Which is the Most legible? 5 Different Dial Layouts Tested

[@jarekpszuk6944]

I had a problem with the Hamilton, I got absolutely confused with the 15 marker at 3 position, I had to think about it for way longer than needed. I think that would've been way easier if I had this kind of dial in my collection and was instantly familiar with it.

[@henrybn14ar]

Same here. The 15 confused me

[@therightpick9557]

Not only minutes on dial instead of hours, Hamilton has also low contrast between hands and dial: skeletonized hands, polished elements on hands and dial. All of this does not create a proper 'pop' like Vario does: matte black dial with clear hour markers, and matte white, solid, easy to read hands.

[@Sumerdini]

I think the same. The best Hamilton in terms of legibility is the "Khaki Expedition" model, in my opinion...

[@borassictime918]

I too found the Casio won that hands down, but the Vario and Seiko tied in second as more than twice as long as the Casio, then the Hamilton was quite a bit longer for me, possibly due to the less contrasty hands. The Boldr was just a guess! 😂

[@aaron3890]

As a professor I need to be able to glance at my watch quickly without students noticing, so legibility is everything. This was a fun test! The Hamilton was surprisingly difficult for me, but I've never owned a watch with that type of flieger dial. The Casio was naturally the easiest, but the Vario came in second for me. It'd be nice to include a dress watch with Roman numerals to test that as well.

[@therightpick9557]

It's not a surprise Hamilton has bad legibility. It's design is actually not so legible, because of low contrast between hands and dial: skeletonized hands, polished elements on hands and dial. Even minutes instead of hours on dial add confusion. Vario, on the contrary, has done everything right: matte black dial with clear hour markers, and matte white, solid, easy to read hands.

[@Shpeil]

I don't read the Vario as 1:53. I read it as "seven minutes to two". So the casio is an instant read of 10:54 but this is not actually how I think about time. I need to mentally convert reading into "six minutes to eleven". So the Casio may be quicker to read, but not necessarily quicker to get to how I understand time. Also, sometimes a vague impression is enough. On the Vario, you don't need to be exact to the minute to know that it's nearly five to two. You don't need to read it out or mentally form those words. You can just have a mental picture of where the hands are and it's a pictorial understanding rather than a verbal understanding.

[@nicholasrylatt8954]

Digital watch is quicker to say the time; analog watch is quicker to KNOW the time.

[@Sumerdini]

Vario is the best to know the time...

[@JudoP_slinging]

To be fair digital will always win for to-the-minute precision. When I look at analog I generally just see, '10 to 2', or '25 to 8'. Or just 'nearly 5'. You can always look closer and refine your estimate if needed. Another interesting thing I've noticed in day to day is that some times are harder to quickly read than others. I often find the 7-9 region takes a little more thinking than 12-3 for example (this on analog).

[@kasperravnkilde1714]

1: 10:54 - 2.5 sec 2: 02:43 - 9.4 sec 3: 01:53 - 7.6 sec 4: 08:09 - 7.9 sec 5: 02:50 - 5.6 sec (wrong) My theory is that most people have grown accustomed to read digital clocks and as such these will for the most part be faster.

[@harrylane4]

Digital watches also just require less movement of the eyes to read at a glance. We as humans are really good at recognizing shapes in our periphery, less so positions. Add the fact that you’ve got a physical hand moving slightly above the dial (I got the Hamilton wrong by a minute because of this), and you’ve got a few potential issues. Watches are fashion statements these days anyway, the fun part is seeing who can balance form and function

[@robh.2400]

The Boldr and Hamilton were the most difficult for me. The Vario and Seiko were very good. Casio was instantaneous.

[@Conundrum191]

Just under a second for the Casio, and the others all around 5-6 seconds. Not counting that last one as it was a totally random guess. That said, having owned very similar watches to the others, in terms of ease of reading the dial it is Vario > Hamilton > Seiko just given how straight forward the dials are. Also there is no chance you'll mistake the 5 and 10 indicies for each other even at a super quick glance with numerals. For my own watches, leaving out any digitals, the two easiest watches to read are my Hamilton Khaki King, and a Khaki Mech homage.

[@strandvaskeren]

Didn't note down my times, but the Hamilton took me a bit longer as I first had to figure out which hand was which - I bet I could read it faster if I were used to the hand set. The Seiko I got wrong, swapped the hour and minute hand got 1:41 rather than 8:09 - again, once I've gotten used to the hand set, it probably wouldn't happen. Casio was easiest, the Vario was my second favorite. I actually don't think I read time all that accurately normally, it's more like "I'm hungry, is it lunch soon? Bugger, the hour hand is nowhere near pointing upwards.." Fun test.

[@HELLO-iq5rb]

I had exactly the same issues.

[@benjaminvis]

Hamilton was definitely confusing to read, because the numbers mess with the hands. Vario super easy. I discard the Casio, because reading something out on a digital display vs reading analogue time is just not the same. The advantage with digital displays is likely to be in the detail. You can read all numbers and it is difficult to get that wrong, but the 'at a glance' approximate time indication that I mostly use my watches for is unlikely to be more confusing on an analogue vs a digital display. This was confirmed by how easy it was to read approximately accurate time on the Boldr.

[@JonGH33]

I'm in my late 40s and wear glasses for reading but don't otherwise, this means that when I check my watch it's a struggle. So I've become fixated by readability of any of my new watches. Recently settled on a Baltany that is a carbon copy of the Vario which I think is the pinnacle of readability.

[@cylentone]

Was just about to comment exactly the same - it even affects the size of watches I can wear.

[@DavidWoodsGuitar]

Nice video, Dave and you were absolutely correct about the time increasing. 1) 0.5 secs. 2) 0.6 secs. 3) 1.4 secs. 4) 1.9 secs. 5) 2.1 secs.

[@JusttheWatch]

Dang you're a lot faster than I was!

[@Sumerdini]

Vario, the best for detecting & perceiving time quickly...

[@rm9sbg93zxjzg]

indeed... thats why most people get timexs with white dials for easy legibility.

[@FernandoLopez-zt8qo]

That was fun…👍🏼

[@DallenRex]

It's fun when someone didn't just randomly ask you for the time, put you on the spot, and make you feel like you're going to be unworthy to wear an analog watch if it takes you more than 3 seconds two read the time or get the minute wrong by one.

[@oshoc01]

First 1.3 s. Got 2 and 3 wrong for speeding way too much Surprisingly, the DRESSKX was my 2nd best. Maybe because I wear it like twice a a week and read it every 15 mins just to see it 😂 Last one I said 1.50 and took me 4.08 s. Keep doing this! It was fun 🎉

[@YCymro69]

This is a good idea which I haven’t seen before. How about repeating it with chronographs (due to the dial complexity) and silver hands on silver dials etc?

[@sheepdog-kp9hb]

I like chronos but I keep prolonging pulling the trigger on one because of the lack of legibility

[@YCymro69]

I find a Speedmaster with black dial and white hands to be most clearly legible. The Pagani Design homage at 100th of the cost is equally as good

[@patzguitarz]

I read the Casio and Seiko in less than 2 seconds. The other three were around 3 seconds. I am a dive watch guy, so I think I read the Seiko faster due to its layout being more familiar to me.

[@thealphabethalls]

There’s a difference I find between “telling the time” (it’s about quarter to 2) versus actually reading the exact time (1:43). The first I can do at a very quick glance on a clear analogue dial like the dirty dozen field style, without really focusing the eyes, which is mostly all I need. Reading the exact time is quicker on a digital display, but requires you to focus and actually read the numbers, then I find I need to process that a little into “the time” (process 1:43 back to “about a quarter to two”). So for me, 90% of the time, a clear analogue dial is the fastest. My wife the Apple Watch user just asked me what I was doing, and agreed with my opinion, though I realise everyone is going to approach this differently.

[@EluciaDeLuteIma]

This is an awesome test. Casio w217h: 1.2 seconds Hamilton khaki day date: 2.0 seconds Vario dirty dozen: 4.7 seconds Seiko srpe57: 3.5 seconds Boldr Safari: 9.3 seconds

[@moddedjolt3073]

Casio W217H: 10:54 time: 0.09 Hamilton Khaki Day Date: 02:43 time: 6.8 Vario Dirty Dozen: 01:53 time: 8.2 Seiko SRPE57: 08:09 time: 5.9 Boldr Safari Vogelkopsuperb: 01:53 time" 15.5

[@BrettBausk]

Test 1: Casio: 0.5 Test 2: Hamilton 2.5 Test 2: Vario 2.0 Test 4: Seiko 3.0 Test 5: Boldr 6.0 The Type B Hamilton makes it easy to read the exact minute, but figuring out the hour can take a second when you don't wear one every day. I also find that different times can be easier to read than others.

[@VARIOeveryday]

Interesting test! Love your videos!

[@Bill_the_Terrible]

Best to worst. Casio, easy as pie, Vario, Hammy, Seiko surprisingly was the most difficult one with markers. The bolder is just the worst. Watches should have markers. Nice excercise! Thanks for that.

[@s241914]

1. Casio 2. Vario 3. Seiko 4. Hamilton 5. Boldr

[@dazherbert2782]

Casio

[@Zotrax1946]

1-1 second 2- 4 seconds 3- 2.5 seconds 4- 2 seconds 5- 1.5 seconds Great idea 👌🏻

[@Bob_Smith19]

All of them under three seconds. I guess 40+ years of reading a watch just makes it easy. The less cluttered the dial the better. The time was 1:48 on the last one. Not that it matter much w/ that design. You don’t buy it for the exact time. You’re looking for a relative time. As an owner of a Dirty Dozen and SRPE61 I find the SRPE easier to read in all conditions, especially low light. The seconds counter makes the hands on the DD disappear when they are over it.

[@trtcommunity9248]

👉Unique video idea. Good job, brother. 👍

[@danieldayton3064]

1 Casio 10:54 00.4 seconds 2 Hamilton 2:43 00.4 seconds 3 Vario 1:53 00.6 seconds 4 Seiko 8:09 1.6 seconds 5 BOLDR 1:50 2.8 seconds

[@kovacdavid]

I didn't necessarily go for precision of measurement, but I noticed that each watch took progressively longer. The Casio was immediate (1s something), everything else took a bit to decipher, but longer with each watch. I myself thus concur with your theory.

[@punkypink83]

casio w217h: 0.04s hamilton khaki: 3.8s vario dirty dozen: 3.1s mistake (called 2.53) seiko 5 dresskx: 4.5s boldr: 9.3s

[@tkindschi]

Sorry....didn't take the time to record my times, but agree it was progressively longer. Got a chuckle having to wait 20 seconds on the Casio....the Seiko was surprising difficult, simply because I'm not used to the hands, and they seemed quite similar in length.....and the last one, I was wrong by an hour. So give me hour markers, or I'm not playing any more. 🤣

[@williamsipe1151]

Casio- .8 Hamilton- 3.2 Vario- 2.4 Seiko- 2.2 Boldr- 4.8 ( guessed 1:50)

[@KRW628]

CAS - 10:54 00.3 HAM - 02:43 00.6 (trouble finding the hour hand) VAR - 01:53 00.3 SEI - 08:09 00.3 BOL - 01:48 /9 00.9 (ridiculous)

[@watchdogpodcast239]

I think the Hamilton and Vario should be switched. Was slower on the Hammy for some reason

[@rm9sbg93zxjzg]

Try a AE 1500, the king of legibility!

[@CTRL84]

Casio 0.9 sec, Hamilton 6.6 sec, Vario 3.5 sec, Seiko 3.7 sec, Boldr 5.3. Strange that Hamilton took longer than Boldr, but first second in Hamilton I get confused and focus on numerals. So its fair to say that Hamilton coud be around 5.5 od 5.6 sec

[@heidyaji]

0.5 sec for the Casio. 3-ish sec for the Hamilton, Vario, and Seiko. 8-ish sec for the Boldr (my guess was 1:47).

[@chriscon8463]

The Casio digital was my fastest by far. The Vario was second. I didn’t do well on the Hamilton; 6.5 sec. I’m not sure why…maybe because of how busy the dial is?

[@dixonjernigan1534]

Casio - 1.2 Hamilton - 1.9 Vario - 2.7 Seiko - 3.5 Boldr - 3.6

[@johnkem2630]

Digital - 0.5 / Minute Marker - 3.9 / Hour Marker - 2.0 / Indices - 2.7 / Blank - 2.3

[@UKStevieB]

All were easy except the Hamilton, I am just not used to Piot watches I guess, took me about 1seconds. Casio was just under one second and the rest at about the four second mark.

[@giantsnerd]

A watch with a digital time readout will be the easiest and fastest...if your eyes can focus on it. For older people with presbyopia or people who are farsighted, they might not be able to bring a watch with a small digital readout in focus without glasses. An analog watch with hands gives people like me the best chance of reading the time somewhat accurately if I'm not wearing my glasses.

[@brianv7350]

1.5 digital Casio 3.5 Hamilton 4.5 vario 3.2 seiko 5.2 boldr

[@Asap10k]

Test 1 10:45 at .9 seconds Test 2 2:43 at 2.5 seconds Test 3 1:53 at 3.4 seconds Test 4 8:09 at 2.9 seconds Test 5 2:48 at 4.5 seconds

[@zeustanbul]

00:00,86 00:04,55 00:03,47 00:04,88 00:07,40 - wrong The reason I couldn’t read Hamilton quick enough is because I’m not familiar with aviation type of watches. I think the rest is normal for me as a slow reader. Fun comparison anyway!

[@spex7503]

Seiko 0.7s; Hamilton 4.0s; Vario 2.8s; SRPE 3.2s; Boldr 6.5s. I would rate the Hamilton lower than the Vario and SRPE, and possibly even the Boldr if the test is "within 10 minutes". Its busy dial does not help its legibility (and I say that while wearing a Khaki King Field).

[@MichaelMitchell-vk9lk]

That was tough

[@spookmineer]

Casio 1.9 seconds. Hamilton 2.8 seconds. Didn't expect that, I thought it would be easier to read. Vario 1.9 seconds. Seiko 4.1 seconds. I blanked. Boldr 2.7 seconds.

[@lammijari]

While the Boldr Safari Vogelkopsuperb is without a doubt the hardest watch to read if you need the exact minutes, it's at the same time the fastest watch to read to get an impression what time of day it is. It gives an incredibly fast readout in the 15 minutes granularity.

[@DucatiKozak]

T1 1.4 sec correct, too easy T2 5.6 sec 2:43 yes correct T3 2.7 sec 2:53 I saw I was wrong immediately after I hit pause. It was 1:53 T4 Seiko 5 SRPE NICE watch I want this! 4.2 sec 8:09 correct T5 4.1 sec 1:50

[@xcq1]

Casio 1.3, Hamilton 3.8, Vario 4.3, Seiko 4.1, Boldr 4.4 (and misread the hour as 2)

[@nintendokings]

I actually don’t find the Hamilton *that* legible. The minute hand sometimes disappears in the busy dial for me

[@thetattedpharmacist3215]

I found the same. I read the Casio in less than a second, the Khaki in about 7 or 8 seconds, the rest between 5 and 7 seconds

[@z3kent778]

Casio 1.5; Hamilton 10; vario 4; seiko 6; Boldr i’ve failed i added one hour. I thought the Hamilton would be thé second most legible for me with all the info in it but i guess the dial is too busy for that actually

[@cedricduyongco]

Casio was the fastest for me, second was the Seiko, then the Hamilton, then the Vario and the last was the Boldr.

[@vatazhka]

I find the Hamilton to be the least readable. I spent a second finding the hands, then another thinking about which is which, then two or three trying to determine what were they pointing at. I hate the skeletonized hour hand and the shining minute indexes on this watch. On the contrary, Boldr was far easier to tell the time as I only had to check the orientation of the watch twice.

[@WatchWitt]

The Hamilton made me stumble, because of the minute marker numerals!

[@aps5041]

.9 2.43 3.2 - this is my favorite dial pattern for easy read at brain dead 3AM. 3.7 5.1

[@Tyrone2714]

On the dresskx i got thought the arrow was the hour hand 😅

[@adk7962]

It took me about the same time (minus the Boldr and the Casio) but the second watch threw me off for a second (pun intended) because of the minutes printed on the dial. It’s probably because I don’t have a Type B Flieger or because I’m an idiot. 🧐

[@buttercreamcake]

2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 5 I believe the last watch, BOLDR 1:48

[@osgoodbad]

It looks like fountain pens may be an interest of yours. Any chance you would make an off-topic video? Or if not, could you mention which pens you like in the comments? Thanks! Also, 1,2,3,4,5, but I own the Hamilton so that's maybe cheating. When I bought it I was concerned it would be hard to read, but I actually find it hyper-legible for a three-hander.

[@JusttheWatch]

My friend is really into fountain pens and gifted me a Metropolitan and. Twisbi, been having a lot of fun with them!

[@osgoodbad]

@JusttheWatch The nice thing about pens is that a really nice fountain pen will set you back much less than even a basic watch. Your metro probably cost $20, your twsbi $30. A Vanishing Point or Lamy 2000 can be had for $150 (and they're both superb pens) while a Custom 823 can be had for less than $300 and is widely considered the apex of what pens can be. Even a Montblanc 149, as overpriced as it is, can be had for less than $1000. Have fun with your watches and pens. Consider a vinyl collection to complete your hipster trifecta. :)

[@danielkarner7118]

Casio: 1s Hamilton: 2s Vario: 3s Seiko: 2s Boldr: 5s

[@OFD]

Vogelkop was 1:49😎👍

[@benny4162]

Casio W217H .5 seconds, The day I can't read a Casio is the day something has gone very very wrong. Hamilton Day date 12 seconds to read correct time, initially misread Vario Dirty Dozen 2.8 seconds, correct Seiko SRPE57 5.9 seconds, correct Boldr Volgelkop 3.6 seconds - 2:50 FAILED

[@joelmoore3804]

This is going in order you displayed them. 1) 2 sec 2) 3 sec 3) 3.5 sec 4) 5 sec 5) 12 sec

[@mto3009]

Casio 1.0; Hamilton 5.0; Vario 1.5; Seiko 1.7; 1.5

[@andreramos8303]

Casio w217h: 1.8 sec Hamilton : 3.7 sec Voreo: 13.9 sec Dress kx: 6.2 sec Boldr: 8.0 sec

[@rabadabadoo491]

2.3 5.6 3.2 3.7 6.3 Great game, cheers

[@pw10a2sal]

I did all analog watches wrong, the casio was the fastest and the boldr was wrong about an hour. She looks good but isn´t very useful.

[@lammijari]

T2 is way much harder to read than T3 and T4. Hamilton's numbering layout is extra confusing if you're not accustomed to it. Vario and Seiko on the other hand are almost as fast to read as a digital watch.

[@qianglin6245]

Same here. It took me some time to tell which is the hour and which is the minute hand.

[@arikcagan7123]

Casio 1 second Seiko 2 seconds. Interstellar 6 seconds boldr 3 seconds dirty dozen 6 seconds

[@benkenobi6582]

The Casio took me .7 The 2nd took me 3.2. The 3rd took me 3.5 The 4th took me 4.7 The 5th took me 6

[@dougolsen3469]

Casio 2.5 sec Hamilton 3.6 sec Vario 2.5 sec Seiko 2.5 sec Boldr 4.4 sec

[@Vox-Populi]

Call me crazy, but when I see time display digitally, I have to then convert it into an analog picture of my head. That is how I view time and space.

[@davidcopeland5409]

I wouldn’t say it’s 2.43 I just say it’s quarter to 🤷‍♂️

[@WH-hi5ew]

Shame the Vario is 18mm lug to lug... it's a good looking watch otherwise.

[@ryaneheart8349]

My fastest time was 2.4 seconds and my guess for that last watch was 1:49

[@magstheonlyone]

1.1 3.5 2.8 3.8 4.2

[@shcmoly]

1, 3, 2, 3, 4

[@BetamaxBabe]

Great video idea! The Boldr was easier to read than I expected, while the Vario's railroad track minute markers were the most difficult.

[@Doug5524]

00.7 .. 2.43 1.23 8.09 1.50

[@cosmodoc]

The Boldr looks like 1:49

[@trtcommunity9248]

.9 sec , 9 sec, 6 sec, 6 sec, and I got the time wrong on the last one.

[@drfat]

Casio ~1 sec The rest is ~3 sec with the time +-1 min.

[@rouju]

Yeah increasing with each watch. The Boldr makes me think it' 14:xx ha ha. Bad watch

[@bestboy897]

vario most legible imo

[@jouzel8951]

Casio 2sec, Hammy 7sec, Vauer 6sec, Seiko 4 or 5sec, Boulder 10sec.....

[@turbyoulance]

the bulova was the worst by far, i actually got it wrong

[@blindriv3r]

interesting idea, of course the digital is in a different ballpark, but among the others, the flieger style would naturally be easiest to read quickly

[@shanephillips8735]

Didn't write down times , but all within a few seconds apart from the Hamilton, which took more like 10 secs, man that thing is horrible to read

[@perrinjulien4195]

Casio 1.4s Vario 1.4s Black dial 2.4s Seiko 2.6s Hamilton 3.4s Too much informations/features aren't good for the brain

[@thegorn]

This audience participation is too much effort for me

[@flameadon]

1s, 5s but got it wrong lol, 5s, 9s, 16s

[@supper_cruiser]

Lol I read the first one wrong (10:45)

[@younusimam-thesalamproject6340]

Casio: 3 seconds Hamilton: 5 seconds Vario: 6 seconds Seiko: 7 seconds BoldR: 12 seconds. Definitely makes me appreciate arabics for legibility.

[@patricklmybp72]

This is something different and interesting. Ok, here are my times: Test 1 Casio 0.7s (probably because I wear a F91-W daily) Test 2 Hamilton 2.0s Test 3 Vario 1.1s Test 4 Seiko 1.5s Test 5 Boldr 5.6s (read it as 1:47) *Note (for context): 1. wearing prescription lenses for nearsightedness, (above -6.00 D) 2. watching on a 15" laptop, eyes to screen roughly 2 feet away 3. KZbin video player size: Default View

[@spawnof6834]

caiso was 10:54 and 15 seconds and it took 1 second/ the hamilton was 2:43 and it took 8 seconds the vario was 1:54 and it took 9 seconds the seiko 5 dress kx was 8:09 and it took 5 seconds the bolder was 2:44 and it took 15 seconds atleast thats what i got on all those...cheers good content.

[@bolchert]

Kinda unfair to bring a digital watch to this. You are litteraly just reading the time from them. (; A bit more interesting things would get, if you would take different angles into consideration.

[@adamselene5957]

This is CHEATING. Of course the Casio wins - TECHNICALLY. But, what if we have to give the time differently. As: "Ten till eight" or "Fifteen minutes after three" etc. Interpreting digital time in this manner takes a bit longer. Lastly, there is a difference between recognition of hand placement verses knowing the exact time. The Interstellar is not an easy watch to find the minuet hand on - where as the 'Dirty-Dozen' Military Style watch is extremely easy to recognize.