Today we look at a short but furious match between “heavy weights”…. I’ve selected some of the heaviest watches on todays market and boy, they are heavy. The weight is substantial and you could almost use them to train your biceps:
When we think of heavy watches we normally think of tool watches. Brutal heavy-duty machines with an impressive weight. Size seems to matter as well, but not always (read on for further explanation).
Often, tool watches attract us because they (also) symbolize strength. Certain aspects can boost those “body-builder” watches. For example: rough and brushed surfaces, minimalistic lines and a fat tank-like masculine shape. For me, weight is another aspect to mark a watch as a tool watch. But what is the ultimate or ideal weight?
I did some research on several watch related websites (forums) and the discussion about the ideal weight looks like one that never ends. The weight of watches is a difficult and subjective topic, but interesting nevertheless. I always like those discussions. You can be either wrong or right on facts like a reference number, but when it comes down to the more subjective topics like weight there isn’t a wrong or right. Everybody can participate in these discussions with their personal opinion about the topic.
Compared to the past, (ideal) weight has become even more difficult. The introduction of various standardized (case)materials and their properties has introduced more variations and options: titanium, tantalum, carbon, ceramics and tungsten to name some. The use of these (new) materials made comparisons between today’s watches and those of the past almost impossible in terms of weight. Now, you could produce an enormous and massive watch which weights almost less than a Flik Flak…. Personally, I find it a bit strange to have an enormous ‘light-weight’ on the wrist.
What? Watches can also try to loose weight with a diet? Yes, they can! But, they can also can become more ‘fat’. Seriously:
When you replace the stainless steel for titanium you could a 40% weight decrease. An effective watch diet!
Let’s take the Omega Speedmaster Mark II for example. The original Mark II (ref. nr. 145.014) is 14.55mm thick while the newer re-issue (ref. nr. 318.104.22.168.01.001) is boosted till 14.85mm high. Of course this could be necessary because of a bigger movement for example. I don’t know, but the increased height does create a slight more impressive wrist presence. You could say that it suits the time of bigger watches, compared to the release-year (1969) of the original Mark II when “the standard” was a lot smaller.
Let’s keep things compact in this episode and head on to a top 3 line-up of popular heavy-weights*:
* all-in weight per watch, with the standard stainless steel bracelet (no links removed).
The PloProf is winner in terms of weight! For me it’s the ultimate heavyweight watch on todays market. This tank has some impressive specs. To name some: water resistant to 1200 metres (~120 bar), screw-in crown and a bezel security pusher. Robert-Jan did a review of this watch a few years ago (view the review of the PloProf here). Although it is a real super-heavy tank I’m a little more attracted to the 600m predecessor (ref. nr. 166.077). Maybe because of the monobloc case which adds a bit more robustness to looks of the casing. Also, the addition of shiny borders around the indices to the newer model feels a bit odd and unnecessary on a watch which breaths functionalism and toughness. A comparison review between the original PloProf 600 and the current 1200M can be found here.
Of course the above top 3 is just an example of my on- and offline search. What is your top 3 of “heavy-weights”? Do you have a golden rule on the weight of watches? We love to hear from you! Please leave your comments below. See you next time.
Teun van Heerebeek is contributor and visual artist to Fratello Watches. With his Watches & Pencils illustrations and other articles he likes to explore the vast watch-lands in all its diversity. His love for watches mainly originates from his eye... read more