WCU #55: How To Make A Timeless Watch

[@watchreviews4k]

Excellent video. Regards.

[@vdbdg]

Very eloquent and something all buyers should think about although subconsciously they already do and pick from designs engrained in the collective taste

[@chrisdavis8399]

Very well thought out young man! You make some excellent points and arguments. Well done you!

[@styx4947]

how many Oris Aquis do you have? and will you be selling them in 5, 10, or 15 years?

[@robertmueller3267]

I agree with your assessment of the importance of advertising/marketing for these anachronistic products. Also, continuity of design is an important reason for Rolex success, as is true in some other brands’ models.

[@anthonysmith2982]

A ᴠᴇʀʏ interesting and deceptively complex question. Particularly in 2021, when neo-vintange dominates the market. And at the same time we have the almost universal use of materials that as yet, have not had the opportunity to reveal to us how they will age and patina, or if they'll patina at all! We simply don't know how our ceramic bezels and coloured super-luminova will look in 50-70 years from now. But timelessness is different. Timeless design is enigmatic. I don't have the language to describe it but I certainly know it when I see it! I think we all do in our own way. Simplicity and the 'less is more' rule is often seen as the way to achieve timelessness. But then we look at the asymmetry of classic Lange and Journe and are forced to reconsider! This years Omega Seamaster 300 is an example of attempted timelessness gone wrong. A lack of restraint when (I believe) the intention was, in a certain way, all about restraint. The 'take the best elements of the best pieces in the family' is essentially the same as 'if it's not broken don't fix it'. A solid plan! ...until heavy handed use of faux patinated lume undoes it all! It obvious to me that timeless design is extremely difficult to achieve, therefore we look backwards (and sidewards in the case of homage/clone watches) for inspiration because it's alot easier to look forwards. We all, as enthusiasts, want what ᴡᴇ consider to be a gorgeous piece of design on our wrist at a cost we can manage. Whether one does that via a Chinese homage or a piece unique from a high horology brand I don't particularly care... But hopefully, along the way, we all get to own something timeless and worthy of being bequeathed. That's certainly important to me as an enthusiast.

[@johnlacroix1639]

WOW 1st class very kool great info. AAAAAAAAAAA++++++++++++ again great video I liked it a lot keep up the great work

[@jameshoward9700]

Interesting stuff! 'Timeless' can be a product of both the design and the longevity of the product. Perfect proportion pleases your eye; slight asymmetry/idiosyncricity holds interest; quality appeals and reasonable size/fit ensures a wide potential audience. Easy! The current vogue for mid-century design won't last, it's only a fashion. But, a welcome one, given the classical, utilitarian, restrained design work of the '30s-'60s. Please no return to the '70s, '90s and '00s decades of excess! But 'timeless' is also curated and created by the brands and protected by financial stability. Submariner is a great example. A good design, sure, but not remarkable (and that's important!). It has endured due to the growth and strength of the brand, its name, and its longevity in the range. Importantly, Rolex (protected from purely commercial constraints as a charitable foundation) cherished, refined and rode out the quiet days. Omega (who went through significant commercial upheaval) could have done a similar thing with their divers (no lesser designs), but chose to re-name, discontinue, change and fiddle with them. Away from watches, the Porsche 911 appears 'timeless', but only because its been in the range for nearly 60 years, otherwise it would 'just' be another beautiful classic car.

[@jerrymathers11]

Why would I spend money on a timeless watch?

[@phmwu7368]

Take a look at 1960s watches, which still look & work great today... and to 1970s automatic chronographs, which were historically important and even look better than anything new !

[@garyboyle695]

I think what makes a watch timeless is simplicity, watches that try too hard to be modern and of their time seldom age well, yes they may be popular for a short time in later years when retro is all the thing but by in large they look out of place.

[@kovko69]

I don't like this format without pictures.

[@styx4947]

yesterday's fad must become tomorrow's timeless icon

[@timmanion7459]

2 examples that come to mind are the Rolex Submariner and the Blancpain Fifty Fathoms. Both conceived in 1953 and hitting the market within a couple of weeks apart. Both purpose driven tool watches that hold the same esthetics today as then. Sure , they both have gone through subtle changes over the years , but you can hold today's Submariner next to a 1953 model and see them in each other . The same for certain models of the Fifty Fathoms. Because they were so purpose driven in design following function that those similarities will always be seen in those 2 watches far into the future. Just an observation.

[@christopherwinwood374]

100 yrs - Cartier Tank

[@hjander]

A video without images, really?

[@keysersoze503]

Here's a suggestion. One day why don't you actually WEAR one of the watches that you review...review...review...