both collectors and enthusiasts and who moreover collect across a fairly wide range of prices. Both they and I feel that this very high price, will not do a very great deal to affect the larger market for vintage watches. I have not really attempted anything like a very in-depth analysis of the auction results from this or previous years (for several reasons but chiefly because I am incurably lazy and I find that sort of thing even more tiresome than watching the industry try to design a credible ladies’ watch) but I thought that, a few high-interest lots aside, the performance of most of the lots at auction this November, was not especially dynamic. We may in fact be entering a period where there is a bit of a correction. It is worth remembering that by and large, and headlines aside, most lots do not turn into battles between billionaires looking to play the horological equivalent of the who’s-got-the-longer-yacht game.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig:

Watch Snob on Required Reading for Watch Lovers

That’s Nice, but ...

Thank you for your weekly writings which have helped me very much on my continuing journey to empty the family savings. Your guidance has been invaluable, but I admit with some shame that while I have not bought the watches I have asked you about previously, each of your answers has helped me think about why I wanted the watch and to look further into my own progress in this ridiculously destructive addition.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Why Zenith Shouldn’t Be Overlooked

I would like to ask your guidance again on two aspects of watch appreciation. First, could you recommend a good book on the history of watches? I read [the] reviews and see statements describing a movement which takes inspiration from, say, pocket watches. I'm trying to gain an understanding of how design choices made by various watchmakers have been historically influenced, so, for example, when I look at a 3/4 plate, I would understand why it was preferred to a completely open movement.

Second, I would like to gain knowledge on the appreciation of dials. Questions like: are the sub-dials too close together? Is there too much negative space? Why a sector dial? Just as art appreciation classes would provide an understanding of techniques used to convey certain effects and emotions, I'd like to be able to understand how to more constructively consider the makeup of a dial.

I feel that the above would really help towards understanding my own feelings towards why certain watches evoke love rather than a clinical 'that's nice, but ...' feeling.

There have been many, many books written on the history of watches and watchmaking but surprisingly, in the last couple of decades there have been few serious attempts to improve on some of the classics in the field. There are, thanks to the increase in popularity of wristwatches, a number of books on specific brands or types of wristwatches but the general intellectual lassitude of those who claim to be interested in watches, is shown by the equally general lack of knowledge of, and disinterest in, horology prior to the wristwatch.

I would recommend, in no particular order, “Watches,” by Cecil Clutton and George Daniels, “The History Of Clocks And Watches,” by Eric Bruton, “Watchmaking,” by George Daniels (which will give you a wealth of information on craftsmanship and techniques in the production of a hand-made watch, and which is an invaluable technical reference) and for a general history of clocks, watches and other timekeeping devices, the really wonderful and under-appreciated “A Revolution In Time,” by David Landes. Those four books alone will give you a breadth of knowledge and an appreciation of the depth of history of mankind’s horological enterprises, which is unknown to the unwashed herds of so-called enthusiasts with more money than sense, who think the world begins and ends with Paul Newman Daytonas, and who have about as much capacity for independent thought as a lemming rushing to the sea.

On the subject of dials, and how to judge them from a design standpoint, I can think of no single specific book that treats the subject with any depth and intelligence. 

The Holy (Horological) Grail

I have been a long-time reader and find myself lacking in direction for the first time in a while. My daily driver is a Rolex GMT II 116710LN, which I have owned for years and love. I also had the recent fortune of acquiring a PP Aquanaut 5168G-001, which I would consider a Grail watch and could not be more ecstatic about. That leaves me with my third notable piece, an AP ROO Diver 15710 (black dial), which sits somewhere between the previous two (a flashy sports watch on a rubber strap) that I fear will see little wear with the arrival of the Aquanaut and is unlikely to hold value over time.

I think it is time to let it go, but am at a loss for what would best round out a three-watch rotation given the first two staples. I have never owned or seriously looked at a dress watch before (though have recently taken notice of the JLC Master Calendar and Ultra Thin Moon). Trading it for a Hulk crossed my mind, but I fear that it too is a bit of a fad. I'm hoping something will bring some excitement and intrigue in the $10-15,000 range.

I think you are quite right in feeling that either the Offshore or the Aquanaut are redundant. The question of the Offshore is an interesting one. There are as I am sure you know, very few watches which actually do hold their value over time and while it is not an unreasonable hope, it is generally not a reasonable expectation; you have in the Aquanaut and the GMT Master, two watches which are very much the exception rather than the rule. Simply because two watches fall into the same general category, need not be a reason to make yourself choose one or the other, of course — presumably you bought the Offshore because you found it an attractive watch and enjoy wearing it. 

Of course, if you are no longer terribly enamored of it, and you feel the sensible thing to do is to sell it to make buying another watch a bit less impractical financially, then de-acquisitioning it may very well be the logical course to follow.

You are quite correct in thinking that a dress watch is missing in your collection. I’m not sure whether or not a thin, gold, classically beautiful watch with a flawlessly finished movement is something in which you would have an interest, but if so I cannot recommend the Lange & Sohne Saxonia 37mm, highly enough. You already have two steel watches which loudly announce their luxury status, and you sound as if you have a sneaking suspicion that you are ready for something which is not more of the same. The Lange, albeit it is at the top of your budget, would mark a new era for you and represents a real opportunity to broaden your horizons — horologically speaking.

Let’s Keep It Real, and Public

We write to you, and so please rest assured only to you — I say this because I somehow feel that is relevant to you, on the behest of a Philanthropic initiative founded by watch enthusiasts from the motion picture — and music industries.

We very much like to ask you a relatively simple question, the answer to which will largely determine our course of action viz a project we just know you'll appreciate. If we make the right decision many watch enthusiasts globally will celebrate we think.

Would we be allowed to proceed via this channel or do you prefer an alternate email address to discuss details of your possible involvement?

Greetings, mysterious interlocutor. I must respectfully decline to answer your query in private, intriguing though it might be, and I will give you my reasons. The overarching nature of the Watch Snob is that questions are asked, and my opinion given, in public. There are at any given time a certain number of those who read my little weekly column on a regular basis, who would wish me to give them counsel in private, or over the telephone or what have you. This as you may imagine, could easily become an irksomely time-consuming affair and so I restrict myself to answering a couple — or three — interestingly put questions per week.

The second and perhaps more important reason I must decline, is that this for me is a hobby. An avocation. I do not collect, read about, look at, research and try to enjoy watches because I in any way care about being an influencer, or influential; I do not trade on the Internet or elsewhere under another name; I am not in the watch business on any level nor have I any desire to be. 

I enjoy having an opportunity to express my views under the cloak of anonymity, and to consult on projects of commercial potential, is well outside the realm of what I consider, for lack of a better word, fun. I appreciate your interest (and yours is far from the only such request I have entertained over the years) but I am determined not to let what has for most of my life, been a pleasant distraction from the moil and toil of the world, become yet another burdensome obligation.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at editorial@askmen.com or ask him a question on Instagram with the #AskMenWatchSnob hashtag.

You Might Also Dig: