Park
547
Design
Andrew,
It was design more than mechanics that drew me to collecting watches. It's clear to me that my preferences in watch design are a direct reflection of my tastes in architecture, furnishings, pens, guns, and knives, all of which interests antedated serious watch collecting. For me, it is Bauhaus and industrial design that make a watch interesting, which translates to these elements:
Attractive: sand-blasted, brushed, matted, and blackened finishes; straight lines, angles, and planes; visible screws and bolts that serve a function; legible dials; no functions that aren't used daily; an appearance of ruggedness and dependability; an absence of decoration that holds no function. Examples: Most models of AP Royal Oak, AP Royal Oak Offshore, Richard Mille, and the MIH watch.
Aversive: polished or shiny metal, colored metal, decorations, fanciness, fussiness, showiness, seldom used functions, and unnecessary curves. Examples: Most models of Roger Dubois, Franck Mueller, and Cartier.
Even a single feature, such as Brequet hands, an onion crown, a font with cerephs, or the use of script can ruin the look of a watch for me. An example I recall from a few years back was an IWC chronograph in titanium that was nearly perfect, but to which had been added some highly aversive writing in script that conflicted completely with the design.
All of this is personal taste and the mental associations that design features hold for the individual, but you asked.
Park
What doesn’t work for you in watch design?
Design
what deosn't work for me
When a brand uses a small movement in relation to watch case
