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

[officine]

To be specific I don't like cut-off numbers at all, but do not mind, in most cases, fully omitted numbers. That Lange is super.

The Omega is beautiful too, I used to have a similar one, but the cut 5 and 7 "bother" me a bit. The leaf hands are so elegant though I could almost overlook the cut numbers.

I see.

Are you against date windows as well?

 

[venessian]

I love Marine watches and recall when this Dornbluth was first produced, as a presumed "one-off" for a repeat client of theirs, before they made it a regular model. I thought the concept was so fine, love/respect all Dornbluths and their story. I liked every aspect of the design process drawings/evolution; the hands, the dial layout; the beautiful slightly-serifed D&S Arabic numerals (I really do not like open 4s, and will not buy a watch with them); the resolution of the calendar numbers is so perfect, etc.

But when this "99.5" was actually shown in the flesh for the first time one detail bothered me so much it would definitely be a deal-killer (especially because I do not have any idea why they did it, to this day)...and it is not the cut-off numbers.

Correct guesses will receive a free StyFo thumbs-up, as that's the extent of my watch budget these days.

 

[Keith T]

Occlusion for me is a greater crime than omission. YMMV.

The one example that really used to get on my nerves (still does to this day) because I truly like the watch quite a bit otherwise: the IWC Portugieser Chronograph.

 

[double00]

@venessian

guessing it's the inconsistent number orientation, they 'righted' the 20 n 30 but left the others oriented towards the center of the small dials

 

[venessian]

I see.

Are you against date windows as well?

Not nearly as much. Some date windows are great, and to me are much more subjective as elements; it really depends on the watch.

I like my Damasko DA36 d/d window quite a lot, especially with the logo above it. It makes so much sense, forming that implied oval with the guards and crown, and the cross-hairs balance the dial fine. Plus, no cut-off or occluded numbers!

That said the Damasko DS30 "Windup Edition", with the round date only at the 6, is superb as well, even better than Damasko's own original DS30 version with rectangular date window at 3 interrupting the horizontal crosshair, imo.

Windup Damasko DS30

Damasko original DS30

Many others' windows are fine. I adore the IWC Mark VII and XV (every Mark after the XV is a complete disaster afaI'mc) dial/date window for example.


Otoh, I have a 1958 Omega Seamaster my father gave me, so it is very special, but in my loving dream/memories of him he buys instead a no-date (if it existed at the time, but I think it must have?) dial. The date window is very bothersome on that watch, given the very fine scale (all sticks, very thin) of the rest of the markers and hands.

The Omega looks like this; I love the dial but the really window bugs me and always will:

 

[venessian]

@venessian

guessing it's the inconsistent number orientation, they 'righted' the 20 n 30 but left the others oriented towards the center of the small dials

Nope. But you're getting warm.

 

[Keith T]

Excellent guess by double00.

I will take a secondary stab at it and surmise it's possibly the design / length of the tail on the seconds hand?

Nothing like a good nit-picking session LOL. Nearly every watch is "flawed" in some way after all.

 

[venessian]

Occlusion for me is a greater crime than omission. YMMV.

The one example that really used to get on my nerves (still does to this day) because I truly like the watch quite a bit otherwise: the IWC Portugieser Chronograph.

I'm completely with you there, at 6, 12, and a 100!
So beautiful but for those eyesores.

 

[venessian]

Excellent guess by double00.

I will take a secondary stab at it and surmise it's possibly the design / length of the tail on the seconds hand?

Nothing like a good nit-picking session LOL. Nearly every watch is "flawed" in some way after all.

Nope.
Both excellent guesses, but I think double00 and yourself are maybe micro-scoping a bit too much. Maybe zoom out just a little?

I'll be doing a quick PS mock-up while you think on it; I think it will be very obvious then. The hint word starts with a "b"....

 

[Keith T]

Yeah, and at the same time I'm sure there are plenty of proud owners that never give it a second thought. We all like what we like.

 

[an draoi]

Nope.
Both excellent guesses, but I think double00 and yourself are maybe micro-scoping a bit too much. Maybe zoom out just a little?

I'll be doing a quick PS mock-up while you think on it; I think it will be very obvious then. The hint word starts with a "b"....

Blue hands?

 

[venessian]

Yeah, and at the same time I'm sure there are plenty of proud owners that never give it a second thought. We all like what we like.

Of course. No harm, no foul, just a game.

 

[TheFoo]

I hate occluded numerals. I’ve railed against them for years — in this very thread!

But if a numeral must be cut-off, it should look purposeful and the remaining part showing ought to be enough to imply the whole numeral.

Not to single-out Lange, but a couple of their watches immediately come to mind. On the standard 1815, you only see the very bottom of the ‘6’, which really could be any number or figure:

Makes one wonder why they didn’t just slightly enlarge or lower the seconds sub-dial and eliminate the ‘6’ entirely.

Then on the 1815 Up and Down, the upper parts of the “5” and “7” are just barely nicked. Again, it brings into question why they sized and spaced the sub-dials as they did—with slight adjustment, both numerals could have been spared. What’s the point of a “one watch, one movement” philosophy if you don’t optimize dial layout at the time of movement design?

In contrast, I think IWC’s Portuguese 5001 is handled perfectly:

The movement had originally been designed for this model and it shows. The position and size of the sub-dials are ideal. No cut-off numerals!

But the most important consideration to me is overall balance. The below Patek 5270P has no cut-off numerals, but only numerals in the top third of the dial:

From a dial layout perspective, I’d rather take either of the above 1815 models! Occluded numerals are a lesser evil versus overall imbalance.

On date windows: I generally prefer not to have them on a simple time-only watch, but when one is present I prefer it to feature in a purposeful way. For example, I like how it’s done on the Patek 5296 and the JLC Geophysic:

It bothers me much more when makers try to hide or blend-in the date window, as if ashamed of it! If you’re going to have the function, make it easy to read and own it as a feature rather than treat it as a flaw or compromise.

The worst is when a numeral or marker is lost to the date window, yet there is no trim or frame to balance against the other side of the dial. Both the JLC and Patek deal with this problem nicely. And once again, balance proves to be the most important quality.

 

[venessian]

Blue hands?

Definitely not. Those are great, plus marine watch.

 

[an draoi]

Baby alligator that was murdered to make the strap?