Independents

dxboon
[Elite User]
12454

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Sure, let's see what's behind my initial response...

...to the various timepieces pictured in the post.  Before we start, I must acknowledge that I find Claret's work structurally intriguing, innovative, and praiseworthy for its visual audacity.  Of all the watches we saw in the four segments of Don's original post I like the spidery 20th Anniversary DualTow best.  Besides the unusual chronograph mechanism, the watch utilizes color and various methods of finishing to present a very interesting aesthetic experience.  The time display, for me, is easiest to read from amongst all the selections pictured in Don's posts.

This is a key consideration for me.

Telling time on every other watch pictured in part four of the post, with the possible exception of the Bovet, is a bit challenging, at least to my eyes.  I don't care to spend so much time deciphering a watch's dial.  Naturally, I realize that wristwatches are not primarily time-telling tools at this point in history.  We have plenty of other ways to more accurately gauge the hours and minutes of our day, but for me, part of the enjoyment of watches is being able to discern the time, and I cannot easily gather that information from the watches displayed in the post.  I fully accept that this is my own shortcoming!  The lack of numbers/indices and heavy skeletonization to allow us complete access to the intricacies of Claret's movements is simply a bit too complex for my taste.

Perhaps, ultimately the kind of watches that are built by Claret or which house Claret's movements are more avant garde than I am generally comfortable with.  The non-traditional case shapes and displays in evidence in part four of Don's post are endlessly fascinating to me as kinetic sculptures, but are not of interest to me as watches. 

Cheers,
Daos