The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[venessian]

Contrast it with this JLC RDM that I owned and eventually sold :
View attachment 1594156

Had the RDM gauge been circular in the same manner as the date indicator, the left and right sides would have been symmetrical (ignore the fact that they would likely have had to resize each of the RDM, Date and Seconds indicators to fit legibly on the dial). For a long time I couldn't figure out why the watch wasn't 100% satisfying to my eye, but when I realized it was the asymmetry I let it go. It bummed me out a bit because it was the perfect size at around 37.5mm.

I agree completely here as well.

Even if the PR window was a pie-slice, but with the same radius and position as the calendar window, that would have been a big improvement.

Also, the calendar numbering on this JLC dial demonstrates how awkward the "31"-"no space"-"1" crammed odd-date numbering system is, compared to for example Dornbluth etc., which use "30"-"V"-"2" even-date numbering, much more elegant to my eye.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

For Worst Date Placement Ever, let me present to you the Patek Philippe Aquanaut 5065:

 

[venessian]

Tbh I just wish I knew more of the history of this, i.e. why the crown at 3 became the norm (maybe to differentiate early wristwatches from repurposed pocket watches?).

12 is now so uncommon that it hardly looks bland to me, though maybe you're right that it's a cheap solution symmetry-wise.

As a rough rule it seems to me that crowns at 12 and 3 can be made to work with any kind of watch, whereas a crown at 4 only works on sports models. I suppose 4 is the most practical and most asymmetrical location, so it just says "tool watch" (think Seiko divers).

Good question, made me curious too.
I am no expert by any means, but I just found this explanation.
Which I guess makes sense, and then mainly that tradition dictated from then on?

Why Is A Winder At 3 O’clock​

The Technical Theory​

​

The Tradition Of Open-Face And Hunter Calibers​

​

Posted by Walt Odets on October 19, 1997 at 16:30:31:​

​

In Reply to: The crown is always at 3 o’clock, why?​

posted by Lars Lange on October 18, 1997 at 23:04:47:​

​

"The term “caliber” signifies the way in which the movement parts -train, bridges, etc.- are arranged. Traditionally, there are two types of calibers, open-face and hunter.​

​

In the former, in which the dial is protected only by a glass, the winding stem, center wheel and fourth wheel (which carries the small seconds hand) are set in a straight line. In the hunter caliber, with a metal cover over the crystal, the winding stem, center and fourth wheels are traditionally set at right angles. This places the crown at 3:00 o’clock and the small second dial at 6:00 o’clock. The hunter caliber is the predecessor of the traditional wristwatch. A caliber could be designed to put the stem wherever it was desired.​

​

Patek (350 automatics), JLC (Future Matic) and others have put the crown on the back of the watch. In the 350 automatics the winding weight ran around the perimeter of the movement, and a stem would have obstructed it. In the JLC Futurematics, the back location of the crown allowed a larger balance wheel and also emphasized the self-winding nature of the watch for marketing purposes.​

​

In the case of directly driven center second movements (as opposed to indirectly driven center seconds or “subsidiary” seconds at 6:00 o’clock), the center wheel is taken out of the center position anyway, so the crown position is completely arbitrary. Almost everything on a wristwatch is traditional and, in that sense, arbitrary. “Regulator” dials, single hand dials, and jumps hours are variations on the most basic tradition in watches, two centrally mounted hands."​

 

[officine]

For Worst Date Placement Ever, let me present to you the Patek Philippe Aquanaut 5065:

Yep...that's all wrong. I would have been okay with omission of the 3 numeral.

 

[TheFoo]

For Worst Date Placement Ever, let me present to you the Patek Philippe Aquanaut 5065:

Yes, pretty awful—but so is the Aquanaut in general.

 

[NakedYoga]

For Worst Date Placement Ever, let me present to you the Patek Philippe Aquanaut 5065:

The placement of the date window is just one of many awful things about that one.

 

[double00]

i get the critique that the margin of the left subdial is misspent, here's another look with that margin reclaimed by the main dial which gets you a bigger bite of numbers, the asymmetry doesn't much bug me (even so on a dress watch!) as i think it develops a hierarchy along with the hands treatment

 

[ronscuba]

Baby alligator that was murdered to make the strap?

How do you feel about other strap materials ? Cordovan horsehide, calfskin, cowhide, ostrich, stingray, shark, etc..

 

[radicaldog]

Interesting, thanks!

This seems the most important take-home point, perhaps unsurprisingly:

Almost everything on a wristwatch is traditional and, in that sense, arbitrary.

 

[grizzlybear]

the crown ? goes on the head ?

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

Symmetry is overrated:

 

[TheFoo]

Symmetry is overrated:

Err, I’d say this is strong proof of the contrary.

 

[grizzlybear]

 

[chocomallo]

For Worst Date Placement Ever, let me present to you the Patek Philippe Aquanaut 5065:

Haha. 5065 happens to be my favorite watch ever, even more so in yellow gold.

 

[Keith T]

It’s funny. The thing that bugs me most about the Jaeger RDM is actually the 12 & 9. I kinda like the layout otherwise, and a power reserve function is underrated.

Having said that, I much prefer the (newer?) version of that watch although I think it might be a millimeter or two larger.