Watch Snob On Why Zenith Shouldnt Be Overlooked

Zenith Watches

I've recently been fascinated by Zenith, who — while distracted by a few showpieces — produce many incredible designs: the Defy Classic and the Chronomaster especially stand out to me. The brand's history is impressive and their movements seem to offer a lot of value for the money. Do you think much of the brand? I'm seriously considering the Defy as the next addition to my collection.

RELATED: Last Week: Watch Snob on the New Lange Steel Sports Watch

The history of Zenith has been quite complicated in recent years — in the early 2000s it was a company which, having just been purchased by LVMH, became an extremely odd attempt at flamboyantly extravagant high-end watchmaking under an equally flamboyantly extravagant CEO who had a penchant for posing at flamboyantly extravagant parties with a falcon on his wrist. The company has always seemed to me ever since to be torn in two separate directions — on the one hand, there are a number of watches that are still exercises in, well, flamboyant extravagance and which moreover suffer from sharing more stylistic features than is good for them, with Hublot (I admire many things about Jean-Claude Biver, without whom the modern horological landscape would look very different, but he did have a tendency in my view to repeat himself a bit when it comes to design).

On the other hand, the brand has also been a vehicle for some interesting experiments in escapement design in recent years and it also still makes a number of more sober timepieces which follow on very clearly from the original El Primero, which was one of the very first generation of selfwinding chronographs all the way back in 1969.

Nowadays as so many brands have a tendency to have a rather scattershot portfolio, I have become less doctrinaire than in former days about rejecting a brand wholesale because they have a few product families that I don’t care for; one must simply take the good and ignore the bad, and the Chronomaster El Primero 38mm, which is very much like the original El Primero watch, is as fine a watch as a fellow could want. Of the three first self-winding chronograph movements from 1969, it’s the only one still in production as well — a real piece of history.

Lemania Movements

I ride a scooter or bike to work and use also various public transportation services to my office. My intern job sometimes requires me to visit tropical forests and mountains and for that I have only relied on my daily die-hard watch, which is a Sinn EZM 1. During weekends I wear an Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch 861. I am now thinking of having another chronograph watch to substitute for my EZM 1 that I will keep in my drawer and wear less frequently, knowing of its limited production. My budget is maximum $8,000 — what possible watch with a Lemania movement could I get? I do appreciate your recommendation.

I’m not entirely sure from your missive what you have in mind — if you are in fact, limiting yourself to Lemania movements and you want a modern, new watch, your choices are severely limited as Lemania no longer exists as an independent entity. It is now Manufacture Breguet, and that is what it has been called for many years; you can still get a movement from the Lemania era in, for example, the Vacheron Constantin Cornes de Vache but that is an extremely expensive watch, well over your budget.

Your choices in general if you wish an in-house chronograph movement, at that budget, are a bit limited (moreso of course if you want an automatic chronograph; there are options from Grand Seiko and Seiko, Omega, Rolex and perhaps one or two others, but in general the cost of producing a chronograph movement means that for it to be affordable at under $10,000, it has to be produced in fairly large numbers.

However, another reader this week has mentioned a watch I think is very much worth looking at, if you have not considered it already and rejected it for reasons you don’t mention. That watch is the Zenith El Primero. As I wrote back to him, the company has produced some quite out-of-character, not to say downright bizarre, watches over the last decades but the basic El Primero remains one of the most distinguished, and rightfully respected, watches and chronographs of the last fifty years.

Oak & Oscar Olmsted 38

Help me understand if the $1,500 list price of the new Oak & Oscar Olmsted 38 (steel bracelet) is worth the price. I’ve read about the ETA 2892A2 movement and that sounds like a solid choice. But is the rest of the watch worth 1/4 the cost of an Explorer? Or should this be more in the $700-800 range? It’s difficult for me to commit with no chance to handle it prior to buying.

I am not terribly familiar with the watch in question — I’ve never seen one in person so unfortunately I can’t offer an informed, first-person perspective. I will say that whomever designed it seems to have been willing to put more than the usual amount of thought, into the watch — the typefaces, use of color, and general look seem to be the result of someone who actually cares about watches, which is more than you can say for many timepieces at this price point.

The reason the watch costs what it costs is of course because that is what the owners want to charge for it, and from what I can tell, the company does reasonably well so its watches appeal to some folks. The lower production numbers relative to a larger company have something to do with the premium you’re paying, but my impression is that this is really a watch for someone who likes the design, wants something a little different, and feels a sense of connection to its aesthetics. On those criteria I don’t find the price out of line particularly — look here, I wouldn’t buy one, but I also see no reason why someone who likes the design oughtn’t to buy one.

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 Price Bubbles, the Appeal of Steel and Grand Seiko

Bubble or Bias?

I am writing to you because I feel my collection needs something to begin to shift it from rather mundane, to slightly more interesting. I currently have a Rolex Submariner 116610LN, an early 50’s steel Omega Seamaster caliber 342 (possibly my favorite of the bunch), a Tag Heuer 2000 Series CK1110 Chronograph (High School graduation gift from my parents) and a gold filled, manual wind LeCoultre (recently inherited from my grandfather).

As far as where to go, I’m a bit torn. I would love a vintage 321 Speedmaster, though I’ve begun to think a bubble has formed in that market and I’m trying to add an interesting watch I enjoy, that will hold its value. The rumors of a new stainless 321 Speedmaster makes me want to get friendly with my local Omega dealer, but I fear it will be an overpriced be let down unless you're a diehard #SpeedyTuesday type. So I’ve also begun to think of alternatives.

RELATED: Last Week: Watch Snob on Why Watches Cost What They Cost

I think something with a less typical, but still affordable complication is what my collection needs and I’ve recently found myself drawn to large date watches. Since a Lange 1 will probably always be out of my price range, I’ve been looking towards a Glashutte Original Panomatic. I think a PanoReserve or PanoMaticLunar with a blue dial fits the bill, and will add a bit of color to my collection as well.

What's your advice? Any alternatives I should consider that I might be overlooking? I’m open to new, pre-owned, as well as vintage. Thank you.

People have been talking about there being a price bubble for certain highly desirable, highly collectible vintage watches for some time now, and while this may be true it is far from a cut-and-dried matter. Prices, yes, have gone through the proverbial roof for some especially collectible vintage Rolex models (the same is true for Patek and Omega) but the upward trend for the most avidly collected and traded watches has been going on for long enough that it may very well be a trend rather than a bubble. It’s simply impossible to tell; no one called a bubble a bubble until after the fact and by then, of course, it is too late.

If you are interested in buying a caliber 321 Speedmaster in steel (and aren’t we all) it might be worth waiting a bit and seeing what they look like, and what the price looks like, before deciding between a vintage or a modern watch housing the movement. Omega has said that relatively few 321s are going to be made in any given year; they are going to be assembled in what sounds like a pretty artisanal, and therefore expensive, fashion. Demand will probably be quite high, so I don’t think there will necessarily be issues in terms of value depreciation, but until Omega actually shows its hand in the matter, we have to forego judgement. At a reasonable price and for everyday use, I personally would prefer a new one — less to go wrong and more apt to give satisfaction under daily wear circumstances.

Glashutte Original is a worthy company in many respects — it represents, in point of fact, greater continuity of history in watchmaking in Glashutte than Lange, which went completely out of business at the end of the war. GO is the descendant of the Glashutte watchmaker’s collective which came about when the Soviets forced them to merge into a state-owned entity at the war’s end. All that said, some of their watchmaking for quite some time has felt derivative of Lange, and the Panomatic Lunar and Panoreserve are especially egregious offenders. It is a shame because the quality is good, but at the price asked one ought to be able to expect some originality in design. Like most watches, value retention if purchased is also not impressive.

If you’re looking for a watch with a big date complication, but which has an original design language, I’d suggest taking a look at the Jaeger-LeCoultre Grand Date. The Reverso is not everyone’s cup of tea, but if you find the basic design attractive I think it represents one of the most interesting and original uses of big date complication, in a watch from a reputable brand, currently in production.

This Bargain Cartier Is a Steel

I wrote to you a couple of weeks ago, looking for a suggestion for a travel watch — one which can work in different settings, smaller sized and has a decent water resistance. My current collection includes a Reverso 8 Day, GP Richeville Day/Night and a Jules Audemars 25955. I absolutely love the GP and the Jules Audemars (and wore it at my wedding too). The Reverso is a bit thick at times.

Anyway, I don't like the Rolex so much, as it's so ubiquitous here in India, that people around me would know what it is. I like watches which only I know the value of, enjoy in private and which can pass off anyone else's sight without noise. For my travel watch though, it's been quite difficult to find the right watch, here are a few options I have considered:

Omega Globemaster — Love the fluted bezel, hate that it's better with a strap than a bracelet.
Audemars 14790, Vacheron Constantin 47040  – Both out of my budget of $6000.
Creux — Nice looking watch, but relatively unknown brand.
IWC Ingenieur 3239/3227 — Can be chunky.
Piaget Polo S — Slightly bigger in size, but I like the look.
GP Laureato 38mm — Decent looking, but I wonder if I should get another GP.

With all this information, I am not particularly intrigued with Grand Seiko. and I have also learnt in the limited time so far is that small and slim watches fit me much better. Given that I have quite a small wrist, what would you suggest?

You seem to be using the phrase “travel watch” in a rather broad sense — generally when folks ask me to suggest one they are looking for a two time-zone or GMT watch, whereas you seem to be looking for a watch which is versatile enough to wear while traveling, and you seem to want one on a bracelet. It is rather more difficult than not to deduce anything further from your missive, although you seem to have an affinity for stainless steel sports watches with integrated bracelets, if not the budget for some of the more expensive ones. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for Grand Seiko, as you are no doubt aware, but it is also true that their bracelet models can have rather thick cases and for the gentleman with a more gracile frame, they can seem a bit heavy.

The Laureato and Piaget Polo S are both worthwhile watches (from what I understand, the latter in particular is finally beginning to find an audience after a somewhat slow start) but there are a number of other possible alternatives worth considering. You’ve probably noticed that there has been a significant increase in the number of stainless steel bracelet watches in recent months, driven of course by enormous market demand, but one of the best options, which is just within your budget, is a design that is over 100 years old, and from Cartier: the Santos. A Santos-Dumont, medium-sized, is currently $6,250 and it is one of the finest versions of the watch Cartier has released in a long time, with one of the most elegant steel bracelets made by anyone at any price, and at its price, it is in my opinion a bargain.

A Grand Discovery

I have enjoyed your articles tremendously both because of your depth and breadth of expertise, obvious passion for horological, as well as for your wit and humor.

I grew up in a family of very modest means where I thought Citizen and Seiko were luxury brands and I was vaguely aware of watches made by a company called Rolex — although I’d never actually met someone who owned one. Because of some good luck with a business I started 15 years ago, I have had the good fortune over the past seven years to build a collection that would have been beyond my wildest dreams 20 years ago.

But I am still but a neophyte in the horological realm. Until I began reading your articles, I did not realize that beautifully made watches existed outside of Switzerland, and it was not until I had repeatedly read your references to Grand Seiko that I finally considered investing in one of their watches — the SBGH269 Grand Heritage Autumn.

Having worn it on my wrist now for a week, I have to say I am astonished by the workmanship, quality, and attention to detail. The sweep of the second hand is simply mesmerizing (granted my wife does say I am easily amused). I first wanted to say thank you for opening my eyes to this brand. Second, I wanted to ask if there are other brands you consider to be somewhat under appreciated but on a par with Grand Seiko. Thanks very much.

First of all, allow me to thank you for taking the time to express your appreciation; it has been my experience that, like a guide whose client forgets how much assistance has been rendered once the trophy is bagged, most of my correspondents seem to neglect to express their appreciation once advice has been given but perhaps that is simply the nature of the beast when you have an internet advice column.

Especially in the case of Grand Seiko, it is always a pleasure to be able to recommend them and to assist someone in discovering them. I have over the last year or two, found myself somewhat concerned that they do not forget how they made their reputation — some of their most visible timepieces at Baselworld, as well as some of their most touted announcements, are for extremely expensive watches — but at least thus far, the increase in prices at the higher end of their collections, has not been accompanied by an abandonment of their more affordable offerings; I hope they may continue in this vein.

Grand Seiko, in the quality it offers for the price, is something of an anomaly; I cannot think of another brand that can make such high quality timepieces at prices GS does, with starting prices still under four thousand dollars. There are a number of brands which I think offer wonderful value for the price as well — I think, for example, of NOMOS Glashutte (their square Tetra models are especially underappreciated) or of some of the more classically inspired watches from Longines, or Hamilton. But I can think of no company other than Grand Seiko which makes producing watches of great beauty and real aesthetic and spiritual depth, a priority for all its watches, rather than for a few.

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 Sets Three Readers Straight Tells Why Watches Cost What They Cost

Let's Be Crystal Clear

I´m a huge fan of yours, as I have mentioned in previous messages.

I am thinking of buying a Breitling Aerospace Professional from the early 2000´s. I think they are a great buy at c.€1.5k and I am a big fan of the Aerospace´s from that particular period. What are your thoughts on that model and digital watches in general?

RELATED: Last Week: Watch Snob Scolds Three Readers Who Don’t Trust Their Own Tastes

You know I have to admit to having something of a weakness for the genre, which may or may not surprise frequent readers; I have a long-standing affection for multi-function quartz watches, in general. I actually own several G-Shocks (including a very weird but irresistible altimeter model which is sensitive to altitudes which, were I at them, would instantly kill me) and I quite like the Omega X-33, as well as a number of the watches of this genre, from Omega and others, which preceded it. 

I am not sure why, as they are in every respect the antithesis of what I usually look for in a wristwatch, although I do think some of the objections raised against them are to some degree unwarranted. Rapid obsolescence is one, however a thirty year old G-Shock still seems relevant and interesting to me (if you are going to admit interest in one at all) and the needs which the functions of the Breitling fulfill, are as relevant as they were when the watch was first produced. Quite a few watch enthusiasts loathe quartz watches of any kind but I have always felt this an irrational prejudice against a kind of watchmaking which not only has predominated for many decades, but which also is quite interesting in its own right.

I am admittedly more of a lover of gadgetry for its own sake than many watch lovers but if you like them, there is no reason to not enjoy one.

Youth is Wasted on the Young

I've been reading Watch Snob for quite some time and read other articles on AskMen as well. A market I feel is under-served on AskMen is successful older men, and in particular articles on clothing, accessories and "stuff" for men who have significant disposable income and who are willing to spend some of it on looking the best they can, and on presenting themselves as well as possible.

AskMen generally seems to cater to a younger market. This is fine, and most of the similar sites do as well. I find this curious because most younger men simply don't have very much money, it is the older guys who do. Interestingly, most advertisers aim specifically at younger men, while it is older men who are the ones who can actually afford to buy the products.

The existence of a section for "Men of Means" (or something like that) would be a powerful draw for advertiser's dollars, and it would also "point the way" forward and upward for younger men who aspire and hopefully are on the road to success. Other than in Silicon Valley, nobody wears sneakers in the boardroom, the courtroom, in banking in politics . . .

Watch Snob has this market ($100K income a year plus) covered perfectly, and I'd like to see similar content on other things.

You raise several interesting points. I have over the years come to understand that this website and myself are a bit of an odd fit, in certain respects — indeed, much of what is covered elsewhere does seem to be directed towards the younger, and perhaps less affluent gentlemen. Things which cost in the hundreds of dollars, are certainly easier to possess and enjoy earlier in life, for most blokes, than things which cost in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.

Fine watchmaking, especially Swiss fine watchmaking, presents an interesting conundrum in this respect. It has over the years undergone many changes, from the introduction of silicon components, to the increase in high precision and high tech manufacturing processes of recent years, to the explosion of interest in fine watchmaking across the world, fueled by the meteoric rise of the watch internet. Much of the most interesting activity around watches and watch collecting now occurs on Instagram, which is largely populated, as far as watches are concerned, with jackasses more interested in self-promotion than watches, and whose knowledge is worse than superficial — however there are a very few who actually contribute something positive and know their stuff.

One of the most significant changes, and one of the most lamentable from a customer’s viewpoint, is that the price of new watches (and vintage as well, although not in all cases) has skyrocketed since the beginning of this century. This means that it is quite difficult to answer a question about any sort of good watchmaking without, will you or nill you, talking about things which cost thousands of dollars. Though my persona here is the Watch Snob, snob-dom nowadays is almost forced upon one, at least from a price perspective (this is part of the reason that affordably priced, non-Grand Seiko watches from Seiko, are so widely loved by younger enthusiasts; they can actually afford them).

I agree with you in theory that it might be interesting to explore but I wouldn’t be the fellow for the job. My knowledge in other areas is much less systematic than in watches and in some cases, downright odd (I developed a love for Algerian wines after reading as a youth that they are favored by M, the Secret Service boss in the James Bond novels, which will win me points with no real wine enthusiasts at all, unless I miss my guess). Perhaps it is just as well to leave AskMen.com where it is – you may be right in theory but one does well to know what is in one’s wheelhouse, and what is not.

Don’t Overlook Grand Seiko

I’m reaching out in the hope that you can provide some guidance on a watch purchase I plan to make. I’ve budgeted $10,000 for the purchase, but would be willing to raise that to $15,000 for the right timepiece. What I’m having difficulty with is finding a watch that fulfills certain very specific criteria which I’ll expound on further.

First, I am an investment professional with over 15 years of experience work in banking and at hedge funds. I tend to be an obsessive person, and the importance that I place on maximizing value when trading stocks also applies to all other parts of my life. I’m not necessarily expecting to purchase a watch which might instantly increase in value (similar to perhaps a Rolex GMT Master II), I’d just like some reasonable level value retention.

Second, I am autistic, but not in a manner that’s easily identifiable from casual social interaction. Instead, my traits manifest most significantly in my obsession with technical/industrial design, gears, and repeating movements. I can’t express enough how much peace and happiness I feel when I look at an exhibit case back and see different colored metals with varied buffing, grinding and etching, highlighted by bright colored jewels, alongside the precise movements of a balance wheel and smooth motion of a rotor. I still remember the first time I ever saw an exhibit case back, a friend of mine had just purchased a Patek Philippe Nautilus which he let me hold for a few minutes. Although I had been fortunate in my life to have toured dozens of major art museums in Europe and North America, that was the first time I experienced a masterpiece with my heart and not just my eyes.

Unfortunately exhibit case backs don’t seem to be very popular among watches that have a reputation of retaining value, at least not within my budget. I did see an Omega Speedmaster Moonwatch which came close, but it lacked a rotor. I also considered an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, but it was a bit higher than I’d like to pay. Any help you can provide in recommending watches that might fit my criteria would be greatly appreciated.

Unfortunately, what you desire generally comes at a fairly significant cost. The Nautilus and Royal Oak are obvious choices and good ones but of course quite expensive (and quite difficult to find, at least for the steel models — it has gotten to the point where it is less expensive to simply buy a gold Nautilus than it is to pay the market price for a steel one. Another obvious suggestion is Grand Seiko, which offer many wonderful watches at prices well within, or actually below, the lower bound you have set for your budget, but which don’t offer the value retention or actual possibility of increase in value, you might get from other luxury level stainless steel sports models.

However, your mention of the Speedmaster leads me to think that of all the criteria you mention, value retention may be the one on which you are most flexible and indeed I would suggest that you consider something. It is in the nature of most watches to lose value the moment they are purchased and for time out of mind, performance on the secondary, pre-owned market for watches has lagged behind performance at retail. A few exceptions to this in recent years (the Nautilus, stainless steel Rolex professional models, the “Jumbo” Royal Oak in steel) have I think given us all somewhat unrealistic expectations of after-sales value retention. Certainly, I am not suggesting that you abandon the notion entirely – it is always nice to have a watch that holds its value – but when considering purchasing a watch for pleasure, you need not fall victim to the speculation which preoccupies some who buy and sell frequently, and for whom profit is part of the fun.

If you have not looked at Grand Seiko watches, I would strongly suggest it; the quality they offer, even with their recent price increases, is for the cost about double what it would be in most comparably priced Swiss watches. If you really want to see high level traditional movement finishing in an automatic watch there is no getting around the fact that it is an expensive proposition, though.

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 Scolds Three Readers Who Dont Trust Their Own Tastes

Traders’ Remorse

Recently I traded my JLC Reverso Ultrathin Duo in steel for a rose gold Parmigiani Toric (not the current version, but the previous iteration from the 2000s — the same as the 36mm Memory Time, but in 40mm). I am now doubting if I have made the right decision and I need your advice.

The Reverso was a fine watch, but it was a choice of the mind, not heart. I read many endorsements of the Reverso, but for me that watch was boring. It was too minimalistic and too austere. The associations with British polo players did not add to its value, but reduced it: I don't think that imperialism is a good thing. Moreover, I felt that JLC as a brand was too much of an underdog — making movements for brands of higher stature (stronger brand) was too similar to my own situation of a salaried employer toiling my soul off to enrich my asset-owning bosses and getting paid relative peanuts for the value I created.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: On Choices, Rolex and Why American Watchmaking Isn't a Thing

So when I saw the Toric it promised me a different life — the life of a creative independent, who was perhaps also underpaid (Parmigiani's value retention is poor), but was free nonetheless. The Toric design was inspired, reminding both of classical architecture and the wildly creative models from Patek and Audemars from the 1950-60s (the high point of design). The finishing of the watch seems of very high level and the warm rose gold color gives more comfort that the austerity and coldness of the Reverso's steel.

Could you please comment? Have I made a good trade, horologically speaking?

This is an exceedingly poignant missive; you seem to feel that you have made a change in your professional life which, for you, had some profound spiritual ramifications as well. It is an interesting conundrum, this one of whether one’s pay is fair for the labor; there are of course obvious examples of the less fortunate exploited by those more fortunate or powerful (often the same thing, which is the wicked way of the world) but in many cases the matter is less black and white.

Those who own or have begun companies may feel with some justice that as without them the firm would not exist in the first place, they are rightly entitled as founders and owners to the lion’s share of the spoils. Those who labor, may likewise feel with some justice, that they are compelled by circumstances beyond their control, to do so for a pittance. It would seem if I read you aright that you have decided to make your own fortune for which I can commend you but if you were rewarded well enough by your employers to afford Jaeger perhaps you were not so badly off after all (Jaeger-LeCoultre is hardly a bread-and-water diet).

In any case, I can’t think why you wouldn’t feel you have made a good trade. The Toric has the better-finished movement, it is a design classic in its own right and does not have the ghost of the Raj clinging to its skirts. You flat-out assert that you prefer it to the Reverso, which is the only standard that matters; this is not a situation where you made an uninformed decision, and are in danger of finding out something down the road that will make you regret the watch. Enjoy it, and the heady wine of freedom, seasoned with the appetite sharpening savour of (relative) poverty.

Who’s Wearing Your Watch?

I have been searching for a gentleman's wristwatch. I was not looking for a dive watch, pilot's watch, dress watch or any other '_____ watch'. I was searching simply for "a watch about which someone actually appeared to give a damn,” to quote an old column of yours. I also wanted this watch to be sized like a gentleman's wristwatch of days gone by, which is to say somewhere between 33mm and 36mm across and up to 10mm or so thick.

My search led me to a plethora of great watches that nearly fit the terms of my search, but didn't quite make it in one category or another. In the end, I found only one watch currently produced that fit my (admittedly ambitious) criteria: the Rolex Oyster Perpetual 34mm.

I do adore this watch, but I do not wish to face the disgusted glances from strangers and the constant ribbing from friends and family that I will inevitably receive for buying and wearing a Rolex. I have never wanted a watch of mine to function as an egregious display of wealth, so I have avoided 'the crown' for years. Does the Snob know of any watches that both fit the terms of my search and do not bear the cursed crown?

You aver that you “adore” the Oyster Perpetual, why should you give a damn about what others think, if you have searched high and low and have lit upon a watch that fits you to a T and about which no one who actually knows anything about watches, will see as having been a regrettable decision. Come now, good sir. You must take yourself in hand here. It is not your friends and family who will be wearing that watch; it is you, and if you allow yourself to be browbeaten into buying something you don’t actually love, just to satisfy other people’s tastes and views, you will richly deserve the miserable dissatisfaction that will dog you every time you put the watch on.

I will tell you bluntly, I have come to know many people in the watch industry over the years and you would absolutely be shocked at how many of them wear a watch made by their company at work, and a Rolex for pleasure the rest of the time.

Of course there are other watches I could recommend, but I would bet you fifty thousand Nivarox balance springs that if I did make such a recommendation, and you follow it, you would still be miserable because the fact of the matter is, it is still just another fellow’s opinion, not yours, and when it comes to spending thousands of dollars on something you are buying for your own pleasure, yours is the only opinion that matters in the end. Screw up your courage; be a man, not a mouse.

Go With Your Gut

As a long time reader of you I found it time to submit my own dilemma seeking your advice. I am in my mid 20's, graduated from college and am working in my career field, which happens to be Aviation. I am a working pilot and I am relishing in the adventures it brings me. For many years I have been a watch enthusiast, scanning the internet constantly to feed my everlasting addiction to the Swiss mechanical world.

My dilemma is this: I'd like to purchase a watch that represents the work I put in to get myself as far as I have with flying, and to bring this new watch along with me throughout my career. I feel lost when it comes to making this decision, perhaps due to the fact that I have made it such a big deal.

My admiration for the chronograph movement is as high as one can have, not to mention its usability on the flight deck. I should point out that I already have an Omega Speedmaster Professional (145.022-76) which I have worn almost without a break for 4 years. Other watches I have acquired and since sold: Omega Seamaster 300 coaxial and Tudor BB 36. I have looked into many options including: IWC Pilot Chronograph Spitfire (way too thick!), Breitling Chronomat 41 Airborne (too much bling), Rolex Explorer 36mm, Rolex GMT Master and Master II Coke 16710 (nice ones are over $10k) and lastly Zenith el Primero 38mm (not a 'pilots' watch).

Obvious choice seems like the GMT but in the back of my mind are a few things; everyone has one, the 16710 are trading for more than ceramic ones retail, it's not a chronograph and lastly people at work will see "Rolex". My budget isn't unlimited but I don't have a problem with saving up for 10K. What to do?

Sometimes the obvious choice is the watch (or at least the kind of watch) that you should obviously choose. I think at this juncture it is worth considering the type of aviation you do — since you say you are on the flight deck, I assume you are flying something multi-engine in civil aviation (I have never met a military pilot shy about saying he was one) and that you probably cross time zones at least occasionally, in the line of duty. The GMT complication quite literally exists because of your profession; without the advances in aviation and aerial navigation, which took place in the period — oh, let us say, 1925 to the mid-1950s — the GMT watch would probably never have been invented, as the need for one hinges almost entirely on the rapidity with which one can find oneself thousands of miles, and several time zones at least, from one’s point of departure these days.

Now that in mind, there are several options other than a Rolex. Grand Seiko, for instance, makes several GMT watches which will not seem to your friends and colleagues like an exercise in conspicuous consumption, for instance. The Tudor GMT seems to have had some initial teething problems but those appear to have been addressed, and it represents essentially all of the utility of a Rolex GMT Master, at a fraction of the price and again, without the risk of being tarred and feathered by the populace for a plutocrat.

There are GMT chronographs but many (perhaps most, I have not systematically surveyed the offerings) do not offer a jumping independent local time hour hand, which is the salient feature of the Grand Seiko, Rolex and Tudor watches I mention. And as well, they tend to be rather bulkier than not.

I would suggest a simple, true GMT watch as your first foray into the field — while the timing functions of a chronograph are indeed useful, there are few timing situations which cannot reasonably be addressed by a GMT watch. And by the way, if it is a Rolex you want I would suggest just buying one, and to hell with what other people think. It is your watch and your professional brethren have been wearing them everywhere there are airplanes and, moreover, to the Moon and back as well (several Apollo astronauts brought personal GMT Masters with them). Buy what you want, not what you think others will approve of.

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 Choices, Rolex and Why American Watchmaking Isnt a Thing

Wealth of Choices

I’m sorry this is so much like all the other questions you get, but I wouldn’t want to proceed without your advice. I’m relatively new to collecting so don’t have any watches of note, and am going to ask for a “real” watch for Christmas. I have landed upon four options under $2,500 that are compelling to me for one reason or another.

They are: - Casio G-Shock Aged Black IP (GMW-B5000V-1) - Nomos Club Campus 38 (Ref. 735) - Hamilton Intra-Matic Auto Chrono (H38416541) - Seiko Presage Urushi Byakudan-nuri Limited Edition - (SPB085)

From these options, what would you suggest I write in my hand-written, wax-sealed letter to Santa this year?

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: On Rolex, Patek and AP Sports Watches in Steel

I do not often own to being speechless, and of course, I am expressing myself figuratively as I am not actually speaking, but that is the most all-over-everywhere list of first-good-watch watches I think that I have ever seen. In four watches you have covered a considerable amount of real estate in the landscape of modern watchmaking – you have a multifunction quartz watch (albeit one with obvious ambitions to be taken seriously as a work of art) a sturdy self-winding chronograph, a relatively sleek and diminutive Bauhaus-inspired dress watch, and an almost baroquely ornate art-dial wristwatch. You have also managed to cover Switzerland, Germany, and Japan geographically (and we can even say America with a nod to the country of origin of Hamilton).

What is one to make of such a diverse collection? I can only say that you seem to have studied the matter and found that there is indeed, a tremendous variety of value offerings to be found across the watchmaking landscape, and each of the watches you’ve selected can be recommended on its own merits but I own that I am at my wit’s end when it comes to recommending which one you should possibly buy.

I will say, The G-Shock might be a fine choice but is a bit much for a first choice; the NOMOS seems a bit too demure for your tastes, and the Intramatic perhaps too plain in its workmanlike execution (which might suit another chap down to the ground, but doesn’t seem as if it would wear well for you over time). The only thing left is the Seiko, which has enough drama and visual complexity for a dozen watches and whose beauty of execution will give you much to admire over the years to boot.

The Perfect Travel Watch

I have a couple of business trips lined up and a vacation to a beach island as well in the next few months. Could you suggest me a travel watch - one which can work in different settings - have a decent water resistance. I usually prefer smaller sized watches, and not looking for a GMT or Dual Time complication. Any suggestions?

There is not a great deal to work with in your query – I always urge those seeking my advice to try to reveal a bit of themselves in their missives, the better to fit recommendation to individual character but your question is so enigmatically phrased that making any deductions about which direction your taste might tend to carry you, is challenging in the extreme. However, your query is brusque, businesslike, reveals nothing of your character; it is unsentimental and asks to get down to business quickly, suggesting that you are the sort of person who brooks no nonsense, respects efficiency, and expects focus and dispatch from his or her colleagues.

The obvious choice for someone of your character is Rolex. Rolex is like a suit from the American clothier Brooks Brothers; it requires no imagine to buy, necessitates no exercise in particular of taste nor does it require any refinement of judgement; you may buy it in confidence that it is of quality and correct in every way. Like a Brooks Brothers suit, it will also reward deeper investigation into the heritage and history of the company that makes it, should your curiosity ever be piqued, which I suppose might happen but based on the lean efficiency with which you choose to communicate, I think that is not the way to bet. Buy a steel Rolex Oyster Perpetual, and think no more about it.

The State of American Watchmaking

I bring two cases before you today, M' Lord, seeking your wisdom and judgement. First, the case of one Tutima Glashütte, the other, other, other Glashütte brand which seems to have a complex, though seemingly legitimate history and clung tenuously to life in West Germany after the War. Like Lange, they returned to Glashütte after the Wall fell and turned out an in-house minute repeater and split second chronograph (the Tempostopp, a fine looking timepiece if I may say so). Yet, I happen to have stumbled upon this brand through one random article covering a recent Baselworld, and all my internet research has turned up little in the way of reviews or even general knowledge of the brand. What then is your opinion of Tutima? Is it an underrated and overlooked brand that executes respectable watchmaking like its Glashütte kin, or is it relatively unknown for a reason and not worth one's time?

The second case is that of a certain Weiss Watch Co., based in Los Angeles, CA. Through personal correspondence with the brand, as well as my own research, I have learned that, though the movement of their 42mm American Issue Field Watches is based on an ETA-Unitas caliber 6497, it has been both mechanically and cosmetically modified and is manufactured, jeweled, hand-finished, tuned, and assembled in their L.A. workshop. Only the mainsprings and sapphire glass are outsourced to Switzerland. Additionally, the case and dial are made in-house. Aside from all this, the watch looks great, in my opinion. Does this young brand represent the first lightening shades of a new dawn for American watchmaking? Or does the Right Honourable Snob require more evidence before he is willing to concede that American watches are more than Shi*ola?

Let me answer your second question first. American watchmaking is largely a thing of the past. Where it is practiced in a way that makes the term “watchmaking” really meaningful, is largely in the hands of a few artists and artisans who must perforce obtain parts and tools from abroad. The problem with trying to establish a real base for watchmaking in America, and reviving what was once one of the most influential and important watchmaking traditions in the world, is that the industrial base no longer exists and has not for many decades.

English watchmaking has the same struggle; there is no industrial base which can readily supply essentials ranging from lubricants and jewels, to escapement parts, to the balance and spring, mainspring, and gears and pinions. Everything must be sourced from abroad and this is as true of Weiss as it is of any other American brand. I feel that Weiss, to be candid, was not entirely honest with its claims of American manufacture at the outset, and a glance at their website gives the unfortunate impression that they are simply glossing over the fact that really making an in-house movement, is as far beyond the capacities of American hopefuls as it has ever been. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Tutima is a worthwhile and worthy company, with much of interest in its history, including the manufacture of some watches for use by pilots and military pilots which are much appreciated and valued by collectors of military timepieces. I have noticed over the last decade or so, that they are attempting to reposition themselves at the higher end of the scale in terms of luxury watchmaking and about this, I have mixed feelings.

Taken on their own, their luxury level watches like the Tempostopp chronograph, Patria dress watch, and Hommage minute repeater are all fine pieces of watchmaking, but I find myself feeling nostalgic for the watchmaking of yore, when Tutima made some of the most honest instrument watches anywhere, which were embraced by professionals and which I suspect, were they still in production, would be met with great enthusiasm today.

I cannot bring myself to offer anything but praise for the quality of their watchmaking at the higher end, but their identity as a company feels a bit unfocused to me now, at least compared to the past, and given who some of their immediate neighbors in Glashutte are, I fear they have given themselves an awfully tough row to hoe.

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 Sex, Steel and the Moonphase

Erotic What Now? 

In a previous column, you discussed erotic watches and answered a question about the Perrelet Erotic watch. I am interested in your thoughts on erotic repeaters and strikers. These watches generally use automatons for their complication. These would include the erotic hour strikers from Ulysee Nardin and the Piece Unique Erotic Minute repeaters from Blancpain. In particular, the Blancpain seems quite captivating, offering an elegant dial with an intriguing case back.

Your take would be most interesting.

To be utterly unsparingly honest, erotic watches both fascinate and repel me. They are certainly and undeniably part of the history of Swiss watchmaking and they reflect all sorts of things — Calvinism, I suppose, and the deep discomfort which human sexuality produces in religiously repressive cultures, and the desire no matter the circumstances, to maintain some sense of connection to the deep and powerful current of sensuality upon which the propagation of the human species depends. So all that is perfectly all right. 

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: On Rolex, Patek and AP Sports Watches in Steel

The problem is that the Swiss are generally absolutely terrible at making anything sexy; they can be relied upon to botch it. The French and the Italians excel at it; the English are nearly as bad as the Swiss; the Germans seem to be unable to make anything sexy without also making it menacing; about the Japanese collective expressions of the erotic, the less said the better. But the Swiss, among the civilized nations of the world, take second place to no one in making the immersion of the human psyche into the realm of Dionysious, stupefyingly banal and dull. 

The result is that so-called erotic complications are generally about as erotic as a highway accident. They are generally extremely inartistic — the gleeful salaciousness of erotic art and writing at its best, is absent and in its place we generally have figures which look as if they are victims of some sort of paralytic rictus, pumping in and out of some orifice or other with about as much enthusiasm for the task at hand as a group of prisoners picking up trash along a motorway. Blancpain is a bit better than most in this respect, I will allow, but even there I would prefer to get simple fine watchmaking from the Swiss, and leave sexy to the people who are good at it.

Looking for a Steel

I'm a huge fan of yours and have been following your column from Madrid for sometime. I have a modest watch collection that includes an Omega Speedmaster, which I wear on a leather strap and use daily, together with a Breitling Seawolf (gifted for my 18th) which I now rarely use.

I am looking for an elegant steel watch and have been thinking of buying a second hand Audemars Piguet 14790ST. Truth be told, I have been in love with Royal Oaks for some time, and now that I can finally afford one, albeit second hand, I am very tempted to buy it. What are your thoughts on particular Royal Oak? Is is worth buying in terms of movement or should I wait, save up a bit more and buy a newer 37mm version (15450ST.OO.1256ST.020)?

This is an interesting problem. The 14790ST has a perfectly nice movement in it — a self winding caliber from Jaeger-LeCoultre which is not only an objectively worthwhile movement, but also a representative of a long-standing relationship between the two firms. The 15450ST.OO.1256ST uses the Audemars Piguet in-house caliber 3120, which debuted to much fanfare in 2003 and which I have heard, over the years, praised by watchmakers as one of the best high-end automatic movements being made in Switzerland today. 

The difference between the two watches cosmetically is not great — diameters are 36mm and 37mm, for the older and newer watches respectively — so unless that minute difference is meaningful to you (and it might be) it boils down to whether you would prefer a slightly older watch with a heritage movement that symbolizes a long-standing relationship between two of the great houses of the Vallée de Joux, or a watch with a movement that represents an historic moment for Audemars Piguet, in terms of its production of its own, in-house self winding movement.

In this case, I would tend to prefer the former — it is probably letting yourself in for some service costs sooner than if you had the more modern movement, but it has a certain old-school charm to it which is perhaps less present in the newer watch (those models for all their glitter and iconic design, have always struck me as a bit too chilly for their own good).

If you are really going to buy a modern, current production Audemars Piguet watch based on the movement, I feel the thing to do is just to hold out for a Jumbo, which has the caliber 2121 — a truly refined movement, and one with more elegance than either the JLC caliber, or the in-house caliber 2120. This is letting yourself in for a considerably greater expense but of the three, it is in my view the most attractive option overall. 

Unmitigated Moonphase

I've been an avid reader of your column for a long time and I'd appreciate your advice for my next purchase.

I've always appreciated fine watch making and there's always been 2 brands on my bucket list — A Lange & Sohne and Patek Phillipe. For my next and hopefully not last acquisition, I'm hoping to get a fine timepiece, which I'd hopefully be able to pass on my future kids one day, assuming they're worthy.

I've a daily beater — JLC Master Compressor Chrono which I've been wearing for the past 15 years and I hope to get something for special occasions before I settle down (the future missus isn't a fan of finer timepieces, so I'd better sneak in one first!).

The watches I'm currently considering are as follows.
Patek 5146G
Patek 5712/1A
Lange Saxonia Annual Calendar
Lange 1 Moonphase

The Lange 1 is an iconic symbol and easily recognisable but the dial feels simple in comparison to the other 2 models. At that price range, it doesn't really justify the cost for the simple complication. I really like the date and pusher on the Saxonia but again it's not as iconic, at least in my opinion, as the Lange 1. I'm also a big fan of the engraving for Lange although the 3/4 plate which covers most of that beautiful movement, albeit for functional reasons.

On the other hand, there's the 5146G with the more traditional look. Being a successor to the original annual calendar, the 5035, there's a lot of heritage to that watch, although I do feel the finishing is lacking in comparison to the Lange. The Nautilus 5712/1A is the other iconic model from Patek which is a classic Genta design and I trust I'd appreciate wearing that even at finer events, if I do manage to source one.

Well, well sir, an interesting quartet of watches, I must allow. Two annual calendars and two complicated watches with date and phase of the moon. These are all in their own way quite respectable, though I think that your assessment of the deficiencies of the Patek, in terms of finish, with respect to the Lange is accurate; Patek does not devote quite the energy to this aspect of watchmaking as Lange, and the two Pateks, I have to be honest, seem a bit lacking to me in terms of finesse. The annual calendar in some contexts, might be a praiseworthy alternative to a perpetual but especially from Patek Philippe, I have never quite been able to see the annual calendar as anything other than a bit of an also-ran; they do such nice perpetuals and have been doing them for so long.

What I think is most interesting about all your choices, however, is that they all show the moonphase. The fact that this is the one common element seems to me to be trying to tell you something — you want a fine watch from a manufacturer with a good name, and with a high level of craft, yes; but there is a streak of romance in your constitution as I see it, and therefore I think you would find the most pure expression of the moonphase, the most satisfying watch.

In this respect the Lange simply outclasses the other choices. The annual calendar, for you, seems rather a distraction. The Lange 1 is as meritorious a watch in terms of horological legitimacy, and its place in horological history, as you could wish and for some reason, their moonphase watches exude a sense of poetry which can sometimes be absent in their other timepieces. I feel that while it is a very striking watch at first glance, you would find it even more appealing as time goes by, and you assess whether your child or children are worthy!

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 the Demand for Steel Sports Watches

Watch Snob Discourses on Steel Appeal

Greetings, gentle (and less gentle) readers. Today, I’d like to take a bit of a break from my usual format and discuss the conundrum posed to all of us, by the meteoric rise in popularity of stainless steel sports watches. Unless you have been dwelling, horologically speaking, beneath the proverbial rock you are undoubtedly aware that the demand for steel watches – especially from Rolex, Patek Philippe, and Audemars Piguet – have reached unprecedented levels. For Patek and Audemars the hunger is largely confined to two models, which are, respectively, the Nautilus and the Royal Oak. In the case of Rolex, the demand across the board for stainless steel professional models, including the Daytona, has long since passed the ferocious and has reached the hysterical.

RELATED: Watch Snob on Skeleton Watches and Going Under the Radar

It was not long ago that I happened to find myself in a watch boutique – disinterestedly browsing the usual lineup of insipid rehashes of last years’ or last century’s designs – when I witnessed the not-unusual sight of a customer abusing a sales clerk. The fellow was quite literally brandishing his American Express Black Card as if it were a two-handed broadsword and he was upon the field of Agincourt (on the French side, naturally) and with as much animation, as he berated the salesman for not selling him a steel Rolex. “What’s the matter,” he demanded, “isn’t my money good enough for you?” (There was quite a bit more profanity than that; I am paraphrasing).

The problem of course (aside from the light this throws on the more fundamental problem of the mendacity of human nature and the fundamental moral unimprovability of watch enthusiasts) was not that the salesman did not wish to make a sale; the problem is that he had nothing to sell, and screaming does not make Rolex watches appear out of thin air (ask the man who knows). The problem is not confined to Rolex, of course. The Patek Philippe Nautilus reference 5711, is just as scarce as any steel Daytona; steel Royal Oak Jumbos, ditto.

It is a very strange phenomenon in the world of high end luxury watchmaking, that steel should seem so much more elevated a material but it is probably due to several factors. The first of course is the brands’ own greed. It is all very well for Thierry Stern, the President of Patek Philippe, to argue that he doesn’t want his company to become a single model firm, which is what has happened at Audemars Piguet due to the popularity of the Royal Oak (which to be fair, has turned the company from a small niche maker of complicated watches, into an international design powerhouse but such success has come at a price). The fact is however that gold watches from traditionally revered Swiss brands, have roughly quintupled in the time that I have been interested in watches. When everything you make is inaccessibly priced to most of your potential clients, you have a bigger problem than becoming a single brand watch.

At Rolex, the problem is more widespread. Driven by a combination of fundamental brand recognition, admittedly excellent quality, and a sort of unimaginative, conservative, but basically reassuring consistency in design, both demand for and reverence of Rolex has reached unprecedented levels. The company has more money than God (an expression which has always struck me as a bit odd because if there is a God, which I increasingly doubt, the one thing he neither has nor needs is money) thanks to this popularity but it also runs the risk of alienating its retailers and its potential client, if the drought goes on too long. The paranoid in our ranks may believe that Rolex is deliberately choking the market for steel pieces in order to sell more precious metal watches, but as they say, just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean you are wrong.

What is one to do, then? Of course there are alternatives. Fine steel timepieces can be had from other perfectly fine brands; Vacheron Constantin has its Overseas line, for example, and if you have a yen for a steel Rolex, you can still get one easily; it will just say Tudor on the dial. That may seem a disadvantage at first, if you are besotted with brand names but it has for many years now been true that Tudor is metamorphosing today into what Rolex was twenty years ago.

Or, you can make the really reasonable decision and get out of the game altogether. In all the time I have been interested in watches I have never seen such undiscriminating, knee-jerk herd groupthink among so called connoisseurs, and naked greed on the part of the brands. This was once a gentleman’s diversion and it is now the purview of bean-counters protecting the value of company stock on the brand side, and peacocks with the intellectual and emotional depth of a wading-pool on the collector side. Clocks are nice.

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 Skeleton Watches and Going Under the Radar

Bulgari Octo Finissimo Skeleton

Thank you for answering my question on the Cartier Noctambule. I neglected to ask you a further question. I would like to hear your thoughts on the Noctambule movement.

If I am permitted a second question, since last writing to you I have seen the black skeleton version of the Bulgari Octo Finissimo. I have always been struck by the Octo Finissimo range. The design looks industrial and I cannot decide if I like it or not, but I am put off by the prominent Bulgari branding.

The skeleton watch I find attractive. It looks like the dress watch Darth Vader would own. If you would share your views on that watch I would be grateful.

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: On Judging Quality and Making Bad Choices

And a third wholly different question. I am a fan of Vacheron. If were to purchase one of the range which would it be?

Always happy to hear from a satisfied reader again. I shall take your questions in order.

Firstly, on the Noctambule we have an interesting situation in that the movement essentially is the watch — as you’re certainly aware the plates and bridges are constituted by the numbers and this is basically a highly customized specific version of a skeletonized watch (well, I suppose I ought to say a skeleton watch, as strictly speaking, you cannot call it skeletonized as it was never un-skeletonized to begin with). So you can take my remarks on the watch in general, as reflections on the movement as well; I like it and I think it a characteristically bold and clever design from Cartier.

On the Octo Finissimo watches, my main observation on them is not terribly clever but it is true: I like them. The skeletonized Octo Finissimo watches are bold in conception, design, and execution and they were clearly designed by a person or persons who understand design, not just watchmaking. What you get as a result is an extremely well integrated design, which is successful for the same reason the Cartier is successful: It was conceived as an harmonious whole from the beginning and is not a cobbled together improvisation.

Your question as to which Vacheron you ought to buy is a bit harder to answer as they do have an enormous variety of watches, complicated and uncomplicated, formal and less so (although to my eye all Vacheron watches have a bit of an air of formality, which is part of the fundamental character of the firm). However as of today you have a most interesting new possibility — the company has released a new version of its Historiques Cornes de Vache 1955 chronograph in steel (it had heretofore been available only in precious metals at a starting price well above fifty thousand dollars). It is still a quite expensive watch — we are at an interesting point in the history of watchmaking when a $39,000 steel chronograph, however fine, can look like a relative bargain, but as an American friend of mine who’s a newspaper man likes to say, “I don’t make the news, I just report it.”

Time Flies

Last week I was in America and my Lange got very inquisitive and rough treatment from a TSA agent — the 3/4-plate raised concern in particular. I begged the agent to be careful but she was quite concerned it would bring down the plane. To my last plea she grumbled “Relax, I mean, it’s not even Swiss”. Once she decided it wouldn’t explode she casually tossed it in the tray. I want this never to happen again.

If your answer is “Well, I just keep a stash of Langes, Vacherons, and Roger Smiths in every city worth visiting”, perhaps you might suggest a technique for those of us who still comprise the Great Unwashed.

Thanks for the work you put into your column.

There is a part of me – a not especially mature part, I suppose – which in answer to your question, “How do you fly with a watch,” wants to answer, “You don’t, you fly with an airplane.” However much amusement this rejoinder would afford me it would be both brief and uninformative so perhaps we can take this unfortunate bit of levity as read, and move on with a more serious and useful reply.

I confess that in many years of travel with a good timepiece, I have never experienced what you have – usually I (sometimes with some trepidation, depending on the value of the piece) place my watch in the tray, watch it go through the x-ray machine or whatever it is, with more trepidation, and then I pick it up, put it on, and go on with the business of getting becomingly inebriated before hopping in my designated aircraft. I am a practiced but rather anxious flyer so I am usually more worried about getting on the ground in one piece.

RELATED: Watch Snob Hates a Watch Three Times

What do sometimes do, especially when traveling with more than one watch, is wear something satisfying but not very valuable on my wrist, and put the other watch or two in a case in my carry-on. This generally does the trick. Perhaps I have just been extraordinarily lucky but in many years of sometimes very frequent flying, I’ve never had any issues such as the one you describe but then, I generally don’t travel with many watches and make a point (usually) of not traveling with anything terribly costly — it’s most often something like a Rolex, or my beloved but battered Speedmaster, or a Grand Seiko (which I am a bit more careful with, just on account of the finish, but it is still not the cause for concern which a Lange or Patek might be).

A Vintage Omega?

Let me first say thank you for your articles, I love to peruse them frequently. I am an avid 23 year old watch fan ever since receiving an Omega Seamaster 300m (non-wave dial) for my 21st birthday. I have decided to commemorate another big milestone in my life — my graduation from university marking the end of my education.

To mark this occasion, I have saved for and ordered a Tudor Black Bay GMT. However I digress as my question is not about this. To get to the point, lately I have found myself yearning to add something vintage to my collection, particularly from the likes of Omega. I would like something on the dressier side but there seems to be a wealth of models available and I am frankly a little daunted. I have looked at a 1973 megaquartz which I like but I have heard the movement is unreliable. I would welcome your suggestions to other models? Ideally no more than £500 as I would not wear this watch frequently but would pull it out on dressier occasions. My many thanks.

Unfortunately for you the time is more or less long past, when one could hope to find a vintage Omega of real interest, in reasonably good condition, for that price. Despite the fact that there are many wonderful watches from Omega which were made in the hundreds of thousands over many years, the demand for ones that are of good quality, and which have mechanisms from the company’s heyday as a real manufacture before the dark times of the Quartz Crisis, is now so high as to make finding and buying one at your budget rather problematic.

The reason that the Megaquartz models are more affordable is not so much an issue of reliability as it is of ease of service should they require it, and of course of relatively much lower demand. The great classic Omega time-only watches from the post-war period often use variations on the 30mm family of movements — some of the finest time-only movements ever made, but rather dear these days, at least compared to what they used to be.

A hint, however — if you branch out a bit in your search, you can still find something in a 30mm movement family watch from Omega roughly in your price range. I would suggest doing a bit of research on the various calibers — avoid searching for the calibers 30t2, 30t2RG and 30t2RGSC as those are the best known and therefore the most expensive, but with a half hour’s worth of research you should be able to identify another couple of equally fine movements with different designations, also in the 30mm family, which are well known to any serious Omega enthusiast, but less well known to more casual shoppers.

I will not mention any specifics here as I think people ought to work a bit for a good thing, and why should you or I make things easy for the intellectually lazy?

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 Judging Quality and Making Bad Choices

Worth the Wait

I have an Orient mechanical with open dial that has served me well for the last several years. I know of your detestation for open dials, but I will say this: being my first mechanical watch, there was something about watching the balance wheel turn inside the movement that piqued my horological curiosity. Now here I am, researching all things horological like mad, eager to begin my collection, and asking your advice on the purchase of a more mature timepiece.

As I consider my purchase, many of the usual suspects are there: Speedmaster Professional, Grand Seiko Snowflake, Grand Seiko GMT SBGM221, El Primero 38mm, Rolex Explorer I (if I could ever find one), JLC Reverso and JLC Ultra Thin Moon (with a black dial).

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: On Tudor, Grand Seiko & Omega

But then it happened. I read up on and tried on the A. Lange & Söhne Saxonia Thin 37mm in pink gold. I was smitten. Everything was perfect. My face got hot. I started smiling uncontrollably. My heart skipped a beat.

So I put it to you: what do I do now? I could acquire something like the SBGM221 in about four to six months (and be perfectly happy with it) but it would take four times as long to save enough for the Saxonia. Ought I buy one of these other watches to scratch the itch, then make the Saxonia a more long-term goal? Or should I master myself, learn some patience, and save up for the watch that stole my heart and make it my first major purchase?

You know, there is something that I find absolutely repellent about a so-called “open heart” watch and in general I am happy to both mock them, and their owners, but you make an excellent point, which is that watching that little balance go back and forth can be a very effective gateway drug to spending previously unsuspected, and ungodly, sums of money on more wristwatches than one ever thought one would own. I don’t think I will ever find them appealing aesthetically, but the truth is, especially if you are just starting out (horologically speaking) they might have a real purpose to serve.

So, let us discuss the Saxonia. The fact of the matter is that Seiko (a cream-dialed automatic with GMT complication, and a quite lovely blued steel GMT hand, for those of you among my readers who do not memorize reference numbers) is a simply gorgeous watch. It is one of the nicest things, in my view, that modern Grand Seiko has ever done and in terms of case fineness and the quality of the dial, hands and markers.Iit is the equal and more of anything that comes out of either Germany or Switzerland at this point (or anywhere else).

The Saxonia Thin, however, is in another league — it sits right at the top of what you can expect in a precious metal, classic dress watch from any brand and while there certainly are other watches to which it could be compared, at its price point, at the moment, there is nothing else like it. You might be the first watch enthusiast in history to go from a so-called open heart Orient to a wristwatch from A. Lange & Söhne, which is an interesting distinction to have — but you will have a watch that is truly unforgettable. Yes, it will require patience but a little piece of perfection is not a bad thing to wait for.

Ask, Answer, Repeat

Let me start by saying I absolutely love your column. I am 25 years old and since taking an interest in the world of watches less than a year ago, I have found your advice and opinions to be highly informative and generally representing my own values, applied to a subject I am only coming to be familiar with. I started my collection with a Bulova REF #98D130, and soon after bought a Tissot Le Locle T0064071103300.

As I grew more educated in the world of horology, my enthusiasm for either of these greatly diminished but I do still enjoy them for daily wear. I recently purchased and returned a Tag Heuer Carrera Calibre Five Day Date, because although I liked it I quickly found it did not scratch my itch for what I would consider a “nice watch.” I am now holding off on all purchases until I can get the watch I truly want, the Vacheron Patrimony 4100U/000G-B181. But, I digress — In all my passions from music to martial arts, I have always found myself attracted to performers and creators who demonstrate a balance of creativity and technical proficiency. To get to the point, I believe these are two of the main attributes you tend to value in your assessments of various timepieces.

On to my question: I understand that whether or not a watch manufacturer produces its own movements in house is generally considered a major factor in the quality of a given piece. Beyond that, I am fairly confused by what it actually means in a practical sense. Are there objective criteria to evaluate the quality of one movement over another? When comparing, let’s say, a specific movement by Jaeger to a specific movement by Perregaux, if the functions are the same, how can one assess which is superior? Is there a degree of mechanical knowledge that is required? If all functional qualifiers like power reserve and VPH are the same, are they equal? And to touch on VPH specifically, the general understanding of it I and those I speak about these things with have is that higher VPH means a more accurate watch. If this is the case, why do certain high end manufactures create movements that operate under 28800, which seems to be the industry standard for automatics?

My apologies for the barrage of questions, but as I am finally taking the time to write you I figured I would just get them all out at once.

Well, well, this is a most excellent question — one of the best I have had so far in this extremely trying year. It is not so much that you are asking a barrage of questions — rather, you are asking one very fundamental question, which is how to evaluate movements. I will give you three necessarily brief answers, because it is a subject as old as watchmaking itself.

First, “in-house” is a term I wish we could dispose of completely. Making a movement, as much as possible under a brand’s own roof, became a mark of distinction in the 1990s and certainly, it is associated with many great brands. Rolex, Patek and Audemars Piguet, for example, as well as Seiko and Grand Seiko, all make their movements “in-house.” However, this was not, ever, the general practice in the watch industry and while it is meaningful on a case by case basis, what you do with a movement in terms of finish, adjustment, and refining to higher standards, is at least as important, if not more so, than the bare fact of whether it is in-house or not.

RELATED: Watch Snob Hates a Watch Three Times

Second, aesthetics. The classic Genevan vocabulary of watch decoration is an enormous field of study, and to evaluate the finish of a high grade watch, requires years of experience and education. It includes black polishing and straight graining of steel parts, beveling (anglage) of plates and bridges, polishing flanks, beveling and polishing spokes of wheels and teeth, polished countersinks for screws and jewels and on and on. There are also different ways of executing all these techniques, from the almost fully automated, to the traditional and fully manual, and as automation has improved it has become extremely difficult, if not in some cases impossible, to tell the difference; caveat emptor.

Third, functional excellence. What constitutes functional excellence in a watch varies with the type of watch; expectations are different for a thin, time only watch, versus an automatic chronometer, versus a perpetual calendar, versus a repeater, and so on. Every category has its own language of functional excellence — chronometers for instance, traditionally had (as a very general rule of thumb) overcoil balance springs, large, hand-poised balances, very finely made levers and escape wheels, and so on.

You are very, very lucky in that you obviously have an active and enquiring mind, and all three of these questions provide a most absorbing lifetime of interest. Unlike those who collect for the gratification of ego, or to show off wealth, you are going to have a (hopefully very long) rich horological life and moreover, one which depends neither on wealth nor ownership to be enjoyable.

“It Is Tonneau, Not Tourneau”

Question for you and I am sure I already know the answer but I would like to [ask] your opinion. I have always loved the Frank Mueller Tourneau shaped watches. I have noticed recently the prices for them have come down a lot. Ranging from $6,000 to $15,000 depending on style. The one that I looked at was 46mm. That was too large for my taste even though I am 6’4 but it looks really large. The second one is I love Roger Dubuis. I have been looking for the Sympathie sport 42mm with white face blue hands. Not many people know about this brand but I like the look and size. I was looking at the Hublot Tourneau style watches too but does not seem to have the same look as FM. Looking to spend $10,000 for the timepiece. What would be your suggestions? Oh boy.

Oh boy indeed. It is tonneau, not Tourneau — the latter is a retailer, the former is a case shape (which means “barrel” for what it is worth). I am afraid that I am not going to be much help for you here because all three of the brands you mention, I find uninteresting — deeply uninteresting as they sell largely on the strength of their ability to project the affluence of the owner, rather than any intrinsic horological interest.

I feel this especially acutely for Roger Dubuis and Frank Mueller — both brands started by what started out as very talented watchmakers. Mr. Roger Dubuis lost control of the company that has his name, and Frank Mueller, as so often happens, became so enamoured of the good life as to lose all interest in credible horology.

However, on the understanding that I am going to give you advice on companies in which I have no interest at all, I would suggest looking at the Frank Mueller tonneau timepieces; you will at discount, realize better value for your money than with either Hublot or Roger Dubuis, and at least you will have the benefit of owning an iconic case design which the brand really did put on the map. You will also have a watch that is a mournful reminder that pride goeth before a fall, but don’t let that stop you.

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 Jaeger-LeCoultre, Moser and Omega

Elegant Simplicity

I bought my first significant watch this year - a steel lady Reverso. I've since started saving for another watch. Despite my best efforts to learn about other watch brands and styles, I wind up returning again and again to JLC-type watches (classic, uncluttered dial, nothing muscular). Give me a Rolex lineup and I'll pick up a Cellini vs a Sub, give me Omega and I'll pick up a DeVille vs a Speedy, I like an IWC Portugieser but I love a Portofino ... You get the idea.

I have not yet been able to fall in love with dive watches, aviator watches and the likes. I don't doubt that they are great, and they look great, I just won't look at them twice.

There's nothing wrong in knowing my own taste, but I wonder if it is too narrow. I don't want to miss out on whole categories and brands of watches. Please tell me how I can learn to appreciate them more?

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: The Snob Picks 5 'Significant' Watches

To be utterly frank, it doesn’t seem to me that you have a problem in appreciation; you give me the impression very much of knowing what you like and what you don’t like. You can appreciate something without feeling you have to spend money on it, or want it in your living room. I appreciate many things without feeling the inclination to own them, including McLaren sports cars, Islay single malt whisky, the films of Jerry Lewis, the technical feat represented by pre-packaged frozen foods, and on and on. You can understand and appreciate something intellectually but that is not the same as loving something enough to want to own it – well, let us not say “own” as that merely implies possession (young folks especially often confuse a desire to possess, with love; they are not the same thing) but rather, make a part of your life.

Do you know what I think would happen if you forced yourself to buy and wear a Speedmaster, out of recognition of its importance in horological history and design? You would find it at first novel, then you would pass through a period of finding yourself feeling nothing much of anything at all, and then you would find it, I bet, simply galling and you would get rid of it. If by chance you are going to break out of what you think is a rut, I suspect it will happen in its own due time; in the meantime, I strongly suggest you not try to make it happen arbitrarily.

The Moser Misgiving

I want to purchase a sports watch and I like the Omega Seamaster 300 with the blue wave dial and display case back. However, I truly love the H Moser & Cie. Pioneer Center Seconds with the blue fume dial. While the one is significantly more expensive than the other, I could with discipline save up the $12000 grand for the H Moser.

Are these two watches in anywhere near the same league and would I be settling by purchasing the Omega (by same league I mean horological significance and respectability?)

The other problem I have is the fact I am an unrefined redneck who regularly wears nothing more than blue jeans, t-shirts, and ball caps. Would I be doing either of these watches a disservice by wearing them in the aforementioned attire?

Please forgive my ignorance in these matters and I will very respectfully submit myself to your wise admonition.

H. Moser & Cie is an odd little company, and not always in a good way. They have devoted what I consider to be an ill-advised amount of time, energy and effort in attention-getting devices, which I mean in a literal sense – they did a watch a few years ago with a case that was quite literally made of cheese; they did a so-called Swiss Icons watch that was a mashup of design cues from Rolex, Panerai, Audemars Piguet and Patek (and maybe some others – honestly I forget, and I’m not inclined to work that hard to remember any of the details) and there are other examples. A bit of attention getting is usually a good thing and I understand the inclination to try humor on for size, but satire is the easiest thing in the world to get wrong and I think Moser has passed the point where it is fun and getting to the point where it is a distraction.

If you combine that with the fact that they have copied, of all things, the design of the Apple Watch for some of their pieces, you get a brand which seems to have lots of energy but to not quite know what it is and what it wants to be, and there is nothing about the particular Moser you mention that does much to change one’s mind.

If you are a redneck that is your own affair; but if you have an aversion to wearing anything even semi-semi formal, and your occasions do not require you to don a tie and jacket, I think the Seamaster makes a good deal more sense. There are things I like about Moser – they have some good technical assets – but at some point they need to figure out how to get attention for their watches rather than for clever one-liners.

On Boring Watches

I’m planning to buy two watches, a dress watch and another, sporty. Can you please provide your kind and expert advice for choosing the right mix?

Dress watch: Carl F. Bucherer Manero Flyback Chronograph in gold, offered at $10,000, versus Manero Perpetual limited edition in gold, offered at $15,000.

Sports watch: Omega Planet Ocean 215.30.44.21.01.001, at $3900, versus Omega Aqua Terra GMT Chronograph 231.10.43.52.06.001 at $4600, versus Omega Seamaster Professional Chronograph 212.30.44.50.03.001, at $3700, versus TAG Heuer Grand Carrera CAR 2A1Z.FT6044, at $3850.

First of all, for a dress watch, at a cost of between ten and fifteen thousand dollars, there are an awful lot of fish in the sea and why you should have concluded that that much money is well spent on one of two gold watches from Carl F. Bucherer, of all companies, and moreover two complicated pieces to boot, is something that mystifies me. The company doesn’t make bad watches; they are however rather expensive for what they are and they are also not especially interesting from a design perspective. They seem to me to suffer a bit from some of the same lethargy that affects Parmigiani Fleurier, and for the same reason – both companies got into the business with a good deal of financial might behind them (CFB from the retail business, and Parmigiani from the Sandoz family’s fortune) and both produce technically good, often well finished, but also, a bit too often, not especially exciting or interesting watches. Now more than ever, one wants a philosophy with any luxury products; to be mundanely excellent is not enough. I would look at other alternatives (and as I said, at that price, they are legion).

As far as your sports watch choices, the Heuer is easy to dismiss; it looks like a copy of a Zenith at this point, and the Zenith watches that it looks like it is copying, look like cheap copies of unsuccessful Roger Dubuis designs; if that sounds like it is not a compliment, it is because it is not. If I had to, with a firearm pressed to my greying temple, pick one of the Omegas you are looking at, it would be the Seamaster Professional Chronograph. It is a bit of a garish piece but at least it has some character, which is more than you can say for the Bucherer pieces.

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 Why 1969 Changed Watchmaking Forever

One of the things that it has been impossible to miss, if you are the least bit interested in watches, or even if you are not, is that 2019 was a significant year inasmuch as it marks the 50th anniversary of a major milestone: it was in 1969 that man first set foot on the Moon. As a child I recall still the wonder I felt at being allowed to sit up very late indeed, and watch with real awe, as grainy live TV footage showed Neil Armstrong jumping onto the lunar surface from his tiny spacecraft, which looked like nothing so much as a spider partly crippled by the amputation of half its legs. 

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Independent Watchmaking and a Big Birthday

For a watch enthusiast – and especially a Watch Snob – it is a significant year for that, and for other reasons as well.

Omega Speedmaster Professional vs. Rolex GMT Master

The Speedmaster’s story is familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in wristwatches and their history but it remains a remarkable one. Selected by NASA in 1965 for service in its manned space-flight missions, the Speedmaster served not only during Apollo, but also later in Skylab and Space Shuttle missions as well. What is perhaps less well known is that the Speedmaster is still in service today, and it is more or less exactly the same timepiece that was recertified by NASA for use on the Space Shuttle in 1978.

The Speedmaster is currently being used on the International Space Station as well; it is worn on the outside of the spacesuits provided by Russia. This is by any standard, a remarkable story — many Rolex fans seem to have a bit of a raw nerve about the Speedmaster, as Rolex GMT Masters were worn by many Apollo astronauts as well. In my view this is a bit silly. Both are remarkable timepieces and the fact that the Speedmaster has a fascinating and very real history in manned spaceflight, takes nothing away from the GMT Master and vice versa. You would think that it could be understood that we needn’t hate one thing to love another.

The Automatic Chronograph Is Born

Despite the fact that they are absolutely ubiquitous today, and that they can be found at just about every price imaginable and from (apparently) every brand as well, the self-winding chronograph is a relatively recent innovation. The reason for this is straightforward: the automatic winding system in a watch, and the chronograph works, essentially occupy identical spaces and solving the problem of how to put both in a single watch was such a knotty problem, that it took until 1969 to sort it out.

Watch enthusiasts love to debate which of the three automatic chronographs that came out that year, came out first. There is the Zenith El Primero (whose name itself makes a claim to first place); there is the Seiko Caliber 6139, and finally, there is the Caliber 11, which was produced by a consortium led by Heuer, Buren and Hamilton. Of the three, only the El Primero is still being produced.

Quartz Watches Are Born

Finally, 1969 was the year that the very first quartz wristwatch appeared. It was from Seiko: the futuristically-named Astron, although there was nothing especially futuristic about its appearance. The original Astron Quartz watch had a gold case, and conventional analogue dial and hands – it looked at first glance, simply like an expensive mechanical watch and it was in fact, extremely expensive. When it was launched on Christmas Day, in Japan, it cost as much as a new car and it was made in very small numbers.

It must have seemed to the rest of the watchmaking world, as if it needn’t concern itself with this expensive and impractical oddity — after all, the electronic, tuning fork Accutron watch had already been in production for many years and while very popular, it had hardly unseated mechanical watches from the throne they had occupied for nearly five centuries. But in less than ten years, the Swiss watch industry would be in tatters, and industry leaders there were seriously debating whether mechanical watchmaking in Switzerland should simply be shut down completely; the world would never be the same.

Fifty years have passed in the blink of an eye, and yet the repercussions of these three anniversaries are still with us. One, the Speedmaster, is remarkable for the longevity and persistence of an anachronism. The next, the automatic chronograph, is remarkable for mechanical innovation (and for emphasizing how difficult a seemingly simple problem in watchmaking can be). And the third of course, simply change every aspect of watches and watchmaking, permanently — as well as laying the foundation for the transformation of mechanical watches, to the luxuries they are today.

You Might Also Dig: