Harry Winston

219
3826

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Thank you Mr. Garinaud for responding and for inviting debate

You wish to engage in debate and the fact that you see that such debate is a benefit for all concerned is very encouraging.  I have written on this forum a terse and sarcastic remark which given your encouragement of debate, is sadly lacking on my part.  Hence, here I will try and provide a more detailed response.  I will state at the outset that I am afraid that I do not like your watch Opus 8, and will attempt to explain why.

First, let me set out my preferences and outlook, so that my arguments are couched in my viewpoint and are not seen as placed out of context.  I am not a fan of any watch using disks as a device to tell the time.  Watches such as the Urwerk 103 line and the De Grisogono digital offering this year are watches that I consider to be a step backward.  I see little merit in the ability to use a base movement, drill a hole (however small), and then hang a satellite and a series of disks.  It does little to improve the time keeping ability of the movement.

I am willing to accept that there are exceptions.  And the exception that disproves this rule was Opus 3.  That the complete set of ‘jump’ functions still has not been worked out shows how difficult the problem actually is and kudos to HWRT for not giving up on the project.  Such research is necessary.  I might still take issue with the escapement, but here I am quibbling about the secondary issues in this case.  I am also willing to see some merit in Opus 5 (and the Urwerk 202 series) but only because the robotics involved are sufficiently complicated to warrant some plaudits.  As a device for improving time keeping, once again, I see little merit.

Second, and given the lead statement, I believe what distinguishes a basic mechanical watch (that only tells the time and perhaps date) from a quartz lies in the escapement, the power reserve, and the drive chain.  Hence, watches produced by the likes of the members of TimeAeon are superlative watches – in all probability the leading watch makers on the planet.  GF’s double axis tourbillons, Invention piece number 1, Kari Voutilainen’s pieces, Dufour, Halter, all produce watches of my dreams.  Some have used disks to tell the time, but this has only been when there is something else of merit to be learned in production of the watch.  I might add that kudos is also due to HWRT for setting up a partnership with TimeAeon so that these masters of watchmaking can help in the nurturing of younger watchmaking talent in the industry.

This brings me to Opus 8.  Opus, as defined by a standard dictionary, is a masterpiece/a great work.  Why do I believe that Opus 8 is not a great work?  We can all be clever and start to write about post modernist interpretations of what has gone before, and cite perhaps ‘pop art’ and ‘the shock of the new’ as a way to justify why we have a mechanical watch, where disks rotate, be made to look like a 1970’s quartz with LED or LCD readout.  Yes, it could be fun, it could be tongue in cheek, or it could be nothing more than rotating disks (certainly less than those involved with Opus 3), matched onto a panel that displays the disk underneath.  Like the little boy pointing at the Emperor, I will call this for what I believe it is, nicely finished but ultimately nothing of more than that.  Stripped naked, for me, the watch does not resemble an Opus.  Try as HWRT might, disguising a mechanical watch to look like a 1970’s quartz does not in and of itself determine a watch as something that would make a watch collector sit up and take notice.  Is there something else that would make me think, ‘yes, but, the watch contains something truly unique where the LCD readout is a natural bi-product, and hence, considered as a whole, the watch is a benchmark piece’.  The short answer, that is the sum of the parts above, is a no.  Unless I can be shown otherwise, then this is where my answer lies.  You cite that there are four complications to watchmaking – perhaps you could list them for us and provide some background on their importance.  I would be only to happy to retract my statements and state that I have been proved wrong.

One of the true benefits of Opus 8 may yet lie in the debate it has sparked and how it has been played out here on this forum.  As such, this forum serves not only to inform, but to share passions about watches, and your entering into the debate with such enthusiasm is a welcome event.  Opus 8 may yet end up as the beginning of a trend.  From my personal perspective, I hope not.  I believe that a return to such designs would only serve to be the un-doing of what has been gained by the Swiss watch industry.  At my most hateful, I see little to delight the senses or intellect with Opus 8 – casing a basic mechanical movement with disks into a perfunctory quartz casing and display is not a forward looking or benchmark work. 

That said, Mr Garinaud, I wish you all the success in the world; my thanks for your entering debate with such an open agenda.

Andrew H