Horological Meandering

Hi All,

 

What are the watches that every watch tragic should have experienced? Watches that define the various classes of horology and become a yardstick by which other (often newer) offerings may be assessed.

 

They don’t necessarily have to be watches that reside in your collection, just pieces that we should have an understanding of their design and significance.

 

I will start with these two, because they are in my collection for that very reason …

 

Andrew

There’s no place like HoMe!

Omega Speedmaster Professional (Ref. 3572.50 in this example) 

Rolex Submariner (Ref. 5513 from 1966 in this example) 

the Zenith El Primero ref. A 386? Not only an example of the first automatic chronograph, but also in this particular reference a design which is attractive, distinctive and widely recongnized.

casio gshock
swatch
seiko diver
ap royal oak
pp calatrava
rolex daytona/explorer (I & II)
IWC Portuguese
Panerai base rad and luminor
jlc reverso

I'm sure there are more......interesting question

J

... you are right. Very significant for the Swiss watch industry.

Andrew

I don't doubt what you say, but can you articulate exactly how and why such significance is attached to this Swatch piece?  I must say...I really haven't followed this development that much and am curious about why one would say that.

Thanks
DB Darien

.... my candidates (some are in my collection, others aren not):

Omega Speedmaster (specifically pre-moon)
Patek 96 with AM caliber
Seiko Quartz Astron (the first)
AP Royal Oak 5402ST (the first RO with cal. 2121)
VC Historique Chrono
Lange 1
Seiko Spring Drive mechanism
Patek 3970
Haldimann H1
GO Senater Chronometer
Lange Zeitwerk

The above is not what I WANT, but what I think MADE A GIANT STEP in the horological history one way or the other in the modern age.  Of couse, I want all in my collection someday, though   I am sure there are many more that I don't even know in the history.  Looking forward to other answers.

Must be very different by who you ask, and very interesting questions.  Thank you, Andrew!

Ken

nt

Rolex GMT -for creating a new "genre"

Lange 1 - return of German watch making

Lange datograph - for superlative finishing in a movement, that is relatively affordable or achievable in one's lifetime

Casio G shock - for being the quartz watch that everyone has owned, and being referenced to our mechanical pieces in areas of reliability, and everyone thinks Panerai herald in the big watch trend, but I humbly opine that it's the Casio G shock that started it and the earliest Pam owners probably own, seen and/or subconsciously accepted the big watch trend because of it.

AP royal oak - for creating a new luxury sports watch category and not looked back since. Costing 10times more then the quintessential Rolex Submariner back when launched, defining new wealth and luxury status.

Vianney Halter Antiqua and FPJ tourbillon - for leading the charge and way for the independents. Ok, Frank Muller too, but I can't think of a single watch from him that has defined a generation of watches, other then his own prolific production.

I know the Rolex submariner should be on there somehow, but there are so many divers watches from the blancpain FF to Omega ploprof...and everyone laying claim to be first in this or that.

There are historically significant watches, but we are talking mainly about in terms of horology significance, and it's class leading or inventive role that defined a generation of watches. Best, Horo.

This message has been edited by Hororgasm on 2011-01-05 19:13:11

I would recommend a daytona.

Also a simple calatrava from PP

Also something from ALS and Breguet

Julian

How so do they have similar DNA? One is a chrono and a space watch, and the other is a divers watch with no complications, excoet for date in some versions.

Just enquiring, not meant to be offensive in ANY way.

Best,

Horo

I am also interested in Julian's line of thinking, but it may well depend on the level you consider them in the tononomic ranking.

As a Family of watches, they are both Sports watches, at a Genus level the Rolex is a diver and the Omega a chronograph (that originated in motorsports) and then at a Species level we have the individual watches, the Submariner 5513 and the Speedmaster Professional.

So they are similar if you think of both of them as sports watches.

Andrew

I am not saying they are similar but what I am trying to say is that they have a similar background. Towhit- the subbie ref 5513 and speedmaster ( or very similar to the daytona) .

I think that both are iconic watches but if you are looking for the essence of any collection then possibly one or the other - my suggestion was to recomend the daytona rather wich I think covers both bases.

I love the Prince recommendation.

Julian

I thought you might. ;-)

Andrew

Now I understand. The Daytona is an iconic watch, which stood the test of time very well. That's is a reflection of correct market strategy and an evergreen design, and it's longevity brings about to it cult status, in fact, I just another one to kickstart the year!

And I can see "fusion" of the subbie with the speedy, producing the dayto....

Best,

Horo

Hi all,

I think Omega has an icon concerning contemporary watches - the central tourbillon!

In the vintage sector Omega has set a milestone with the simple 30 mm caliber which made the wristwatch a success!

It was simple and reliable and broke records at the observatory competitions. The most beautiful iteration of this movement is

the chronometer version of cause!

Here is a center second example:

I also would like to add the legendary Zenith chronometer Cal 135 mm - a competitor of Omega in those days.

One of the most beautiful chronometer movements ever!

I think also the Rolex Prince has a place in this list.

The rectangular shaped case set a yardstick in design and taste for decades, the duo dial  with the large seconds 

(usable for doctors and nurses when counting the pulse rate) was new for wristwatches at that time.

Here an example of the famous (and most beautiful IMHO) "tiger" version with a striped case in yellow and white gold.

Kind regards

Erich

thanks for showing! Andreas

 .   This message has been edited by mac_omega on 2011-01-06 05:18:42

and it really helps that I don't have a lot of cash to play around with as the choosing becomes really more refined.

1)  Speedmaster Professional - it's the regular production moonwatch for me... for EVERYTHING chronograph.  i understand that there are a ton of more sophisticated executions out there but the dial simplicity and the (what i would assume) robustness of the movement becomes a key reference for me.  give me a choice between an iwc auto port and a regular production moonwatch and i would go with the latter anytime... even with a rolex daytona.  From an Omega standpoint, I've stopped really looking at their other offerings because I think that this is it from that company.  If they reinstated the 60's connies, I might change my mind

the only weak spot for me with the design of the watch is the bracelet because my key reference bracelet will ALWAYS be the Rolex Oyster.  of course, i couldn't say that the oyster look will work well with a speedy but in terms of bracelets, it's like peas in a pod for the Rolex sub or the Explo series such that you can ALMOST NOT imagine these watches with anything other than an oyster bracelet.  With the speedy, it becomes a two-edged sword whereby the case design and dial lends itself EASILY to variation.  you don't see a whole lot of guys doing strap changes on a rolex... at least for the new ones but with the speedy, from NATOs to leather straps.

2)  Rolex Sub no date - for EVERYTHING dive watch.  ok, this one, i'm still in the process of digesting.  personally, i like the Omega SMP300 but you can't quite say that the wave dial is a design reference.  The bezel design, most probably a better looking bezel than the current sub (my opinion, of course) although it doesn't twist as nicely as some of my other dive watches.  But it's not quite there as the moonwatch such that I'd ditch my SMP300 for a sub... not just yet but it surely is on my list.  i think the older subs would be a better reference if we were to dissect this particular class.

3)  JLC Reverso (GT case) / Patek Calatrava (40mm) .. (time only) - for ELEGANCE.  The sizes work best for the average wrist.  I've tried on the 34mm JLC MUT and while it is a VERY elegantly executed watch, I find the Reverso to be more ... i don't know ... comfortable in a sense.  Of course, I understand that a 1931 reverso might be more "reference" but with today's changing average size, it might be the GT.  I LOVE these two watches.

4)  Rolex Exp2 white dial - for WHITE DIAL sports watches.  This is what I compare the rest of the white dialled world of sports watches to... Unfortunately cleaner than a Daytona (I'd love to have a cleaner looking modern day Daytona).  Black is easy.  White... another beast altogether, imo, and nobody does it better than the Exp2.  But then again, I do have issues with a no quick set option for the date.  I understand GMTs like the ones from UN are easier to adjust.  So it is not a surprise that after much negative feedback about the white dial milgauss from my friends, that i am still absolutely in love with it.  It takes off nicely as a white dial sports watch.  takes a bit getting used to with the orange markers but it will work well nicely with my Exp2.

5)  Pam0 - for anything BIG.  Like I always think, one cannot upsize elegance in a straightforward manner.  But Panerai proportions had "big" in mind such that it really works well from bezel width relative to font relative dial etc.  I've tried on a Pam for my small wrist and it works perfectly... which I think should be a criteria for doing big... how does it fare with smaller wrists?  the range for the Pam in terms of wrist sizes is pretty huge versus, say, an AP ROO where the lugs don't droop as close for smaller wrists versus the Pam.  Of course, there are limits (that's why they came out with 40mm Pams I suppose) but they certainly are more flexible than most where wrist size is concerned if you want the BIG look.

So, I need to get these watches first before I can do fancy.  They're like pre-school type watches.  Basics first before hitting elementary school.

All this my opinion from 5 years of watch lurking and with not a whole lot of history or technical background to defend my list with : )

I can't go further yet past these ones.  I'm kinda slow : )

Great reference examples, Andrew!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd look to,
The watches that really were path-breaking and timeless classics, which have left lasting impressions on the market.

The first watches in a Rolex oyster case.
Patek's Calatrava Ref 96.
JLC's Reverso.
Cartier's Tank.
GP's triple bridge.
Movado's museum watch.
Rolex's first Datejust.
Rolex's first Submariner.
Rolex's first dual-time GMT Master.
Omega's Constellation watches over the years.
The first automatic watches, the Eternamatics, Omega bumpers, Pateks ref 2526 with its lovely enamel dial, the fancy cased disco volante 2551 and 2552 which all used the beautiful caliber 12-600AT.
The Rolex Prince
Zenith's El Primero
IWC's Portuguese

Its hard to narrow the list down really!!

Rishad

This has to be one of the better posts in a really long time on HM.
Thanks Andrew,
Rishad

Not sure I should take that as a complement, Rishad.

But I like to think there's something for everyone on HoMe.

Pleased you're enjoying this thread. Me too!

A

I really loved the post, and hearing what these special timers were in other peoples opinion.

Rishad

I would nominate:

Omega Speedmaster

Rolex Submariner

JLC Reverso

Patek Calatrava

AP Royal Oak

Lange 1

Swatch

Seiko Diver

Casio GShock

I could go on (and on and on), but hopefully that covers most bases. No independents though, and no FPJ, no Panerai, no Breguet, nothing American or English made. Hard to keep it to a short list...

like a 111 or a 112 or a 0. I think everyone should have owned one before chipping in on the big watches vs. small watches debate, I know it has been an eye-opener for me.

Other than that, fully second the Speedy and the Sub No Date (a watch that I still have to own though).

Best

Andreas

 

Hi Andrew,

I do not know a clearer, simpler and yet more beautiful approach to display the time.

Like the Calatrava or the JLC Geophysic/Geomatic (which are far more expesive for the average customer!)  I treasure their essential qualities.

 

Kind regards,

anaesdoc

I would also start with Rolex GMT.....
a timeless watch....

I would then say the Royal Oak and followed by the Nautilus...
Two watches that are also timeless is design and desire....

I would end with a PP chrono that speaks by itself....

Cheers

. . . "essentials" for me - the Speedmaster and the Submariner.

[photo from Google images]

They're the only watches I can think of that have simultaneously withstood the test of time, with fifty-odd years of production and no end in sight, and consistently provided a high level of value at reasonable cost.

The Daytona isn't on the list only due to the three significantly different movements used throughout its history . . . it makes the grade on every other count.  This message has been edited by Dr No on 2011-01-07 10:01:38

No message body

. . . of the cal 321 than an entirely different movement. It's a debatable point, and certainly there's a demarcation between the cal 321 and all the succeeding movements.