Comments:
With . . .
<< Previous Comments
As others have stated before me, I like to see the watch being „alive“
However, there is one watch I own that doesn’t do it by way of a seconds hand, and I love it:
So take this as a tie.
So take this as a tie.
Nice variation. No second hand, but a clear indication of a beating heart! Thanks for sharing that beauty! -John
I prefer a second hand…
Like a number of those who responded I also like to see the passage of time. However, there is another reason why I like a second hand. This is because I like to be able to set the “exact” time on my watch. I’m not anal retentive about having a watch that is regulated to zero seconds per day but I am anal about it running properly and to me, I can only tell if this is occurring by comparing the seconds on my watch to some “truth”. As I’m sure all readers know, a watch that runs at a steady rate is fine but one that wanders all over the place probably needs repair.
Just my $.02
Cheers, Jonathan
A refined thought to suit oneself. Just perfect, in a sense that makes you happy! This is what I call "Personal Distillation". No better, no worse than others. Just right for you. Thank you!! -John
A fairly simple take for me...
....for a dress watch function,i'm happy without the centre second hand,unless a well positioned subsecond enhances the aaesthetics of the dial
For normal daily use,a second hand would be useful for enjoying its movement and knowing the watch is functioning.
Fairly simple, yes. However, you have given it some thought yourself. I appreciate your perspective. Thank you! -John
Yes, a clear preference. I, too, have grown to prefer Panerai "Base" models over others. But would not exclude an automatic Submersible to my pile. Thank you! -John
Sweet!! A one-word response with visual evidence to back it up!!! Both are killer samples of their respective Maison's. Thank you! -John
With, but . . .
. . . with two exceptions.
Perpetual calendars are personally preferable without.
. . . vs without.
The raison d'être for the perpetual complication is to portray the calendar on the dial; a seconds hand seems unnecessarily intrusive here.
And Flightmasters. mrsnak's 911 . . .
. . . vs my 910.
There are other reasons to prefer the 910, but the employment of a 24 hour sub-dial is the essential one.
Art
Wow! The PC examples show the difference of with and without. The cleanliness of the tonneau PC can’t be argued.
Understood about a preference of a chronograph needing a seconds sub-dial. Again, those babies are so sweet! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! -John
When it comes to Flightmasters, John, my preference is for the 910 . . .
. . . without a constantly running seconds hand. The architecture of a pilot's watch not only lends a 24 hour sub-dial greater utility, the absence of constantly running seconds improves sensibility, if that's the right term, by reducing visual and mental interference when the chrono is switched in.
Both Flightmaster types have manually wound movements based on Omega's cal 861 . . .
. . . seen in Speedmasters from 1968 and several Seamaster variants.
Best,
Art
I prefer watches with seconds hands. The date or no date, I am basically indifferent as I think it depends on the type of watch.
Clear as a bell. Thank you for your view. I will note your date indifference, too. -John
Another interesting thread.
I do prefer a seconds hand, sharing many reasons already highlighted. Having said that, if there was no seconds hand I will have to listen to the watch’s heart beat to make sure it was still ticking. Now that is enjoyable whether with or without a seconds hand!
You bring up an image where a person would lift their wrist up to their ear to check if the watch was ticking. Any indicator that all is running well is a nice add. Thank you. -John