... with two potential problems:
1. The "Freak" is not really watertight, it cannot be. The reason is for one the case that has two large rotating lids, for setting the time and winding the mainspring. Second, the main movement bridge, serving as minute hand as well, has to oscillate around an axis. This is a pin that is anchored through a hole in the top crystal. So there are several zones that cannot really be made tight without compromising their functionality.
2. the minute hand/main bridge has a certain mass and inertia. As a result to massive hits or bumps, the acceleration (and decceleration) of this part will inevitably lead to a considerable energy transferred to the weakest point, that is the pin around which it oscillates. Consequently, this can give in and bend. I have been told that there were a few of the very first Freaks where this proved to be problematic. But then the pins were replaced by stronger ones, and I have not heard any reports on this problem since.
To sum up, I would say the Freak's delicacy is similar to that of the ultra-thin watches that were common in the late eighties and early nineties, or the older Reversos by Jaeger LeCoultre. A generation of watch enthusaists had no problem leaving these watches at home when it heavily rained, or taking them off the wrist before doing sports. Yet the massive dimensions of the "Freak", and the general trend towards very solid watches, in a time when even dress watches seem to need water tightness ratings of 200 meters at least, might be misleading.
However, I know a multiple Freak owner, who, when I met him last time a few years ago, swore to wear one of his Freaks even under the shower regularly, which, of course, sends cold shivers over the backs of the UN SAV people. I think that for a dress watch, the Freak is perfectly fit. Just don't overdo it. But it is too nice to be stored in a vault.
Regards,
Marcus