Carl F. Bucherer Patravi EvoTec Day Date Review

Three years ago, Carl F. Bucherer presented a new selfwinding movement. What made it so unique was its peripheral rotor winding the mainspring. This construction resulted in an automatic movement appearing like a simple handwinding one at a quick glance. The peripheral rotor concept is not entirely new, though: already Patek Philippe and Citizen had produced predecessors. However, they all suffered from a common weakness, the poor winding efficiency. Actually, the same problem been predicted to the new Bucherer movement A1000 as well, as soon as the discussions about it became active in various online communities. Besides poor winding performance, critics expected problems to withstand strong shocks, especially lateral ones. Obliviously, Bucherer presented its first series produced model equipped with the A1000 about one year later: the EvoTec Day-Date.


I. First Impression:

Without doubt, the EvoTec Day-Date is a large watch. Not really gracefully it is leaving its box, and massively dominates the wrist. Yet it is an attractive watch, a bit art-déco in style, with a touch of classicism. The uniqueness of the cushion-shaped casework is attracting glances, as is the unusual dial layout, the rubber-clad bezel and of course the movement (for those able to see the watch’s back). It is not easy to put the EvoTec into a single category, but surprises with several interesting detail solutions.

Aside from that, the practice test revealed the EvoTec to be a real “womanizer”. Well, this might be exaggerated a bit, but it was surprising how often ladies commented most favourably on the watch. This alone fully justifies the bold character of the EvoTec.


II. The Skin: Case, Crystal and Crown

Back in the time before the flatscreen TV was omnipresent in our households, and television signals were projected onto cathode tubes (well, really, this is not soooo long ago!), watch cases of this shape were also dubbed “TV screen”: Neither round nor square, the EvoTec’s bellied case flanks are polished, while the upper sides of the lugs are satinized. Also eye-catching is its massive crown guard, mounted by means of two large screws. The most prominent feature of the huge case (44 by 44.5 mm), though, is the rubber bezel, protruding from the sides, and thus effectively protecting the steel case from hits.


The caseback, equipped with a round sapphire window, is held in place by eight screws. The resulting water tightness rating of 50 meters only is not appropriate for a modern sports watch, though.

Despite its size and complex shape, the domed sapphire crystal, coated on both sides with an anti-reflective metal oxide layer, offers a clear and undistorted view on the dial. This indicates an excellent grinding also of the crystal’s underside.

The rubber-coated screw-down crown permits a good grip, and the detents for setting the time and the date are very clearly defined.



III. The Interface: Dial and Hands

The dial design is rather complex and highly attractive: At first glance, it appears to be black, but closer inspection reveals a very dark smoke grey. Different zones, optically separated by appropriate lines, result in changing colour and shading impressions. Very conspicuous are the metallic frames around the small second and the date, quoting the watch’s basic cushion-shape.





The small second at 6 has a silver background, and is balanced by the date at 11 and the weekday display at 9, both with white background. The two digits of the big date are separated by a prominent bar and are on two different layers. This difference in height is not noticeable when viewed at from directly above, though.


A close inspection of the faceted and applied hour markers, made from polished and rhodium-plated steel and equipped with white Super Luminova, however reveals a considerable quality problem: all but two are flawed by particles settling on them. On two markers, this impurity is so serious that it is clearly visible to the naked eye, given the right illumination. It appears that these particles settled on the surfaces either during the rhodium-plating process itself, or during the subsequent drying. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that the surrounding surface of the dial plate is completely free from similar particles. Flaws like that should not have passed the dial manufacturer’s final quality control already, but at the latest Carl F. Bucherer’s delivery inspection should have noticed them.





In contrast to that, the skeleton hands, which are also rhodium-plated and feature minor Super Luminova elements, are free of similar flaws.



IV. The Engine: movement

The EvoTec’s real highlight, however, is the completely new developed cal. A1000 movement, with its most important feature, the peripheral winding rotor. Since the predecessor movements employing this construction principle, that were mentioned above already, suffered from various problems (lack of winding efficiency, susceptibility of shocks, etc.), it is not astonishing that Carl F. Bucherer’s announcement of this movement caused some sceptical remarks concerning its future suitability in daily use.


Those making these remarks, though, mostly forgot that the A1000’s predecessors had to meet different guidelines: back then, the design of a very thin movement was of highest priority, in order to manufacture ultra-flat watches that were so popular. Of course the resulting under-dimensioned movement parts thus suffered from a lack of stability.  For CFB, however, the situation was entirely different: the peripheral rotor’s main function should be to make the movement upgradable with a wide variety of additional complications. Normally, an automatic base movement can accommodate a complication module on its dial side only, since the rear side is occupied by the rotor and its winding bridge. The combination of several different complications requires either the development of a very complex, integrated module, or the stacking of several individual modules on top of each other. Neither of these options is service-friendly, and the latter also causes a complicated path of the power transfer from the base movement to the various modular mechanisms, or course connected with a substantial loss of energy in this transfer.

The peripheral winding rotor would avoid many of these problems, by permitting the placement of complication modules on both sides of the base movements, offering better accessibility and shorter paths of the energy transfer. When a rear module is absent, then the concept displays the whole base movement with its wheels and plates through a displayback, combining the optical beauty of a handwinding movement with the comfort of automatic winding.

Of course the developers from the small company THA, which was later bought out by Bucherer, were well aware that such a rotor configuration would make it necessary to meet several challenges, in order to avoid the problems of the early peripheral rotor constructions. Consequently, they widely opened their box of tricks: to keep the energy loss due to friction as small as possible, the rotor is running on ceramic rollers, which themselves are effectively protected from wear by a coating with diamond-like carbon (DLC). Additionally, the rollers are mounted on spring-equipped rockers, making the rotor operation safe even when confronted with substantial shocks. According to the CFB engineers, the A1000’s rotor shock protection is even better than that of a conventionally ball-beared design.


Another interesting uniqueness of the movement is the precision regulation mechanism, offering the possibility to separately regulate beat and rate, and to securely lock the setting. Especially the latter is very important for a steadily good performance after shocks and hits. The rest of the movement is conventional, including the Swiss lever escapement without use of new materials, such as silicium. Main reason for this is the supply with spare parts in the future, which is an important issue for a small and independent manufacturer.


My first closer examination of the movement of course focussed on the issue that was discussed most controversially: the winding efficiency. However, there is no simple and direct way to check this efficiency Manually winding the watch indicates the power reserve, but not how well the automatic winding system transforms the daily arm movement into energy stored by the mainspring. A power reserve display on the dial would help, but is present only on an EvoTec model released later. Consequently, I was forced to improvise a bit.


I simulated the passage of an average pencil pusher’s typical week: for five days, the EvoTec was worn from early in the morning till late at night for everyday’s activities, consisting of office work, writing at the computer, meetings, mixed with casual dog walks and walking medium distances in the town. Before going to bed, the watch was  taken off, since its size and weight makes it uncomfortable to wear during the night. For the same reason, and its limited water tightness of but 50 meters, the EvoTec was also not used for sportive activities. After five days, the watch was taken off and left running until it stopped. Thus the automatic winding had one work week to wind the mainspring as good as possible, during a very decent daily activity period of 16 to 17 hours average.

How good the automatic winding system performed, would be demonstrated by the time the watch runs before it stops. CFB’s specifications claim a power reserve of 55 hours. After placing it aside at the end of the fifth day, my EvoTec actually ran for 57 hours and 34 minutes, which is about two and a half hours longer than its technical specifications. This proves that even the very low physical activity of pure office work, combined with the non-use during the night, offers ample supply for the peripheral rotor system to bring the mainspring to full power reserve. This should clearly demonstrate any skepticism about the peripheral rotor’s efficiency to be unfounded.

A contribution to this good performance might also be the big date mechanism, which does not switch instantaneously at midnight, but changes relatively slowly, starting about forty minutes before 12. This reduces the acute strain on the power reserve substantially.

In spite of this good start of the A1000 movement, however, my assessment cannot be fully positive. Its major problem is that the movement’s original concept was not realized in a goal-oriented way.

The first point concerns the flexibility regarding different modules: in this field, barely anything has happened since the the base movement’s first presentation. This year (2011), CFB launched an EvoTec with additional display of the calendar week by a hand. Yet this mechanism hardly needs place on the movement’s backside, and consequently does not profit from the complex and unique rotor configuration.

Also the second argument, the optical presentation of the movement would not be compromised by the presence of a conventional rotor, cannot be followed. It were justified, if the movement had a classical-perfect layout and finish of bridges. This is not the case, though. The movement design is very modern, faintly quoting electronic boards.




Intriguing at first sight, it nevertheless does not invite for intensive examination. In the contrary, a closer inspection through the sapphire displayback reveals several finishing flaws: maltreated screwheads, rough edges of bridges and cocks, several thin scratches on the base plate - all this could have well been hidden under a rotating oscillation mass.


A technically and optically attractive combination would be that of the peripheral rotor with either a chronograph or an alarm. The former would offer to the spectator the full beauty of the chronograph mechanism’s complexity, together with column wheel and levers, the latter could profit from the positive attributes of a handwinding movement, where the sound of the chime coil would not be compromised by the oscillation mass above it. Yet there is still no trace of any of these mechanisms.

Consequently, we are left with one other positive aspect of the A1000 movement, its robustness against hits and shocks. This would recommend its use in a dedicated sports watch. However, even this was denied to it, by the decision to put it into a rather elegantly designed dress watch with but 50 meters water tightness rating. Due to its massive dimensions, it is not really elegant, preventing the A1000’s third important constructive advantage, its slim height, to excel.

Thus it remains somewhat tragic for the otherwise excellent movement, that it is not allowed to make use of its real qualities, while it is employed in a way that could be done by any mass-produced standard movement just as well, but a lot less expensive.


V. Performance: Accuracy

The running accuracy shows rather mixed results: Worn on the wrist, the EvoTec has a daily gain between 10 and 11 seconds. Taking into account the elaborate fine regulation mechanism, this is certainly not a satisfactory result. Since this value was rather consistent over several days, though, I assumed that it could be improved by a simple regulation. However, after submitting the watch to a longer examination, similar to that executed by the Swiss chronometer institute COSC, it cannot be denied that this specific movement has a serious problem.


The daily rate was measured in five different positions, each of them for two days, with the watch being fully wound every day. The result was an alarmingly large difference of 27 seconds between two positions (crown down: -12, face up: +15). But also the differences between the two daily rates in the same position were rather bad: 19 seconds in crown up, 9 seconds in face up, 4 seconds in face down, just to list three examples.

Now I have to decide how to judge this poor performance: as indication of a flawed movement design and/or manufacturing, or as the problem of an individual specimen. Actually, the watch had been delivered to me directly by the manufacturer, very well packed. Consequently, I can assume that it had been subjected to an at least rudimentary technical checkup prior to shipping to me. The performance problems should have been recognized at this point. On the other hand, I cannot completely exclude that “something” happens to a mechanical watch during transfer, in spite of excellent packing. In dubio pro reo.




VI. Attachment: Strap and clasp

The EvoTec comes with a black leather strap and a folding clasp. Both do earn a few specific comments: The strap’s leather appears to be stretched over a firm, shaped core in a way that forces the leather to reproduce every small detail of this base shape. The result is a very uniquely faceted leather strap unlike any watch strap I have encountered before. Produced by the Austrian supplier Hirsch, the strap retains its typical shape even after intensive wear, without the upper leather to come off from the base in any spot. At the same time, the strap is downright soft and comfortable on the skin. The red leather lining, too, is devoid of any signs of wear, even after use in hot and sweaty weather.

The strap is attached to the watch case with small screws. Unfortunately, these are capable of causing much annoyance during the procedure of changing straps: One needs two thin screw drivers, which have to be used at the same time to treat the screws; while the right hand tries to turn the screw, the left has to keep the other screw from turning accordingly, by firmly fixing it with the second screw driver. While being apt to prevent a loss of the watch, this solution nonetheless is a guarantee for scratches on the lugs even after the first change of straps, regardless of the care taken. There are better systems available.

Another uniqueness of the strap is that holes for the buckle’s tang are amiss. The reason lies in the complex folding clasp, that permits a stepless adaption of the strap length, by firmly squeezing the leather into the clasp. As a consequence, any aftermarket straps would need to offer the same thickness at this spot, in order to assure a secure fixation. Altogether I consider the EvoTec’s strap to be the highest quality that I have worn so far.


The folding clasp itself is very solid, but once removed from the strap, demonstrates an unnecessarily confusing configuration. Finally, one has to fold it in an apparently wrong way, until it snaps together correctly in a rather surprising way.



VII. Ergonomics

To hook up with the preceding chapter, I start the part on “ergonomics” with the strap. I urgently advise CFB to supply their dealers with a well assorted supply of straps in different lengths: Never before in my experience as watch wearer, the difference between comfort and torture depended so much on the exactly correct length of the strap. The strap originally attached to the watch as it was shipped was too short, placing the folding clasp offset from the small depression in the center of the wrist. As can be seen on the pictures above, the folding clasp has a distinct protrusion inward, fully capable to cause substantial pain during the day.


As soon I received a longer strap from Bucherer, though, I was able to place the clasp exactly in the anatomic depression, and from now on the watch was a pleasure to wear - at least as far as the strap was concerned. Therefore, it would be important to carefully fit the the strap to the customer’s wrist, or to replace the strap with one of a more appropriate length.

The strap’s high level of wearing comfort is not mirrored by the watch itself, however. Its heavy weight on the wrist guarantees that its wearer will never forget its existence. Even if produced from light metal alloys, the EvoTec’s presence would always be obvious: there is barely any door sill, furniture edge or wall corner that it would not collide with inevitably. One should not forget that the diagonal diameter of the case is 50 mm, and the case design with all its edges and protrusions is highly contact-friendly. The cuff it fits under has to be tailored yet. At this place I should mention that my wrist is normally a good base for watches with diameters of 44 or 46mm.


Similarly mixed feelings are sparked by the legibility of the dial: rhodium-coated and polished hands above a dark background are always a bit problematic. In the case of the EvoTec, though, one has to actively search them most of the time, and locates them only by means of their - limited - white luminous mass. Since that is employed only at the tips of the skeletonised hands results in a nighttime legibility that is mediocre at best. More serious, though, is the fact that the tips of the hands obstruct the view on the date and weekday windows, whenever they are above them. Had the Luminova sectors been swapped, meaning the main parts of the hands being luminous, and the tips skeletonized, the designers would have killed two birds with a stone: more Super Luminova results in better legibility at day and night, and the skeletonized tips would permit reading the calendar indications.



VIII: Conclusion:

“Two souls, alas, are housed within my breast”, as Goethe’s Faustus stated. On the one side, the new A1000 movement is a thrilling development, with very promising potential. Its peripheral rotor permits flat and elegant watches, but is also solid enough for sports watches that tolerate more than an occasional blow. Additionally, it is a flexible concept, planned as base for a variety of extensions and modular additions.

Regarding the tested movement’s poor accuracy performance, the presumption of innocence has to be applied: I strongly assume that some damage or mechanical defect compromised this particular movement. However, it would be seen as trust-building measure, if Carl F. Bucherer would start to have its A1000 tested and certified as chronometers by the COSC institute.

On the other side, CFB has done its new movement a disservice, with the choice of this case design: The EvoTec is neither as flat as would be permitted by the movement, but really thick. It is not elegant, but oversized and clumsy. Nor is the EvoTec as robust as its movement would be, but bulky and not satisfactory watertight.

Finally, the EvoTec is nowhere as complicated, as its movement would permit. If the expandability on the movement’s rear side really was a major reason for its development, as has been claimed by the manufacturer, a big date mechanism (and now also a power reserve indicator) is simply not enough. Of course I am aware that a small family-owned company has barely the facilities and resources necessary to present a complete variety of complications within such a short time after the presentation of the base movement. However, while letting the watch enthusiasts wait for the promised rear-side complication module, the latter could have been used as a canvas for a really first-rate decorative finish, or a good skeletonizing, showcasing the new technology. The opportunity to catch the buyer’s eyes for a longer time was not taken, unfortunately.


Consequently, I am left with a certain indetermination, regarding my feelings about the A1000, and the hope that Carl F. Bucherer will eventually allow its product to excel in all those disciplines it is so well in - as it really deserves it.

  This message has been edited by Marcus Hanke on 2011-09-01 03:04:26 This message has been edited by Marcus Hanke on 2011-09-01 03:36:57 This message has been edited by MTF on 2011-09-05 12:35:55