The reductio ad absurdum on this argument is right here: "But real hand-finishing is done entirely with manual tools like files and wood pegs, producing subtle, organic variations that machines can’t replicate."
I own an A. Schumann "precise drilling machine," effectively a jeweler's drill press from 1890. A. Schumann relocated from Dusseldorf to Racine, WI in 1939 for all the reasons you'd expect and became Precise Manufacturing, the pre-eminent rotary tool globally. Rockwell bought Precise in 1969 and then sold it to Fischer SFJ in 2006, the manufacturer of precision spindles used by Kern, Bumotec and others. It was state-of-the-art in 1890, and modern state-of-the-art tools can trace their lineage directly to it. The barriers to entry are unchanged and prices were comparable.
I own it because the former owner couldn't get it to spin reliably under power - something something 130-year-old babbitt bearings something something. He wanted to do perlage with it, and couldn't. Perlage ("engine turning" for those outside the niche tradition of watch finishing) simply can't be done in a reasonable fashion without reasonable RPM and life is too short. This is a guy who sinks hundreds of hours into his watches and he noped the hell out.
How is it that "real hand finishing" is done entirely with manual tools, yet perlage *can't* reasonably be done entirely with manual tools?
At a baseline, luxury item pricing = (("cost per hour per craftsman" x "hours worked") + ("material inputs") x ("markup")) x ("duty coefficient"). The material inputs on a gold Rolex and a gold Dufour aren't wildly different, nor are the "cost per hour per craftsman" - Dufour is doing it all himself and Rolex is dozens of craftsmen but technicians at the same level of proficiency can do the same work in the same amount of time. The real difference is some indie is gonna spend 40 hours per dial doing hand guilloche on a 140-year-old Lienhard while Patek is gonna feed it into their $750k S191V and call it a day.
The differences are this:
1) The indie guy doesn't have to drop three quarters of a mil on a 9-axis mill-turn
2) The LVMH house can clobber the indie on price through economies of scale
The hand-finishing fetish is an outcome of Kickstarter, not Instagram. Swiss (not American) watches have long been a parts bin of different cottage industries assembled under a single name of origin and the advent of AliExpress allowed a Cambrian explosion of internet simps cobbling together Another Damn Diver out of a dozen Shenzen parts houses to pimp on social media. The only way to differentiate one Lego watch from another Lego watch was to put some hand-lovin' on it and it doesn't take much in the way of tooling to "hand finish" a movement. The end result was the ever-credible watch press parroting marketing copy, the ever-credible watch enthusiast community parroting the watch press, and chin-stroking arguments about how much "hand" is necessary in "hand finishing" when ultimately, "visible hand-finished angles and polished screws for under $2000" is about market differentiation rather than quality.
Is a custom cannon pinion somehow worth more if the watchmaker's lathe is turned with a foot treadle rather than a sewing machine motor? C'mon now.
I leave you with this: Audemars fetishizing their mechanization to the point of pr0n.
thanks for the comment, and a fair push back in there. A lot to unpack otherwise - glad the famous royal oak tapisserie video made an appearance at the end!
On perlage, aka stippling, aka spotting, Britten's Watch & Clockmaker's Handbook (1898) has this to say: "Spotting: the process of finishing chronometer, and occasionally watch plates by polishing thereon equidistant circular patches.
"The plate that is to be spotted is fixed to the top of a slide rest, and the marks are made with a small bone or ivory tube, which screws into the bottom of the upright spindle. The material used to produce the pattern is a mixture of oilstone dust and sharp red-stuff. The plate, when fixed in position on the platform of the tool, is dabbed all over with the end of the finger dipped into this composition, which must not be at all dry or thick. This upright spindle carrying the spotter is kept constantly rotating by a band from a foot wheel. A spiral spring round the arbor of the spotter keeps it off the work, and a little pressure on a knob at the top brings the spotter into action. The pattern is made by turning the handle of the slide rest equal amounts after each spot 'till a row is finished, and then movement the transverse slide an amount equal to the pitch of the pattern."
So perlage clearly can be done with manual tools, although even in 1898 I suspect a sensible watchmaker would have preferred your Schuman drilling machine (which I'm assuming had an electric motor, although that may not be correct since electric drills were only invented about eight years earlier). I've seen perlage being applied by CNC machines and I've had a go at doing it manually with a drill press at a couple of workshops, but I have never seen or heard of anyone stubborn enough to try to do it with hand press and foot pedal. I wouldn't want to try it. I'm not sure a foot treadle powered machine under entirely manual control fits your definition of "manual tools" though.
For "small bone or ivory tube" substitute "cratex stick" and "band from a foot wheel" substitute "anything else" and not a lot has changed. My Schumann came to me partial but it looked set up for a hand crank so I printed one. You could maybe drive it with a watchmaker's lathe motor if you were inventive but I'm not sure it was ever designed for any real speed.
I learned to sew with a foot treadle; other than the inertia it's not horribly different from an electric machine. The presence of a foot treadle, however, makes it a "pedual," rather than "manual" tool, at least partially! ;-)
So, let me ask you something. Let's say you have a movement plate decorated with perlage/spotting. Beyond a certain point (and you don't even have to go that far) the result is basically the same, no matter if you're using a foot treadle operated press with an ivory rod hand-charged with red stuff, or a Dremel Moto Tool, or a multi-axis CNC machine; your inputs are vastly different but the outputs are as similar as never mind (allowing for the fact that the most manual process probably has irregularities that are visible if you know what to look for). So, what should people care about? "Should" is a weasel word here, obviously, but isn't a lot of watch knowledge about appreciating that it's just as much how you do it as what you do?
People should care about what they desire to care about. We call them luxury goods, not utility goods, and if someone has their heart set on a watch made without electricity I sincerely hope they can find craftsmen to serve them. More than that, "how much handwork goes into it" is an entirely reasonable and commendable consideration upon which to base one's affinities. I can respect the hard work an indie brand puts into their handwork while also respecting the mechanized precision of a Rolex.
"What should people are about" can't help but be subjective and individual to that person. It's a very different discussion than whether or not "Hand finishing became the next complication" as if black-polished screws were of a kind with a power reserve or a tourbillon. "Does it have a microrotor" is an objective question with a binary answer while "has the movement been massaged enough to justify the expense" is a subjective question with no metrics to speak of, as Tony mentioned.
I care not a whit if *somebody* cares how hand-decorated their watch movement is. My hackles rise when it's implied *everybody* should care. There's already more than enough fakery masquerading as authenticity in the watch business and the suggestion that everyone should pretend to hand-chamfer their bridges for purposes of puffery is erosive to the craft, damaging to the industry, insulting to the customer and a dangerous trend to encourage.
Great post! I think we all have come to the conclusion that mechanical watches are less relied on for time keeping and more canvases of artistic expression that does something for the observer/owner. With the dial being the traditional canvas, finishing in the modern era seems to be simply flipping the painting over and adding more art. Personally, I would like to see a Banksy work on a manhole cover with côtes de genève on the flip side.
My .02 is that this phenomenon is largely due to individual watchmakers placing great emphasis on their handiwork as a way to distinguish themselves in an increasingly crowded marketplace, rather than buyers who demand a certain amount and level of handiwork on bridges and other components in a movement or case. It’s a feature that is an element of a well-made watch, but not the end all and be all of the finished product.
I view this in the same way I view bracing on an acoustic guitar. On the best instruments, bracing is hand-shaped and finished and you can see the difference compared with a lower level mass produced guitar. But I suspect few buyers will focus on the bracing as the main criterion of quality. It’s the sound, feel, woods used, playability, etc. that matter.
i do agree that watchmakers, indies in particular, place an emphasis on this because it's a way to differentiate from large brands. but i think that buyers now demand it. chicken/egg as to which came first
I liken some of the good feels hand finishing provides to the pitch my Tiffany sales associate used on me when I bought my wife’s engagement ring…The “pride of ownership” spiel he convinced me of: I mean, apart from you and your wife-to-be, will anyone know her diamond is VVS1 or VVS2 - or VS1 or VS2 for that matter? Not likely. Unless you broadcast it of course.
If the machine-esque (hand-guided?) finishing is close in quality via loupe to the old school techniques - at a much lower cost…I’ll take it. That said,, I’d have to see the total package…maybe my pride of ownership goals would kick in.🤪
funny enough, someone just sent me this article about de beers' strategy towards lab-grown diamonds (link below)—since it has obvious parallels to watches—and it is not dissimilar to this discussion.
I do agree, to an extent. One distinct memory I have from my first visit to a Swiss watch manufacturer is that the brand kept bragging about how they were still doing many processes in the same way they were 40-60 years ago. It's not hard to observe inefficiencies, and indeed this can be part of the charm, but also: you haven't even tried to find a better way??
Speaking as a trained gemologist, the price of diamonds has been artificially inflated by De Beers for decades. They watched in realtime what Mikimoto did to pearls and reefed to just this side of criminal (mostly) to prevent a similar dilution. De Beers spent more money marketing *against* Ed Zwick's "Blood Diamond" than Warner Brothers spent marketing *for* it.
I can’t read the article behind the paywall…I only subscribe to a select number of online pubs - like yours Tony 😉 how does De Beers respond to lab grown diamonds?
Now I am thinking of another parallel process with charming inefficiencies - bespoke shoemaking! Everyone one suggests 3d modeling and printing to replace the wooden “lasts” wooden hand-carved models of your feet…Some firms are experimenting with new tech as a way to refer back for measurements…but old school makers use / reuse wooden lasts when they stretch and nail leather to create your shoes. Guessing 3D printed lasts wouldn’t hold up - for now!
As a side note, De Beers just shut down Lightbox, its lab grown diamond division, subsequent to the collapse in lab grown diamond prices, which sell at a tiny fraction of the price of mined diamonds (whose price has also dropped significantly) https://www.businessoffashion.com/news/luxury/de-beers-closing-diamond-jewellery/
Well - hopefully - my diamond buying days are over. I’ll just give my son my 2 cents…when the time comes 😉 maybe I’ll suggest a lab grown diamond paired with an automatic watch with a hand engraved movement!
Once upon a time we were satisfied with hand engraved balance cocks. Now that just isn’t enough, need all our interior angles to receive the expert gentle yet firm touch of human hands to feel truly fulfilled
Great write-up, thank you. Another aspect is that hand-finishing makes a lot of sense in deliberate movement architecture. There is a clarity to what the guys at Armin Strom do, for example. At Watches & Wonders the nice people at Chopard showed me a skeletonized and well-finished LUC. It was a marvel of engineering, but not exactly pretty to look at.
I love Open Work watches. A Logical One from Romain Gauthier is a marvel. The finishing matters, but only when it is visibly poorly done. In his case the watches are beautiful, but I'm there to see the chain, not the angles on the bridge.
yes, well said. the meaning of well-executed, purposeful hand finishing is worth further exploration. finishing for its own sake is less interesting (to me, at least)
SJX was insightful talking about this on his latest podcast; a point he has made before is that there is a raft of time-only independents where the whole point is the hand-finishing (ie there is nothing technically interesting about the movement) and that’s just not that interesting anymore.
It is clearly what the market wants, but it is a different time now than when Dufour did it with the Simplicity (which falls 100% in to the category of good but pretty standard time-only movement beautifully decorated).
I have a lot of sympathy with his view. I’m much more interested in horological innovation than I am in Swiss-style hand-finishing.
There are those who have an eye for artisanal hand finishing, those who can appreciate well crafted machine finishing, and those who feel it at best superfluous and want to be the taste police. I thought it timely and well written. Keep it up Tony!
Great story Tony and a topic I've been thinking about this last year. As someone in this market, there is no doubt that this level of finishing is ‘required’ for low-production independents. But as they continue to raise their prices to $70k plus for time only watches, and this level of finishing becomes more ubiquitous, I wonder how they will be able to justify these prices when that level of finishing no longer stands out. One answer is a shift back to innovative movements and design. I think Berneron strikes the right notes there and others must be pushed in that direction, I'm talking to you Mr. Ferrier!
Pricing is another matter but goes along with this discussion. As prices rise and well-executed finishing becomes more common, it seems natural that watchmakers would look towards movement, design, etc. to stand out.
Thanks Tony; very informative and a pleasure to read as usual!
I still remember a time when in pop culture the “iced out” bling watch was a flex. I wonder if hand finishing has replaced this a bit now since diamonds have become more common and can even be grown in a lab. The flex is now, “Look how many hours of Swiss manual labour I can afford.”
Funny, elsewhere in these comments I linked an article about De Beers’ struggles. And yes, the current trend towards finishing feels like a literal manifesting of an old-school type of luxury, literally paying for human craft.
Huh, I happened to listen to Episode 34 of Hairspring today where Eric and Max track this transition from complication being the zenith (pun intended) of independent watchmaking to finishing taking that crown.
Worth a listen and a nice complement to this great read.
i suppose we should be glad there’s a race to higher quality. but there’s also a race to higher retail prices.
so many new indies, and none of them seem to have a watch priced below $50k, most of them are above $75k. what’s worse, some of them are not even making their own calibers. this bubble will burst pretty soon, and the only ones that’ll survive are those that do more than just stitching a product together with the help of a rag-tag group of suppliers.
The reductio ad absurdum on this argument is right here: "But real hand-finishing is done entirely with manual tools like files and wood pegs, producing subtle, organic variations that machines can’t replicate."
I own an A. Schumann "precise drilling machine," effectively a jeweler's drill press from 1890. A. Schumann relocated from Dusseldorf to Racine, WI in 1939 for all the reasons you'd expect and became Precise Manufacturing, the pre-eminent rotary tool globally. Rockwell bought Precise in 1969 and then sold it to Fischer SFJ in 2006, the manufacturer of precision spindles used by Kern, Bumotec and others. It was state-of-the-art in 1890, and modern state-of-the-art tools can trace their lineage directly to it. The barriers to entry are unchanged and prices were comparable.
I own it because the former owner couldn't get it to spin reliably under power - something something 130-year-old babbitt bearings something something. He wanted to do perlage with it, and couldn't. Perlage ("engine turning" for those outside the niche tradition of watch finishing) simply can't be done in a reasonable fashion without reasonable RPM and life is too short. This is a guy who sinks hundreds of hours into his watches and he noped the hell out.
How is it that "real hand finishing" is done entirely with manual tools, yet perlage *can't* reasonably be done entirely with manual tools?
At a baseline, luxury item pricing = (("cost per hour per craftsman" x "hours worked") + ("material inputs") x ("markup")) x ("duty coefficient"). The material inputs on a gold Rolex and a gold Dufour aren't wildly different, nor are the "cost per hour per craftsman" - Dufour is doing it all himself and Rolex is dozens of craftsmen but technicians at the same level of proficiency can do the same work in the same amount of time. The real difference is some indie is gonna spend 40 hours per dial doing hand guilloche on a 140-year-old Lienhard while Patek is gonna feed it into their $750k S191V and call it a day.
The differences are this:
1) The indie guy doesn't have to drop three quarters of a mil on a 9-axis mill-turn
2) The LVMH house can clobber the indie on price through economies of scale
The hand-finishing fetish is an outcome of Kickstarter, not Instagram. Swiss (not American) watches have long been a parts bin of different cottage industries assembled under a single name of origin and the advent of AliExpress allowed a Cambrian explosion of internet simps cobbling together Another Damn Diver out of a dozen Shenzen parts houses to pimp on social media. The only way to differentiate one Lego watch from another Lego watch was to put some hand-lovin' on it and it doesn't take much in the way of tooling to "hand finish" a movement. The end result was the ever-credible watch press parroting marketing copy, the ever-credible watch enthusiast community parroting the watch press, and chin-stroking arguments about how much "hand" is necessary in "hand finishing" when ultimately, "visible hand-finished angles and polished screws for under $2000" is about market differentiation rather than quality.
Is a custom cannon pinion somehow worth more if the watchmaker's lathe is turned with a foot treadle rather than a sewing machine motor? C'mon now.
I leave you with this: Audemars fetishizing their mechanization to the point of pr0n.
https://youtu.be/K0uW37FnCLM?si=AIM8X8lzpq48IQzj
thanks for the comment, and a fair push back in there. A lot to unpack otherwise - glad the famous royal oak tapisserie video made an appearance at the end!
On perlage, aka stippling, aka spotting, Britten's Watch & Clockmaker's Handbook (1898) has this to say: "Spotting: the process of finishing chronometer, and occasionally watch plates by polishing thereon equidistant circular patches.
"The plate that is to be spotted is fixed to the top of a slide rest, and the marks are made with a small bone or ivory tube, which screws into the bottom of the upright spindle. The material used to produce the pattern is a mixture of oilstone dust and sharp red-stuff. The plate, when fixed in position on the platform of the tool, is dabbed all over with the end of the finger dipped into this composition, which must not be at all dry or thick. This upright spindle carrying the spotter is kept constantly rotating by a band from a foot wheel. A spiral spring round the arbor of the spotter keeps it off the work, and a little pressure on a knob at the top brings the spotter into action. The pattern is made by turning the handle of the slide rest equal amounts after each spot 'till a row is finished, and then movement the transverse slide an amount equal to the pitch of the pattern."
So perlage clearly can be done with manual tools, although even in 1898 I suspect a sensible watchmaker would have preferred your Schuman drilling machine (which I'm assuming had an electric motor, although that may not be correct since electric drills were only invented about eight years earlier). I've seen perlage being applied by CNC machines and I've had a go at doing it manually with a drill press at a couple of workshops, but I have never seen or heard of anyone stubborn enough to try to do it with hand press and foot pedal. I wouldn't want to try it. I'm not sure a foot treadle powered machine under entirely manual control fits your definition of "manual tools" though.
For "small bone or ivory tube" substitute "cratex stick" and "band from a foot wheel" substitute "anything else" and not a lot has changed. My Schumann came to me partial but it looked set up for a hand crank so I printed one. You could maybe drive it with a watchmaker's lathe motor if you were inventive but I'm not sure it was ever designed for any real speed.
I learned to sew with a foot treadle; other than the inertia it's not horribly different from an electric machine. The presence of a foot treadle, however, makes it a "pedual," rather than "manual" tool, at least partially! ;-)
So, let me ask you something. Let's say you have a movement plate decorated with perlage/spotting. Beyond a certain point (and you don't even have to go that far) the result is basically the same, no matter if you're using a foot treadle operated press with an ivory rod hand-charged with red stuff, or a Dremel Moto Tool, or a multi-axis CNC machine; your inputs are vastly different but the outputs are as similar as never mind (allowing for the fact that the most manual process probably has irregularities that are visible if you know what to look for). So, what should people care about? "Should" is a weasel word here, obviously, but isn't a lot of watch knowledge about appreciating that it's just as much how you do it as what you do?
People should care about what they desire to care about. We call them luxury goods, not utility goods, and if someone has their heart set on a watch made without electricity I sincerely hope they can find craftsmen to serve them. More than that, "how much handwork goes into it" is an entirely reasonable and commendable consideration upon which to base one's affinities. I can respect the hard work an indie brand puts into their handwork while also respecting the mechanized precision of a Rolex.
"What should people are about" can't help but be subjective and individual to that person. It's a very different discussion than whether or not "Hand finishing became the next complication" as if black-polished screws were of a kind with a power reserve or a tourbillon. "Does it have a microrotor" is an objective question with a binary answer while "has the movement been massaged enough to justify the expense" is a subjective question with no metrics to speak of, as Tony mentioned.
I care not a whit if *somebody* cares how hand-decorated their watch movement is. My hackles rise when it's implied *everybody* should care. There's already more than enough fakery masquerading as authenticity in the watch business and the suggestion that everyone should pretend to hand-chamfer their bridges for purposes of puffery is erosive to the craft, damaging to the industry, insulting to the customer and a dangerous trend to encourage.
Great post! I think we all have come to the conclusion that mechanical watches are less relied on for time keeping and more canvases of artistic expression that does something for the observer/owner. With the dial being the traditional canvas, finishing in the modern era seems to be simply flipping the painting over and adding more art. Personally, I would like to see a Banksy work on a manhole cover with côtes de genève on the flip side.
Yes exactly, a natural evolution of the wristwatch from tool to luxury, and human handcraft (ie time) is perhaps the ultimate luxury.
My .02 is that this phenomenon is largely due to individual watchmakers placing great emphasis on their handiwork as a way to distinguish themselves in an increasingly crowded marketplace, rather than buyers who demand a certain amount and level of handiwork on bridges and other components in a movement or case. It’s a feature that is an element of a well-made watch, but not the end all and be all of the finished product.
I view this in the same way I view bracing on an acoustic guitar. On the best instruments, bracing is hand-shaped and finished and you can see the difference compared with a lower level mass produced guitar. But I suspect few buyers will focus on the bracing as the main criterion of quality. It’s the sound, feel, woods used, playability, etc. that matter.
i do agree that watchmakers, indies in particular, place an emphasis on this because it's a way to differentiate from large brands. but i think that buyers now demand it. chicken/egg as to which came first
I’m not in the category of buyers who do, but I get it. Thanks for another thoughtful and well written article.
I liken some of the good feels hand finishing provides to the pitch my Tiffany sales associate used on me when I bought my wife’s engagement ring…The “pride of ownership” spiel he convinced me of: I mean, apart from you and your wife-to-be, will anyone know her diamond is VVS1 or VVS2 - or VS1 or VS2 for that matter? Not likely. Unless you broadcast it of course.
If the machine-esque (hand-guided?) finishing is close in quality via loupe to the old school techniques - at a much lower cost…I’ll take it. That said,, I’d have to see the total package…maybe my pride of ownership goals would kick in.🤪
funny enough, someone just sent me this article about de beers' strategy towards lab-grown diamonds (link below)—since it has obvious parallels to watches—and it is not dissimilar to this discussion.
I do agree, to an extent. One distinct memory I have from my first visit to a Swiss watch manufacturer is that the brand kept bragging about how they were still doing many processes in the same way they were 40-60 years ago. It's not hard to observe inefficiencies, and indeed this can be part of the charm, but also: you haven't even tried to find a better way??
https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/de-beers-diamonds-price-lab-grown-468b33ab
Speaking as a trained gemologist, the price of diamonds has been artificially inflated by De Beers for decades. They watched in realtime what Mikimoto did to pearls and reefed to just this side of criminal (mostly) to prevent a similar dilution. De Beers spent more money marketing *against* Ed Zwick's "Blood Diamond" than Warner Brothers spent marketing *for* it.
I can’t read the article behind the paywall…I only subscribe to a select number of online pubs - like yours Tony 😉 how does De Beers respond to lab grown diamonds?
Now I am thinking of another parallel process with charming inefficiencies - bespoke shoemaking! Everyone one suggests 3d modeling and printing to replace the wooden “lasts” wooden hand-carved models of your feet…Some firms are experimenting with new tech as a way to refer back for measurements…but old school makers use / reuse wooden lasts when they stretch and nail leather to create your shoes. Guessing 3D printed lasts wouldn’t hold up - for now!
paid subs get gift WSJ links sometimes...
https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/de-beers-diamonds-price-lab-grown-468b33ab?st=ixRDfm&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
As a side note, De Beers just shut down Lightbox, its lab grown diamond division, subsequent to the collapse in lab grown diamond prices, which sell at a tiny fraction of the price of mined diamonds (whose price has also dropped significantly) https://www.businessoffashion.com/news/luxury/de-beers-closing-diamond-jewellery/
Thanks Tony…
So De Beers is banking on emphasizing rarity, and value retention - among a few other attributes. Sounds like (steel) Rolex!
De Beers is banking on "diamonds they control" vs "diamonds they don't"
Well - hopefully - my diamond buying days are over. I’ll just give my son my 2 cents…when the time comes 😉 maybe I’ll suggest a lab grown diamond paired with an automatic watch with a hand engraved movement!
Once upon a time we were satisfied with hand engraved balance cocks. Now that just isn’t enough, need all our interior angles to receive the expert gentle yet firm touch of human hands to feel truly fulfilled
Great write-up, thank you. Another aspect is that hand-finishing makes a lot of sense in deliberate movement architecture. There is a clarity to what the guys at Armin Strom do, for example. At Watches & Wonders the nice people at Chopard showed me a skeletonized and well-finished LUC. It was a marvel of engineering, but not exactly pretty to look at.
I love Open Work watches. A Logical One from Romain Gauthier is a marvel. The finishing matters, but only when it is visibly poorly done. In his case the watches are beautiful, but I'm there to see the chain, not the angles on the bridge.
yes, well said. the meaning of well-executed, purposeful hand finishing is worth further exploration. finishing for its own sake is less interesting (to me, at least)
SJX was insightful talking about this on his latest podcast; a point he has made before is that there is a raft of time-only independents where the whole point is the hand-finishing (ie there is nothing technically interesting about the movement) and that’s just not that interesting anymore.
It is clearly what the market wants, but it is a different time now than when Dufour did it with the Simplicity (which falls 100% in to the category of good but pretty standard time-only movement beautifully decorated).
I have a lot of sympathy with his view. I’m much more interested in horological innovation than I am in Swiss-style hand-finishing.
There are those who have an eye for artisanal hand finishing, those who can appreciate well crafted machine finishing, and those who feel it at best superfluous and want to be the taste police. I thought it timely and well written. Keep it up Tony!
What are some examples of “other forms of watchmaking” that are at risk to this obsession with hand finishing?
Less focus on technical or engineering side of things, perhaps. Less focus on expression through design.
Great story Tony and a topic I've been thinking about this last year. As someone in this market, there is no doubt that this level of finishing is ‘required’ for low-production independents. But as they continue to raise their prices to $70k plus for time only watches, and this level of finishing becomes more ubiquitous, I wonder how they will be able to justify these prices when that level of finishing no longer stands out. One answer is a shift back to innovative movements and design. I think Berneron strikes the right notes there and others must be pushed in that direction, I'm talking to you Mr. Ferrier!
Pricing is another matter but goes along with this discussion. As prices rise and well-executed finishing becomes more common, it seems natural that watchmakers would look towards movement, design, etc. to stand out.
Thanks Tony; very informative and a pleasure to read as usual!
I still remember a time when in pop culture the “iced out” bling watch was a flex. I wonder if hand finishing has replaced this a bit now since diamonds have become more common and can even be grown in a lab. The flex is now, “Look how many hours of Swiss manual labour I can afford.”
Funny, elsewhere in these comments I linked an article about De Beers’ struggles. And yes, the current trend towards finishing feels like a literal manifesting of an old-school type of luxury, literally paying for human craft.
Huh, I happened to listen to Episode 34 of Hairspring today where Eric and Max track this transition from complication being the zenith (pun intended) of independent watchmaking to finishing taking that crown.
Worth a listen and a nice complement to this great read.
Ah interesting. I need to listen again but this sounds like a similar idea/observation.
A properly poised balance wheel is more important yet totally unappreciated
true!
i suppose we should be glad there’s a race to higher quality. but there’s also a race to higher retail prices.
so many new indies, and none of them seem to have a watch priced below $50k, most of them are above $75k. what’s worse, some of them are not even making their own calibers. this bubble will burst pretty soon, and the only ones that’ll survive are those that do more than just stitching a product together with the help of a rag-tag group of suppliers.