Comments:
finishing
i will like to add this to the most philosophical question finishing is important if it is associated with symmetry and visibility especially the wheels take for example the amagnetic movement27AM 400 you see wheels you see symmetry one of the most amazing movements ever made This is the reason that i love the Rexhepi movement Akrivia when i saw this work of art iwas speechless I WILL NOT HIDE that i ordered one
Congratulations on a terrific choice!
How long will you have to wait for the watch if I may ask?
Thanks for the info
as I too am considering the watch. The longer the wait the better for me as I need to save up!! 
As always, a wonderful article, Imran.
A just question. Very just question and thoughts about watches.
To me, Dufour Simplicity is a great one, but the finish quality is, well, my apologies in advance, really varies. My two were not so different - I would rate 8 ~ 8.5 (out of 10), but I saw an example which clearly even for the non-watch person looks, well, again, my apologies for the lack of better words, "ugly", the watch sales rep who saw it rated 5 out of 10.
This is just an example and in a way it may be an aspect that attract independnets' hand made pieces. But those who picked the not-great ones may not be happy - although in the case above, even the owner of 5-rated Simplicity seemed ecstatic, maybe from the fact he got it finally.
Finishing is important, how important may defer among collectors. But those which I feel the passion and feel the time the watchmaker spent on would certainly excite me, regardless of the brand. On the other hand, If/when I find the finishing cut the corner, I would be very disappointed and even depressed depending on how much it cost
My own thoughts on the "value" determinants of the watches are:
1.How much time the watchmaker or watchmakers spent on the watch, from design to finishing.
2. Whether it also focuses on the practical side in design - legibility and ease to use. Of course, Metier d'art is another story.
3. And the "market sentiment". It's some kind of "fashion" or "hype" or whatever you call it, and it greatly affects the value.
4. Vintage? I do not know much about this topic, so I cannot comment. Unless it has been in my possession in its entire life, I just can't be sure of its authenticity for its originality. Even the brand's certificate doesn't seem to mean much to some vintage fans. Beyond my comprehension.
So, back to "finishing", when it sings, it is really the matter of how much or immediately those 1 and 2 sink or osmose in my mind. 3. is important when I need to sell something, of course )
) Thank you for raising this topic, Imran. Very thought provocative and helped me streamline my own way of thinking about it.
Best,
Ken
What a great read !.. Lots of food for thoughts, as well !.. As for the Tier-categories, I am quite happy with tier-2, 1 being not really in my reach & wallet.. Thx for this lovely post and Best ! :)) [nt]
No message body
What a post Miranda! Tough points and pictures!
Being relatively new to the horo-world, I do get the point of dividing finishing quality into tiers, but I have some problems in defining what characteristics must be evaluated and how to rate them in order to decide what movement falls into what tier. Anglage, inner angles, stripes, black mirror and so on: what makes one better than the other? Is "Swiss style" better than British ome? Do 3/4 plates hide too much of the movement or not?
I don't have an answer, luckily DocCorson's reply gave very useful hints about comparing finishes in different tiers.
I believe a watch is the sum of its parts (somentime even more and in that case it really sings) and the weights of the equation are totally subjective.
For instance, for me accuracy is very important, since I do not rotate watches and I don't like to set the time often. For a collector who rotates watches every day, accuracy could be of little meaning. Actually it's very difficult to know the accuracy of a watch since brands never advertise it!
Other functional paramenters should be considered, like power reserve, reliability and serviceability,.
Overall aesthetic, brand image coherence, historical coherence are important too in a hi-end watch.
Then we should also consider the degree of innovation and design originality.
How would we rate for example a Breguet La tradition, with beautiful black mirror rotor on the back, straight bevels on the front, original design and historical appeal? Maybe tier 3 finish and... what tier for the entire watch?
Tough job indeed!
Finally, I'd like to thank once more everyone who is contributing in making WPS such a great community! Really TOP!
Best,
Max
Well, the interview where Dufour praised the La Tradition certainly helps give context! [nt]
No message body
Firstly thank you so much for some excellent points raised, secondly thanks for your kind comments. [nt]
No message body
Supreme Finishers!
I think presently Romaine Gauthier sits at the very top in terms of finishing, and I have every reason to believe he excels in other departments, i.e. movement architecture, cases and dials, as well. He has stood the test of time along with Kari Voutilainen (who of course deserves more than just a special mention, I mean that balance wheel bridge *pure lust*). However, I think Akrivia is the 'spiritual' successor of Dufour in terms of hand finishing as demonstrated by the new chronometer launched under the Rexhep name. Now they just need to pass the test of time which should actually read 'consistency'. Maintaining the same superlative standard of hand finishing across 200 watches, now that is the true claim to fame for master watchmaker Mr. Dufuor.
Best Regards,
Mustafa
Dear Mustafa, perfectly put, also I could not agree more about Romaine Gauthier [nt]
No message body
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.
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.
Thanks for articulating your take on this topic so well!
May I put to you the questions I asked Imran:
-What do you think of the finishing on the Credor Eichi II, which is clearly meant to be a kind of homage to Dufour.
-How do you feel about the finishing of a Roger w Smith or Frodsham?
Many thanks, and apologies for my questions!
-What do you think of the finishing on the Credor Eichi II, which is clearly meant to be a kind of homage to Dufour.
-How do you feel about the finishing of a Roger w Smith or Frodsham?
Many thanks, and apologies for my questions!
Fascinating question
And also timely.
I was chatting with Miles recently and exactly this topic came up. Miles indicated that, to him, the finishing on a watch movement is secondary to the aesthetics of the dial and the case. I was in agreement with him. However, it occured to me that both Miles and I really started out as vintage Rolex collectors and......to be blunt.....who really gives a hoot about the finishing on a Rolex. Its not especially interesting.....its functional and not especially pretty. So, as a vintage Rolex collector one is almost conditioned to look at the originality and authenticity of the dial as pivotal. The case comes second. Then.......way down the list of importance comes the movement finishing.
That is how Miles and I see vintage Rolex. I think we differ a bit on Patek. I still find the dial and case as the most important factors in deciding to buy a Patek or not, however, the movement does matter to me. In Rolex, irts importance is, say, 5% of the decision. In Patek, the importance rises to 25%. It is much more important because Patek is not just about reliability, it is much more about the art of the movement and the complexity and design of that movement. In short, a Patek movement is way more interesting than a Rolex movement therefore its relevance to me is so much more. The finishing on my 5370P, for example, was a very important factor for why I went for it. About 25% of the decision. The5650G movement was also a very big part of my decision to buy that watch....more than 25% of the decision. So I do find the movement a very important factor in Patek, but for me, the dial and case are more critical issues.
In considering your question, however, I wondered whether it was the same as asking 100 people randomly whether they like a particular work of art by someone like Kandinsky. To some, it will just look ordinary and they will not get much of a thrill from it. For others, it will represent something quite incredible. Finishing, to me, feels like a nebulous topic. To some, it may be the most important thing about a watch. To others, it just may not matter ar all. It depends also on the nature of the watch and its purpose to the buyer.
Great topic......made me think a lot.
I was chatting with Miles recently and exactly this topic came up. Miles indicated that, to him, the finishing on a watch movement is secondary to the aesthetics of the dial and the case. I was in agreement with him. However, it occured to me that both Miles and I really started out as vintage Rolex collectors and......to be blunt.....who really gives a hoot about the finishing on a Rolex. Its not especially interesting.....its functional and not especially pretty. So, as a vintage Rolex collector one is almost conditioned to look at the originality and authenticity of the dial as pivotal. The case comes second. Then.......way down the list of importance comes the movement finishing.
That is how Miles and I see vintage Rolex. I think we differ a bit on Patek. I still find the dial and case as the most important factors in deciding to buy a Patek or not, however, the movement does matter to me. In Rolex, irts importance is, say, 5% of the decision. In Patek, the importance rises to 25%. It is much more important because Patek is not just about reliability, it is much more about the art of the movement and the complexity and design of that movement. In short, a Patek movement is way more interesting than a Rolex movement therefore its relevance to me is so much more. The finishing on my 5370P, for example, was a very important factor for why I went for it. About 25% of the decision. The5650G movement was also a very big part of my decision to buy that watch....more than 25% of the decision. So I do find the movement a very important factor in Patek, but for me, the dial and case are more critical issues.
In considering your question, however, I wondered whether it was the same as asking 100 people randomly whether they like a particular work of art by someone like Kandinsky. To some, it will just look ordinary and they will not get much of a thrill from it. For others, it will represent something quite incredible. Finishing, to me, feels like a nebulous topic. To some, it may be the most important thing about a watch. To others, it just may not matter ar all. It depends also on the nature of the watch and its purpose to the buyer.
Great topic......made me think a lot.
Damn my entire collection is third tier.... 😢
Thank God I have a stash of Grand Seiko watches to keep up appearances.
great insights and discussion Imran, one question where would you place Grubel Forsey under which Tier? i would say that GF is probably the only one that is on Par with Philippe Dufour
if not exceeding his finishing IMO of course
thanks
What a great post! Very thought-provoking. I agree with most of what you shared.
Some of it though is subjective and based on one’s own sense of value, preference, etc. It is interesting that the independents are moving up the hierarchical ladder! Which I agree with! Their passion and personal inspiration comes through fantastically in their work! For example, KV, Grönefeld, GF, Dufour, etc.
I would give anything to get any my hands on any of them. All beautiful finishing.... [nt]
No message body
Tool, toy, status symbol and object of art
I guess, watches are a combination/compromise of largely 4 functions - tool, toy, status symbol and object of art. Each buyer/collector subconsciously assignes his own weight to these functions when considering a watch. Depending on the weight of an object of art function the importance of finishing may be from very low to very high.
For me, personally, tool, toy and status are not important, while beauty and style are crucial. As such, finishing for me is very important as it is greatly enhancing the beauty, while doing little on other fronts.
For each his own.
For me, personally, tool, toy and status are not important, while beauty and style are crucial. As such, finishing for me is very important as it is greatly enhancing the beauty, while doing little on other fronts.
For each his own.