The Fourth Wheel, Issue 39

In review, we decided... not to review the watch

Welcome back to The Fourth Wheel everyone! I’m excited because this week I got my first proper look at a whole load of Watches & Wonders releases - which is to say, I have my first indicator as to whether my 2023 predictions are going to age like fine wine or turn to vinegar. I can’t tell you anything about any of them, obviously, but let’s just say I won’t be packing in the day job to become a seafront psychic just yet. In the meantime, I bring you… a question. You’ll have to read to the end to find out what it is though.

---

---

Next week: Ask Me Anything returns

Every ten issues on The Fourth Wheel I invite you to submit your questions. Maybe I’ve said something recently that you want to follow up on. Maybe you just want to know what I think about something in the watch world, or maybe you want to hear about the time Elizabeth Doerr and I got a pair of McLarens stuck in the snow on a Richard Mille press trip. It’s all good. You can ask questions over email, DM me on Instagram or best of all, add them to this thread.

---

I’ve been thinking about the business of reviewing watches lately. Last week’s discussion of the Audemars Piguet Code 11.59 RD#4 Universelle brought the idea to the fore, but this is something with which I’ve grappled ever since becoming a watch writer just over twelve years ago.

It might not seem too complicated. Hundreds of watches are released every year and, so we would hope, the people they’re aimed at are in need of some expert guidance on whether they are any good, provided by people who are not only the first in the world to see and handle them, but who have a discerning critical eye and the ability to look past the marketing and assess a watch on its own merits and in wider context.

But what are we reviewing? What does a meaningful review of a watch look like? We like to talk about (some) watches as tools, but the reality is they are closer to clothes than cars. Real consumer journalism consists of reviewing goods that have a practical purpose - a television or an electric shaver or a tent might be great or terrible and it’s useful for people to know.

“Watches do have a practical purpose”, you may say. “They tell the time, and sometimes do a great deal more than that.” Absolutely. But the one thing watch reviews rarely do is pass judgement on how well a watch keeps time. If daily rate chronometry is a particular selling point - like for the new Omega Speedmaster Super Racing - then I’d expect a review might go to the effort of putting it on a timing machine and reporting on the results. That depends on the journalist actually having the watch for long enough, and having access to specialist gadgets. But writers mostly don’t bother, for they know the truth, which is that actual timekeeping ability is pretty low down the list of criteria for most purchases. At best, it contributes to an overall sense of quality, a largely intangible impression in the customer’s mind that he or she has bought ‘a good watch’, whatever that means. It’s also impossible to review a watch’s long-term reliability when you only have a short time with it - days or even hours - and when you are incentivised to publish a review as soon as possible to make sure you get the traffic.

Might a review ‘test’ the other practical functions of a watch? Potentially: a chronograph can be used, and you might report on how it feels to operate, which is a function of its basic architecture (specifically the choice of clutch design) more than the specific quality of its construction, although that does play a part. I guess a world timer or GMT can be practically used, and calendar complications can be fiddled around with (although the risk of accidentally breaking a perpetual calendar is high¹). But we're really only able to say whether these functions work or not - if they don't, that's a fairly big deal, but equally unlikely - and how easy they are to use. There really isn't a more qualitative assessment that most journalists are able to make. On the rare occasion you might be asked to 'review' a chiming watch there are actually more criteria you could look at, but in more than a decade I can't remember ever being offered the chance to spend serious time with any minute repeaters.

You can’t put manufacturer’s other claims to the test. Water resistance? Shock resistance? Magnetism? Take it as read, or risk damaging a watch that you’ve sworn to look after². When it comes to watches' potential as functional tools, we can talk about material choices in the abstract - ceramic will be hard to scratch; steel is heavier; bronze will look a bit ratty in a couple of years' time - but not from first-hand experience of actually reviewing this watch.

So what can a journalist pass judgement on? Still quite a lot, I’d submit, but we are arriving at one of the other big problems: subjectivity. We can talk about size, weight, construction and proportions, which are objective - but they matter most in the context of who would wear the watch, which is subjective. My learned colleague Robin Swithinbank finds a 40mm watch quite dinky; on me it’s perfect. We can talk about whether the attributes a watch has - those untestable specs - compare favourably with the perceived competition, and we can talk about how a new watch compares with what has come before it. This kind of framing is valuable, I think, certainly when customers might not be aware of what else is available in a certain segment or when a long-term comparison reveals interesting context (e.g. X other brand was making such a watch years ago and Y brand has only just caught up / ripped off the idea).

We can talk about finishing, which for such a significant element of watchmaking is actually quite hard to become expert in. You can learn almost everything there is to know about - say - vintage Rolex from your desk³. But to be able to appraise watch finishing it is essential to have spent plenty of time looking at the very best watches in the world. Images do not do it justice - you need to hold a Greubel Forsey, a Romain Gauthier, a Philippe Dufour or a Voutilainen watch and really pore over it with a loupe, preferably with someone who really knows their onions to be your guide. It takes time, and I don’t claim to be anything like a total expert on this particular area.

We can talk about design. The look of a watch guides our purchases probably more than any other element (price and brand being the other two that really matter) so it makes sense that we’d dwell on it. And there are so many design decisions to pick over - case and bracelet shape and finishing, material choices, the bezel (or lack of), the handset, the typography, the numerals or markers, the subdials, the dial colour and texture, the crown, the clasp, the date window… the list goes on and on and on. But it is subjective. Most people agree that a Rolex Submariner or an IWC Mk XX are examples of ‘good design’ (and almost platonic ideals of their respective types of watch) and similarly it’s common ground that a Hublot Square Bang has a face only its mother could love, but there’s no accounting for taste. Journalists like to hold themselves out as arbiters of good design, and I’m not saying that’s entirely bogus by any means, but it’s a shady area. You have to try and divorce personal preference from a sense of whether something succeeds in its intent. Ultimately, I find this is the guiding principle behind any attempt I make to review a watch: what did the brand set out to do; how well did it execute that plan; was it a good idea in the first place, and has it been able to do so at a price that seems fair?

Ah yes, the price. Another minefield. The price has to be right for a watch to succeed - but the watch market is a crazy place. You have to consider who a watch is aimed at, and the power or appeal of the brand that made it. Not just at the top end of the market, either. Should we judge a Furlan Marri against a Tissot, in the context of someone possibly buying their first ‘proper’ watch, or should we judge it in the context of an almost small-change purchase for millionaire Patek collectors who fancy something that looks a bit like a 1463 ‘Tasti Tondi’ but doesn’t matter if you scratch it?As the reviewer, I have to try and put myself in the shoes of the potential customer, and that can be tricky when watches cross my desk that are worth more than I earn in a year. Talking about price and value is also the one area that’s guaranteed to bring out a certain demographic in the comments: people who say ‘That’s mad, I can buy an Orient/Sinn/Christopher Ward for a fraction of the price of this Bremont/IWC/Rolex’. Gentlemen (it’s always men), you have missed the point.

There is another angle to all this: the realities of the industry and the media. All of the above goes some way to explaining why we don’t see many negative reviews, but the single biggest reason remains the power dynamic between brand and journalist, or publication. Most of the time - this was certainly my approach at QP - journalists review by omission: if you can’t find many reviews from reputable publications of a new watch, that’s as good an indicator as any that privately, the journalists involved thought it was a bit of a stinker. You also have to think about the constraints on a writer: either physical space in a print magazine or simply the number of hours in the week. I could spend a couple of hours really sticking the knife into a new watch from Brand Name Redacted telling you that the design is uninspired and flat, the typography mismatched and ugly, the finishing basic and the price highly inflated, or I could write about something exciting and good. The exception to this approach is when a watch is really too important to ignore, or when a watch falls below the standard expected of the brand. But those examples are few and far between.

By now I’ve probably done a reasonable job of persuading you that reviewing watches is a waste of time. Awkwardly, this all came about because I was - how about this for a handbrake turn? - thinking about introducing a monthly review here on The Fourth Wheel. So I’ll put it to you, the readers. Who wants me to write about a new watch for you, once a month? I’ll make some promises: I’ll give you my honest opinions. I won’t pretend I’m testing a watch like a practical tool. And I will only choose watches that I find interesting.

---

This is not a review, but a few early thoughts on the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms Tech Gombessa, which I saw on Monday and came off embargo yesterday (Feb 16th). Blancpain says it wants to put dive watches back at the heart of the brand, so this looks like a good start. Rolex, Omega and TAG Heuer have all launched titanium-cased top-of-the-range dive watches in recent times⁴: they’re good for PR and marketing, establishing your credentials and driving awareness of the more commercial/affordable/wearable models in the range.

The Blancpain FFTG does all this perfectly well, but the elephant in the room is that there hasn't been a new Fifty Fathoms base model since 2007, which is an eternity. The upshot of that is that it's expensive, oversized and hasn't had a movement upgrade to match the competition. It's like Lamborghini just announced its latest insane limited edition, but on the garage forecourt, dealers are trying to sell the first generation Gallardo⁵. I have a strong hunch that Blancpain will put out a new mainstream Fifty Fathoms later this year, but it should come soon, while the buzz and interest from this hero piece is still resonating. For the time being, the awkward truth is that you can buy a better-specced dive watch from sister brand Omega for less than half the price⁶. One more thing: the retro-futuristic font for the word 'Tech' does not look good, especially so close to the cursive 'Fifty Fathoms' logo. Feels like something I'd see at a small-town laser-quest.

---

Quick Links

1. Editorial: An Appraisal Of The Audemars Piguet Code 11.59 Universelle, at Watches by SJX
   
   I found this interesting especially off the back of saying my piece last week. SJX makes some very fair points (some which align with my own) and adds another perspective on the Universelle’s calibre.

2. From The Archives: Our First Look At The Swatch, at EuropaStar
   
   No-one else can call on their publishing archive to such effect as EuropaStar, which has brought together a selection of Swatch cuttings here. None of them is revelatory, so much, but the chance to read a reaction to its debut, and subsequent stories from the 1980s and 90s, is worth your time.

3. What Makes A Watch Sexy, At Hodinkee
   
   I almost didn’t read this. I’m glad I did. Haters gonna hate, as they say, but this is how you keep watch journalism fresh and lure new readers in. Sarah Miller is becoming my favourite writer on Hodinkee - I come at it from an abnormal perspective, because I’m one of the few people not demanding that the big H commit itself to the true path of watch nerdery and foresake all other temptations, but even hardcore watch geeks should read this. It’s a bit of fun, and don’t we all need that?

4. A Man Hanging From a Clock. Yes, It’s That Silent Film, At The New York Times
   
   Hats off to the NYT for spotting that 2023 marks a hundred years of one of the most famous timepieces ever to appear on film: the city clock from which Harold Lloyd dangles in ‘Safety Last’.
   
   What makes the clock stunt even more impressive, Ms. Lloyd said, is that her grandfather was hanging on with only eight fingers. In 1919 he had lost part of his right index finger, his entire right thumb and part of his palm when he attempted to light a cigarette from the fuse of what he thought was a prop bomb for a publicity photo. But the bomb exploded, temporarily blinding him and putting him in the hospital for about two weeks. For years he wore a prosthetic glove to mask the injury in movies, but not in his personal life.

   “I remember as a girl that he always wore a Rolex watch, but because he only had three fingers on his right hand, he would have to get someone to buckle the watch on his left hand,” Ms. Lloyd recalled. “Years later, he had a custom-made Rolex that was made of white gold and had a white face with silver numerals. And it didn’t have a clasp. It had a flexible watch band so that he didn’t have to ask anyone to help him.”
   

---

And Finally…

rebecca_struthers

A post shared by Dr Rebecca Struthers (@rebecca_struthers)

Glad I’m not the only one who likes a really random eBay trawl. Rebecca Struthers has outdone me on the box-and-papers front though!

siemswatches

A post shared by SiemsWatches (@siemswatches)

This did the rounds recently, and although I’ve no idea where/how Siems Watches was able to pull accurate data for it, it’s a brilliant idea. I’d love to see more data-driven historical trends: percentage of date windows, case thickness, dial colour etc etc.

Lastly, does anyone know if there’s anywhere to buy cut-to-size rubber straps these days? I just don’t have a clue. Feels like something social media would be able to bring to my attention, but no, clearly there’s no market for it.⁷

---

1. I would score highly any watch that can’t be easily broken by a reviewer

2. As in, you’ve agreed to bear the costs for damage or loss

3. You’ll also learn how to wade through plenty of BS

4. You can also throw in Panerai’s BMG-Tech Submersible, in a similar vein

5. It’s actually less like this, because the Gallardo is starting to look pretty cool, although that’s only because depreciation has done its dirty work.

6. This relates back to the discussion on reviewing - the question is to what extent any likely customer sees it this way. Omega makes somewhere in the region of twenty five times as many watches as Blancpain in a year, so this is all about the nebulous art of ‘brand positioning’.

7. Waaaaaaait a minute…