nickd
1591
Provoking...
There's something about Richard's work that disturbs me - or at least makes me question a lot of things I thought about myself and my preferences.
I'm no lover of the obsessive levels of finishing of Messers Dufour, Voutilainen et al, and after a certain point finishing strikes me as over the top and guilding the lily. I'm more than happy with basic functional finishing, and not in the least interested in looking at the movement through an electron microscope for protruding molecules (most of my watches are vintage and don't even have a display back and this is just fine with me).
I really appreciate good, innovative, functional engineering, and Richard is a past-master at this. I like simple dial layouts and a general lack of clutter and superfluous
So on the face of it I should like Richard's watches - but I don't. Something just doesn't gel for me in the overall design and look-and-feel.
Take the keyless works: part of me says Hey! nice functional design, while the other half thinks of the missed opportunities for having an old Patek-type design with long blued springs...
Part of me admires the simplicity of the totally unadorned dial side of the movement base plate - and the other half wonders if it wouldn't look better with a black surface treatment.
And so on... I find I'm always wondering what could/should be done to the design, whereas I don't feel this way about design classics such as the Calatrava or a Nomos.
I feel there are missed design opportunities in his work, not to make the watches fancy or over-the-top, but just to bring the minor changes that would make the overall design come together and gel.
Thoughts...?
nick
