#DMTBeautySpot #beauty

Watch Snob Picks His 5 Most Significant Watches

The Fab Five

In your esteemed opinion, what are the current five most horologically significant [or] important timepieces that are still available from the manufacturer, and what is the horological significance of each piece? The Omega Speedmaster "Moonwatch," the AP Royal Oak, the JLC Reverso, and the Grand Seiko come to mind based on what I've gleaned from many of your articles, yet as a newcomer to the world of fine watches, I am eager to hear your thoughts on what specific pieces have changed the watchmaking landscape in recent decades (and which an aspiring collector could still conceivably purchase new).

RELATED: Watch Snob Last Week: Questioning the Term 'Dress Watch'

It is always interesting and entertaining to think about such questions — the idea of choosing a top five is of course completely arbitrary, but it has the advantage of forcing one to be selective when one might otherwise not be; having to leave something out, means you have to think a bit more carefully about what you would leave out, what you would include, and why. There are certainly more than five possibilities, but I certainly can give you five strong candidates.

I think, certainly, the Omega Speedmaster Professional Moonwatch ought to be in there, and for obvious reasons. It is in many respects, still the same watch that was worn during the Apollo Program, Skylab and the Space Shuttle missions and moreover it is still being used today in manned space flight; there is nothing else quite like it.

I would also include the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, as well as the Patek Philippe Nautilus; both still available (well, for a certain definition of “available” you have to be awfully well connected at your retailer to get either these days) which are both available in essentially the same form as when they launched (the AP Jumbo still uses basically the same movement, too, although Patek has been using an in-house movement for the Nautilus since 1981. Not a bad thing mind you, it’s just not quite as perfect a duplicate of the 1976 original as the AP is, of the 1972 original).

I would argue that the Rolex Submariner ought to be a candidate as well — a dive watch which established the design vocabulary of the modern diver’s watch, and which while it has undergone regular upgrades and updates since it was launched, is still the same, albeit constantly evolving and improving, model.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Grand Seiko, both vintage and modern but in this instance I would hesitate to recommend any one model as representing an original that is still in production. Certain aspects of Grand Seiko’s design language have persisted over the years — the 44GS case design, for instance — but that is not the same as having the same model in production. Two candidate watches for the final position would indeed be the Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso, and also, the Zenith El Primero. I think the latter remains, despite all the ink that has been spilled on the watch and its story, a rather under appreciated watch — of the three “first” automatic chronographs released in 1969, the only one still in production today.

More Power to You

I am studying vintage watches and movements, and intrigued how they would solve problems at the time. I want to ask about long power reserves in vintage watches (hand wound of course!). Did the Big Three or another high end brand make vintage watches with a long power reserve (say 96 hours or more)? I am interested to know what solutions they used to increase the power reserve, if they did.

You know that is an intriguing question and one which I admit, I had never particularly thought about seriously. The whole notion that a very long power reserve would be something attractive to put into a wristwatch is, as far as I know and can recall, a fairly new one.

The problem with making a watch with a long power reserve, is that to do so what you basically have to do is increase the number of turns available at the mainspring, which means a bigger mainspring, which means a bigger barrel, which means a bigger wristwatch and for most of the history of watchmaking, especially post World War II and up to the beginning of this century, bigger was not better in a wristwatch. You distinguished yourself from your competitors by making relatively slim watches in a diameter under 40mm, not by making watches with a long power reserve that were on the large side.

Even in the pocket watch era, an extremely long power reserve was not in general, something taken as priority by makers. The Swiss maker Hebdomas had a patent for an eight day watch and you can still find them fairly easily. They are not expensive either, maybe because the odd open-dial, exposed balance design does not appeal to modern tastes. Longer power reserves could also be found in so-called carriage watches and clocks but these were really only semi-portable timepieces, not watches; and, of course, in both clocks and in marine chronometers, you would see longer running times as a matter of course, as compactness was not a primary goal in the design of either, in most cases.

The pursuit of a very long power reserve — eight days or more — for its own sake and for bragging rights, appears to be an affliction primarily of modern watchmaking.

Time for Domestic Bliss

I’ve been an avid reader of yours for years and your counsel has helped shape my current collection. Now once again I’m turning to the Snob to guide me in an upcoming purchase.

I’ve had my heart set on a Rolex GMT Master II with the Pepsi or Batman bezel for a long time and through a connection a new one might finally be attainable which is a miracle given the tight supply at the moment. Normally I would jump at the opportunity to obtain what’s been somewhat of a grail watch for me, but I’ve just come across the Chopard L.U.C. GMT One which has given me pause. The wife would kill me if I bought both, so I have to choose between the two. The history of the Rolex GMT is undeniable, but is the Chopard a worthy substitute?

“The wife would kill me,” what are you sir, a man or a mouse? Are you not master of your own destiny? Are you not king in your own castle? Fie upon the wench, sir!

I am just kidding, I think there is nothing more praiseworthy than a home run as a true, equitable domestic partnership. Anyhow, to the question.

So, the GMT Master II and the Chopard LUC GMT One — these are both worthwhile watches, but the Chopard is no more a substitute for the Rolex, than a Rolex is a substitute for the Chopard. In fact I would think that the Chopard would appeal exactly to someone who wants a GMT complication, but wants something which is diametrically opposed to the GMT Master (the Patek Calatrava Travel Time also comes to mind, as a two-time zone watch that is the opposite, aesthetically, of the GMT Master).

Given the really unbelievable wait most folks would have to endure to get the GMT Master, and as well, given the fact that it and the Chopard really have nothing to do with each other whatsoever, other than the coincidence of them both being able to show a second time zone. Is the Chopard a worthy watch? Most certainly. Is it a substitute? Absolutely not.

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

You Might Also Dig:

11 Best Watches Under $1,000 The 7 Best Pre-Owned Rolex Watches You Can Buy At Walmart 12 Best Watch Winders to Keep Your Automatic Watch on Time

DMTBeautySpot

via https://www.DMTBeautySpot.com

Watch Snob, Khareem Sudlow