Horological Meandering

Mostel
4360

• Show profile
• Show other posts

MIranda, an incredible, true collector's post, thank you

Posts like these are so nuanced and fascinating.
This is what The Purists is all about.

My thoughts:

Voutilainen--I owned one--the finishing is not in league with Dufour. I 'knew' this the second I held the piece and turned it over. Was I disappointed? yes, but was I really disappointed? NO. Of course it was staggeringly fine. But like Dufour? NO, not at all, period. I did sell that piece quickly, only because there was no longer a reason to put them side by side. I preferred to liquidate and keep 'playing' with those funds.
I had hoped I would keep them side by side, and say to myself, look at these different but equal twins. Not so...

Rexhepi... who knows? We don't know yet... so bravo to him and his team for creating a feast for the eyes of a movement... let's see how it is finished when he's made 100-plus.

I would not remotely include Ferrier or Journe  in the near-top tier. These are very fine 'commercial' movements, but to mention them in league even with Voutilainen seems not right to me.

I would not include any contemporary Patek, except the very, very nose-bleed high level movements in this league... Patek is a glorified brand... a marketing genius brand... all about it's past.  But you have to include Patek in this conversation, of course.

OK, this next concern is funny--almost unnecessary, in my view--this over-stated and neurotic concern--ABOUT SERVICE AFTER A WATCHMAKER PASSES AWAY... ( and I'm quite neurotic, so... no judgements!)

Dufour and others like Dufour created the Simplicity as just that--frankly, an incredibly simple watch 'finished' at an immortal level... so any serious watchmaker--how about Alkis from Lange--for example, could service the watch. No 'finishing' would be involved--just service--and each service would last a decade? So... to me, not at all a concern...  Even a semi-competent watchmaker COULD service it--you wouldn't want anyone but a serious watchmaker--but this movement is not complex in terms of service... most of the best made watches are simple... from independents... OK a Gauthier Logical 1? Perhaps there is a concern there with that type... but not a SImplicity or any time only ultra-high level INDY.

OK--now to address your core question. Is 'finishing' like The Emporer's New Clothes?

Maybe! As I said about Voutilainen... to me, it became a so-what-experience. With respect to him, his work is extraordinary, but it meant little somehow to me.

Dufour's finishing MATTERS--and will always matter--(and I've said this before) It matters--because he did it when NO ONE BELIEVED. He did it in a context where he seemed crazy. He is the proof of concept. he matters historically for this reason--and the fact that his finishing remains unequaled--as you say above--is the cherry on the cake. The truth is, his finishing may one day be exceeded--some may argue it has already--I say, so what? Go back to the day when he made his Duality, his Repeaters, and the Simplicities... and you will find him standing alone--interestingly--as he still stands alone.

He matters--and he can never be viewed as anything less than the Progenitor and The Father of all these men ( and women?) creating watches "like Dufour".

I have clearly drank the Kool Aid.  But so I say, yes, finishing in and of itself--yes--may be meaningless.... but for people like us--probably never.

But if that day comes where finishing is meaningless... because somehow it becomes a cliche... one will always refer to the Father--and his work will never be meaningless. So in Dufour's case, I say it's what the finishing "MEANS" and it means he was a soulful, visionary, 'singular'  artist who did what he did when it was considered 'insane'. That is what 'ultra-high-level-finishing' at his level has come to mean to us-- Humanity, vision, stubbornness, SOUL, a touch of madness--in an over-rational, too-safe, disposable world.