Fratello Talks: The Definition Of A Dress Watch (Lex And Thomas Got Into A Fight)

What exactly is a dress watch and can a sportswatch actually function as one?

December 29, 2022

comments 24

This is only episode six or seven of Fratello Talks, and it’s already the second time we find ourselves talking dress watches. It’s clearly a hot topic, especially when Lex and Thomas get involved. It all started when Thomas chose his Omega Seamaster from the fifties as his go-to “dress watch.” Lex was stunned! How can a watch originally designed for water-based activities be considered a dress watch? Well, that’s exactly what today’s podcast episode is all about.

Wrist check

But before we let the guys in opposite corners fight this one out, let’s first check what’s on their wrists. And let’s start with Daan, today’s mediator/referee. He’s wearing his Oris Art Blakey, which for him fulfills the role of being the main dress watch in his collection. Lex is wearing the Timor Heritage Field ATP on a dark brown Bund strap. Not exactly dressy, but a mighty fine combination! Finally, Thomas is wearing his misprinted Omega Speedmaster from the seventies. It’s now on a period-correct bracelet, but on the right strap, this could very well pass as a dress watch, right? Well, that’s exactly the question we’re discussing today.

That’s no dress watch!

Brands might have a certain segment in mind when designing a watch. But we, the customers, might wear those watches on totally different occasions. In the end, it’s whatever the owner does with the watch that counts. Well, not in Lex’s book! For him, a dress watch should at least be made out of precious metal; otherwise, it doesn’t count. And if possible, there should only be two hands, one for hours, one for minutes, and none for the running seconds. To Thomas and (the not-so-objective referee) Daan, this is all of less importance. As long as the watch slips under the cuff and looks a little more formal, it can perfectly pass as a dress watch.

Besides, the times we actually need to dress up have decreased substantially (especially during the pandemic). So sometimes, putting a sports watch on a leather strap is enough to make it look more formal. But listen to today’s podcast and see where you stand on the topic. Are you more of a dress watch purist like Lex? Or are you more like Thomas and Daan, who think a nice leather strap is enough to make you feel more dressed up? Let us know in the comments below!

Home
Watch Brands
Omega
Oris
Timor
Fratello Talks: The Definition Of A Dress Watch (Lex And Thomas Got Into A Fight)

Read next latest →

Slipping On The Double-Denim Patek Philippe Duo World Time Date 5330G And Nautilus Self-Winding Chronograph 5980/60G

Lex Stolk

Fratello Talks: Swatch Group Novelties From The Watch Valley Event In Utrecht

Nacho Conde Garzón

Introducing: The Orient Star M34 F8 Date With A Dial Pattern Inspired By Meteor Showers

Thor Svaboe

24 Comments

Leave a comment... Join the conversation

Post with fratello account
Login

Don't have an account yet?
Create one here, it'll only take 20 seconds

Gabe says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 06:27

Looking at the time period and dress codes when the rules about dress watches were established points to a certain irrelevance in today’s world excepting certain rare instances like Black Tie or White Tie formal events.

Considering the rarity of those instances for the vast majority of “dress” watch consumers, one could argue that the rules are utterly outmoded and irrelevant and have been for the better part of a century.

Does a dress watch need to be made in precious metal? Why? What is the basis of this requirement other than a mechanism for exclusion based on class?

Why should a dress watch be two-hand only? What about a seconds sundial or center seconds hand or date window is in the least manner intrusive or abhorrent to the setting in which a dress watch can or should be used?

Rules without logical justification are arbitrary and often capricious.

Should dress watches fit well under a shirtsleeve? Yes.

Should dress watches match a dress-level and occasion? Sure, in so much as those exist today. Would you wear a Urwerk with a formal suit? While I would not, others more sartorially bold might have no issues.

We silly humans with our need to categorize, define, and put everything into boxes need only look at the evolution (devolution) of fashion over the past 70-90 years to see how profoundly silly it is to adhere to a strict dress standard that hasn’t been applicable to 99% of consumers 99.999% of the time.

Let’s enjoy our watches, we silly primates.

Reply
EB
EDDI2142 says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 09:09

Very civilised beef you had there 😀
I agree with Thomas, as long as the watch fits the role of a dress watch (f.ex. JLC Reverso, 50s Seamaster), it’s good to go.
As I’ve mentioned before (I think it was a comment on the previous podcast about dress watches), I also think that the James Bond look (i.e. toolwatch and suit) works really well for less formal situations and I would only refrain wearing that combo for dinner parties/ formal aperitifs etc.
Ultimately the watch should not take all the attention, which it usually doesn’t when the combination of clothes and watch is well chosen.

Reply
1. Rolf_F. says:
  
  Dec 29, 2022 at 10:08
  
  “should not take all the attention” – this sounds like a legit definition of a dress watch. All other definitions (size, material, etc) should be questioned to that quote.
  
  Reply
JH
Conor Whitworth says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 09:32

Here in the UK we don’t actually have any trains that you can actually commute on.
Problem solved.

Reply
Andrew says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 09:36

For me, dress watch means well under 10mm thick, small (36mm or less), even better a rectangular or tonneau shape, no date, and either 2 hands only, or a small running seconds.
Dress means you’re out to enjoy yourself, time doesn’t matter, or at least it doesn’t matter to the latest second, elegance and unobtrusiveness comes first; the watch is only there to tell you it’s time for dinner or its time to call a taxi (to the nearest hour or so) and otherwise the watch should be unnoticeable as it’s not important…
For me, something showy, large, with date and seconds, says you’ve got a different agenda….

Reply
Christiaan van Deur says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 10:21

Getting technical a watch shouldn’t be worn in formal occasions. Now, as what passes as “dress” have blurred over the years to allow a person to wear almost anything so have watch wearing etiquette. So, with that wear what you wish, but for me dress means classic styling of a simple and elegant time only piece.

Reply
pechen28 says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 10:31

I consider the concept of dress watch to be rather strange (and irrelevant). When we think of dress watches we think of times past where everyone dressed up everyday. In those times, however, the “rules” regarding dress watches were probably not in place because almost every watch was a dress watch in today’s terms. It is only with the arrival of dedicated sports watches that the categorization of watches has started.

I am pretty sure that a Seamaster in the 40s or 50s was used as a dress watch (in our modern understanding). It seems highly unlikely to me that someone who owned a Seamaster had a seperate watch just for a few dressy occasions.

So in the end “dress watch” is a modern term that is used as if it was an old concept (which it isn’t). So the term is not “outdated”, in my opinion, but was never relevant (and used) in the first place.

If we want to use the category, the most important aspect for me is size (and thinness). Thus, while I love the design of the JLC Master line, for me they are much too large to be considered a dress watch (the same goes for the 39mm Calatravas and, unfortuneately, many other beautiful watches). Apart from that, a leather strap might be considered a requirement. Whether a watch has a running seconds or a date is, for me, completely irrelevant to the concept of a dress watch. Are there really people who believe you should buy a seperate watch for dressy occasions because your yellow gold Calatrave has a running seconds? That seems ludicrous to me.

Reply
Angelos says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 10:46

I think this discussion can be kept very short. A Brabus or AMG tuned Mercedes E class remains a limousine, and will never be a sports car. It is the manufacturer who defines the essence of a product, and no matter how much the user “tunes” it, it remains that. You can put the most expensive and luxurious leather strap on a dive watch, it remains a diver watch

Reply
DG
GoldenYears says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 10:53

Personally, I don’t get into the weeds when it comes to defining watch categories. I have my own definitions of watch categories. As long as it looks and feels good, I wear what I want to wear and not worry about categories.

Reply
CM
Christian MICHEL says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 14:19

Come on Guy’s you are mistreating the rules in Watches an Watchmaking…
None of these is a Dress-Watch…

Dress Watch has to be in Gold or Platinum, has to be as flat as possible, ans there is no need of Date and Second

Reply
SJ
Sidge says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 17:34

I hope Lex’s dress watch slips neatly under the cuff of his brown shirt.

I like the idea of the watch as “performance” piece. Because it is. When we wear a certified dive watch with no intent of getting anywhere near water, we’re wearing it as performance – costume. Those who are privileged enough to wear precious metals do so because of the way it makes them feel. For all we know (or care) their white gold could be stainless. But they know it’s precious (a telling word) and it makes them feel good. Once more, men, being men, get so caught up in the hard details and rules that they lose sight of the fact that their watch is essentially costume, despite the work the watch might be designed to do. A man who wears a watch is performing, pretending, posing. The more complications, the greater the expense, the bigger the pose. And there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s fun because of how it makes one feel. So why insist on dictating what makes a dress watch?

I’m with Daan and Thomas. I would never let a watch maker (or any watch wearer) tell me what role my watch should play, especially based on the maker’s original intent or the words on the watch face.

Reply
James Bardolph says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 18:23

Firstly, thank you so much for these Fratello talks – I listen to both but this is a great addition!

Funnily enough my girly was riding her son’s bicycle and fell off it and scratched up her Reverso Grand Taille – we went to the boutique store in London to enquire about a polish and the person in the store said she should not wear it for sports activities! We looked at each other with a smirk.

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 29, 2022 at 22:38
  
  Thanks, and that’s a weird answer from the boutique indeed
  
  Reply
  1. MM
    Michael Mable says:
    
    Dec 30, 2022 at 18:28
    
    … especially when you consider that the original purpose of the Reverso was as a sports watch – for playing polo (according to JLC’s own promotional material).
    
    Reply
RP
Robert says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 18:38

Love the discussion. Lex and Tom…. Great fan of both of you. Lex, the Omega Seamaster City Edition New York City looks like a dress watch. Keep in mind it’s a Seamaster. I know you defined Seamaster as a sports / divers watch. This particular timepiece, I use it as a sports and dress watch. Hope you can do a review on this one.

Reply
TY
Tshark Dallas Tx USA says:

Dec 29, 2022 at 18:59

If we are drawn to mechanical watches because of their centuries of heritage, we should respect the rules of a dress watch.
For formal occasions a- precious metal time only watch on a Croc or lizard strap.

Reply
KANON MINASE says:

Dec 30, 2022 at 08:04

Just my 2 cents, 2022 now days, there shoul not be any styreotype on so called ‘dress watch’ . May I call it an old day’s defination. Since 1995 in movie Golden Eye, James Bond had alreay wear a seamaster(absolutely sporty) with tuxedo or suit, not any Incongruous I felt with that combination.
Or just take look at VC’s overseas, changing belt to fit different scence, however case itself was definated as ‘sporty’.
Covid-19 has made us washing hands more, everyone take more careless on washing when wear belt, traditional dress watch nowdays become more inconvenience, precious metals ( Gold, Pt) are weak on scratching, leather is weak on water, sunshine and sweat, there are reasons why traditional dress watch is becoming more unpopular, for our lifestyle is chaging.

Reply
Nathan Weber says:

Dec 30, 2022 at 16:35

To me smooth bezel vintage Seamaster is definitely a dress watch.
It’s not because a watch has a particular name or water resistance that it’s no longer a dress watch.
Take Nomos for example, for of their watches I consider dress watches have 200m water resistance.

To me a dress watch is something that is thin, goes under the cuff, that doesn’t look rugged.

Reply
Nathan Weber says:

Dec 30, 2022 at 16:43

May there should be two categories: dress watches and tuxedo watches

Reply
1. GN
  Chronologer says:
  
  Dec 31, 2022 at 06:20
  
  By the old standards, only a pocket watch should be worn with a tuxedo. But I disagree and often pair a dressy (not sporty) wristwatch with it. Then there is 007…
  
  Reply
aa
aleemmahmad says:

Jan 01, 2023 at 08:02

As long as the watch slips under the cuff, has a leather strap and few if any complications it is a dress watch for me. The JLC ultra thin Moon is a great example and my favorite dress watch…

Reply
Lorenzo A. says:

Jan 01, 2023 at 15:32

I have an 1966 Omega De Ville in steel with central seconds hand and in the back there is the hippocampus symbol and is described as “waterproof”: it was my father’s watch and obviously I have a strong attachment to it.
I have always considered it a dress watch but I wonder now if, based on Lex’s definition, this is maybe a tool watch …

Reply
Francois says:

Jan 08, 2023 at 15:12

If we take the very restrictive view, the Cartier Santos and the UG Polerouter are also not dress watches as they were designed as pilot watches. And still they (can) tick probably all the boxes of dress watches. No date, small, slim, precious metal, understated, elegant, even no seconds for some Santos.

To me this is proof that we need a more fluid approach. In end effect it is all about style. Does the style fit the most formal events and outfits. If yes, this is a dress watch. Most people do not have a clue about the origin of those watches, their initial purposes and characteristics, and they of course don’t care but if they have taste they may have a view on how your watch fits your outfit and the moment.

In conclusion it’s not any watch that can be a dress watch but there are many watches out there especially if vintage – without that being a sufficient condition – that can be dress watches.

Reply
Chris says:

Feb 27, 2023 at 15:08

Why would a dress watch need to be precious metal? Neither I nor my wife like precious metals. I own a Grand Seiko SGBW231, and my wife owns a Cartier Tank in steel, and anyone who tries to tell me they are not dress watches can kiss my hairy white ass. It’s not even about price. I just have a preference for steel because it’s harder and lighter than gold, so it just wears more comfortable.

The vintage Seamaster with the crosshair dial works very well as a dressy piece when you put it on a black strap, but I do agree with Lex that it’s not a dress watch per se. But it’s not down to the seconds hand. Again: I don’t enjoy watches where I don’t see a (small) seconds indicator running, so I won’t buy ‘m.

So while I agree that the world would benefit from more elegant dressing, mainly because it’s beautiful, but the pointless snobbery about the seconds hand and the precious metals just reduces it to an absurd statement.

Reply