The Fourth Wheel, Issue 118

What the GPHG tells us about ourselves, plus a few GWD snippets

Hello and welcome back to The Fourth Wheel, the weekly watch newsletter that is not reporting from Geneva Watch Days. This is a bit awkward, because I like to be the one bringing you news and gossip from the front line. However, the front line clashes with family commitments that I can’t and don’t want to leave behind all for the chance to eat my bodyweight in truffle shavings and steal some more hotel toiletries. So this week, I am focussing on the GPHG and what we learn from it, highlighting some of the key GWD stories via the best work of my fellow journalists in an extended version of my Recommended Reading, and keeping my powder dry for next week when I will reflect on who had a good GWD, and who’d have been better off staying at home like me.

---

---

The Fourth Wheel is a reader-supported publication with no advertising, sponsorship or commercial partnerships to influence its content. It is made possible by the generous support of its readers: if you think watch journalism could do with a voice that exists outside of the usual media dynamic, please consider taking out a paid subscription. You can start with a free trial!

Here’s a little taste of what you might have missed recently:

Fresh Detail On Chanel’s Investment In MB&F
James Thompson: Not Just ‘The Lume Guy’
Unsung Heroes: The Best Watches You’ve Forgotten Exist
Five Things Hodinkee Should Do Now
World Exclusive: Horological Dicktionary On The Record

---

TFW has entered the chat

Now, what’s next? Oh yes… we need to talk. Yes, you. What about? Well… everything really. You see, this week I am turning on Substack’s chat function. It’s great when people reply to the newsletter by email, or comment below individual posts, but I’d like there to be somewhere where it’s easier to discuss ideas and issues that have been raised in recent issues. Something less formal, less linear, and more communal.

For the most part, this will be for paid subscribers only, but from time to time I will open things up. There will be a conversation open to all this week and next, where I suspect we will find ourselves discussing the latest releases from Geneva Watch Days. Passion fruit! Thin Kings! The Alternative Horological Alliance! After that, it’ll be a space where full subscribers can pick up themes of the week’s newsletter, or just ask me anything you like (We’ll still have the AMA every ten issues, for me to answer questions in more depth).

---

Play silly games, win silly prizes

Time to talk about the GPHG awards again, for despite my oft-repeated belief that they are a flawed enterprise, they reveal something about the industry. The shortlist was announced this week - what the GPHG refers to as its nominated watches.

It’s relevant to remind you how we get to this point. To start with, any watch can be entered into the GPHG. Academy members such as myself can suggest any eligible watch (eligibility in this case simply refers to when it was launched) and as long as the brand agrees to file the paperwork and pay the entry fee, it’s on the longlist (described as the competing watches). Brands must submit their watches, and they get to choose the category in which they are entered - although the GPHG checks the watch is suitable for the category¹.

This longlist is then shared with the 667 Academy members, who are asked to vote for their six favourite watches in each category, in order of preference. This results in the shortlist of nominated watches we have here. Everyone’s vote is equal - the process behind the final choice for each award is more complex, involving a weighting between Academy member votes and the votes of the 30-person jury, which is revealed right about now, at the end of August.

I have a funny feeling this could win the Aiguille d’Or. Just a hunch - although Berneron is probably the sensible money

My point in bringing this up is that prima facie at least, there is no easy way to ‘rig’ the GPHG nomination process. Allegations of lobbying are persistent and I’d be amazed if well-connected figures in the industry aren’t casually reminding their Academy member friends that they’ve got a watch or two on the longlist - but the fact that votes are not just binary in/out, they’re preferentially ranked, and the fact there are 667 people to squeeze means that as long as you believe the GPHG’s rules are being followed, I think it’s actually quite hard to exert covert influence on the outcome. Once it hits the jury stage, that’s a different matter. Hypothetically, at least, a couple of influential voices there can really move the needle.

Brands can obviously promote their presence on the award longlist to their audiences, and that’s all above board. I mention all this because every year, there is a great deal of chatter about the criminal oversights that take place, or the over-representation of certain brands. This year is no different and while I don’t want to appear naive, I think Occam’s razor is useful; conspiracy and corruption may be afoot, but I suspect the truth is simpler and more mundane.

So what can we learn about today’s watch world from this shortlist?