Why Do We Cling To The Evergreens From Brands Like Rolex, Omega, JLC, And Cartier?

I tried to stay away from the usual suspects, but still I ended up with a classic quartet

December 05, 2022

comments 51

I really tried to stay off the beaten track when putting together my current watch collection. And yes, I definitely have a few watches that you don’t see every day, but last week, I added the Rolex Explorer to the stable. Then, I looked at my watch box, and I realized something — I am a total sucker for the typical classics. Why is it so damn hard to avoid those evergreens?

I now refer to them as my classic quartet — the current Omega Speedmaster Professional, the JLC Reverso Classic Medium Duoface, the Cartier Santos Galbée XL, and the Rolex Explorer ref. 114270. And maybe my 38mm Blancpain Bathyscaphe and the Seiko SPB317 should also be part of that classic lineup. But especially those first four, at least in my eyes, are such iconic pieces. It’s almost boring to bring them to any watch meetup because everyone has probably already seen them multiple times. I mean, they’re great watches, and I feel lucky to have them in my collection, but there are so many great watches out there. Why go for the usual suspects?

Timeless designs

I think a few factors come into play here. The first one is the design of these classics. To me, they all are very attractive, and their designs have certainly stood the test of time. The Santos was one of Cartier’s first wristwatches at the beginning of the 20th century. The Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso’s design basically hasn’t changed since its introduction in the 1930s. Similarly, the current Omega Speedmaster Professional looks almost identical to the Speedmasters from the ’60s. Furthermore, the design of my Rolex Explorer has been around since 1989 and was even brought back last year with a few minor (though important) tweaks.

So yes, these watches are very attractive, which is important if you wear a watch all day, every day. But apart from that, their designs are also utterly timeless. This is crucial for an object that could outlive anyone on Earth and will likely be handed down to future generations. And I buy my watches with the intent to keep them, not to sell them. In that case, I’d better get a watch that I almost certainly won’t get tired of after the honeymoon period ends. In this light, the attractive and timeless design of these evergreens is a critical aspect.

The hall of fame

But another thing that I think is also important here is their fame. Over time, these watches have claimed a kind of superstar status. All of them have a cool origin story. For the Santos, it all started with early aviation, and the model was, in essence, the first pilot’s wristwatch. The Reverso, with its signature revolving case, was supposedly designed for polo players to protect their watch crystals during games. The Explorer was a tribute to mankind’s conquest of the highest mountain on Earth, and the Speedmaster was and still is being worn in space. I know that some people feel these stories are a bit exploited, but somewhere in the back of my head, they do still matter to me.

And the fact that these watches have been around for so long also means that they are recognized all over the world. Of course, I like to be unique in a way, but I also very much enjoy the familiarity around these icons. Wearing one causes people to notice the watch and start telling stories about their own experiences. Basically, these watches are very good conversation starters, and if there’s one thing I love besides collecting watches, it’s talking about them with other people. And those people don’t even have to be watch collectors like me. In any case, the stories behind these iconic pieces and others’ connections to them add another dimension to the ownership experience.

Well-built machines

The third important factor is quality — incredibly high quality. It doesn’t matter which of these four watches you pick up; each one feels like it was very well made. Yes, even though the Explorer has a folded clasp and hollow center links, it still feels like a high-quality product almost 20 years after it was produced. The same goes for the Santos, which has one of the best bracelets on the market and fantastic finishing on its svelte but sturdy case. And although the Reverso feels like the most fragile of the four, I have yet to detect any signs of play in its swiveling mechanism.

And when it comes to the Speedy, what can I say? If it can survive a trip into space, I guess I won’t have to worry about it at all here on Earth (except maybe when I’m around deeper waters). But especially on the new bracelet, it feels like an outstanding product, and that’s something I greatly appreciate when I put any one of these four watches on my wrist. Simply put, they all just feel great, time and time again. But that quality comes at a price, of course, and that brings us to the fourth important aspect — value.

Value retention

At first, I was going to say “value for money”. But that’s a term often used for more affordable watches or products in general. These four icons are clearly luxury watches, and as such, they come at a luxury price. Yes, they’re expensive, but what I do appreciate is that they all tend to retain their value quite well. That’s especially true if you can make a good deal at an authorized dealer or on the pre-owned market. If you had to, you could sell them for close to the purchase price and basically wear these watches for free. And in some cases, you can even make a profit. As I said, I buy watches with the intent to keep them, not to flip them and make money. But still, to me, it’s reassuring to know that these watches will hold their value in the long run.

Final thoughts

To summarize, there are four important factors that I think played a critical role in my decision to add these four evergreens to my collection. First of all, of course, is their attractive designs and the timeless nature of them. Second, there’s the fact that these watches almost certainly spark a conversation in any situation because of their superstar status. Third, I think that these watches show some of the highest standards of build quality in the industry. And finally, it is nice to know that my money won’t be going down the drain if I have to sell them later on.

This is a personal reflection, yes, but I suspect that these factors play a part in the decisions of other watch enthusiasts too. What do you think? Why do you go for the evergreens and not for something a bit more unique? Let me know in the comments below!

You can also find and follow me on Instagram: @fliptheparrot

Home
Watch Brands
Cartier
Jaeger-LeCoultre
Omega
Rolex
Why Do We Cling To The Evergreens From Brands Like Rolex, Omega, JLC, And Cartier?

Read next latest →

A Conversation With A Neo-Vintage Breitling Collector

Robert-Jan Broer

Sunday Morning Showdown: Grand Seiko SLGW003 “Birch Bark” Vs. Chopard L.U.C XPS Forest Green

Grand Seiko

Chopard

Atelier Wen Makes Watches In Geneva And Shows Off Tantalum

Michael Stockton

51 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

brooklyn_boy says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 16:10

Congrats on the new addition to your collection!
A very interesting article. Most of us don’t buy watches based on what will generate most interest at a collector meet-up (or IG for that matter). We pick a watch we can wear and enjoy and will compliment our personal style.

And unless you’ve owned and worn the classics, you’re always going to wonder what it would be like to have one. And when most people do finally get a classic model, they learn right away that classics are classics for a reason.

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:29
  
  Thanks, that’s a good addition indeed, you kinda want to know what it’s like to own one. And indeed, they’re good!
  
  Reply
DG
GoldenYears says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 16:45

Hi Daan,
I also tend to buy the classic, iconic, and well-known watches for all the reasons you mentioned. It hasn’t always been that way and I’ve bought more than my share of clunkers and duds. Watches are a part of fashion so they go out of style quickly. In my opinion, it’s best to stay with the timeless classics. There are so many beautiful watches out there today that it takes a lot of discipline and willpower to stay the course.

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:30
  
  Exactly, I often try to say I’m allergic to new releases, but it’s hard to resist 😉
  
  Reply
  1. DG
    GoldenYears says:
    
    Dec 06, 2022 at 11:51
    
    Yes, indeed.
    
    Reply
DM
TacoPants says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 17:04

I think it is very helpful to own and wear “the classics” because it gives you a lens through which to understand watches in general. The classics are such for a reason, and it’s not just marketing. They are each design masterpieces that work so well on the wrist that they earned the right to keep existing in very close to unaltered form for decades. Sure they might be “boring” because they are ubiquitous… but as watches to actually wear every day, they are hard to beat. I love more interesting and obscure watches, but when it comes to a trip where I only want to take one watch, it always ends up being a classic. They simply work incredibly well in practice, not just in theory or as collectible objects

Reply
1. Enuona says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 00:50
  
  A statement like “Keep the backbone of your collection classic, and have fun exploring and trading the rest?” might be appropriate?
  
  Reply
  1. D.deGreaut says:
    
    Dec 06, 2022 at 10:32
    
    Sounds like a follow-up article right there 😉
    
    Reply
    1. Enuona says:
      
      Dec 06, 2022 at 12:17
      
      Thanks, that theme could easily keep you busy until you retire 😉
      
      …but a philosophy of “keep only the best, play with the rest” would indeed make sense to me.
      
      Reply
Carlos says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 17:12

timeless design:
– speedmaster
– submariner nodate
– cartier tank louis cartier (not that bulky modern santos thing)
– patek calatrava

hall of fame
a lot there, but not all in the same realm and which HOF is meant? So, one can ignore that, as timeless goes into HOF, too, anyway.

well-built? value-retention? yeah, whatever. every better watch is well built. value-retention is a marketing result.

subjective? Yep, sure that is. For the fun sake.

Reply
1. Ghost Dog says:
  
  Dec 05, 2022 at 18:10
  
  I have the very same watches except for the PP Calatrava, I chose the IWC Portuguese Chronograph instead, for the same reason: timeless design.
  
  Reply
2. orangespoon says:
  
  Dec 05, 2022 at 22:10
  
  Timeline: Santos created first
  
  Reply
Cavscout123 says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 17:31

The great thing about buying classics (like my Rolex Explorer or even my Pelagos FXD) is that I know, for the most part, that they have been around long enough to benefit from extensive real-world use. It is great to know that the watch has had enough refining to ensure it will work under most circumstances. I have bought newly designed watches in the past, and I have had issues with them working under harsh conditions. Some have broken in the field, which is a bummer and a liability. The established watches bring with them a piece of mind that newer designs can’t quite match.

The other factor is that they have set the aesthetic standards we have come to accept for these objects, and it is difficult to look at different designs with the same appreciation. A Blancpain or Seiko “Willard-Esque” diver or Explorer fits what many expect a watch to look like. That plays a big part in the joy we get from wearing them.

Great article. Keep it up. And if you know where someone can get one of those Seikos from a dealer in the U.S., please let me know. I have been looking, but I can’t find one.

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:34
  
  Cheers, it does feel comforting to put one of those classics on your wrist indeed, peace of mind!
  
  Reply
Enuona says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 17:34

A lot of excellent watches never becomes classics, and there tends to be reasons for that.

Therefore I’d like to flip the coin: I’d argue one doesn’t need to defend choosing classics, one should have a good reason not to 😉

I’d argue it’s much more likely that a watch that keeps on being presented with a new colour of the day will drift into obscurity, than those being conservative. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it, and they may be the very best. But they don’t become classics or icons. For good reason. To prove myself wrong: Patek Philippe Nautilus Tiffany 😉

It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with pricepoint or luxury either. Have learned through the grapevine that certain Timex fieldwatches could be construed as classics, but I might be wrong…….

Reply
DK
Ayreonaut says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 17:36

I usually go for something more unique – great watches that are underrated. But I have and enjoy an Omega Diver I bought years ago. One nice thing is the availability of aftermarket fitted rubber straps!

Reply
Dave says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 17:45

We don’t buy the classics because they’re classics, we buy them for the reasons that made them classics: build quality, timeless design and versatility.

Reply
Andrew says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 18:00

One has to be careful about the word “we”. This watch site and blog is attracting a subset of the general watch buying public and it’s unreliable to extrapolate from a small subset to the general population. So, the authors and readers on this site may well tend to gravitate towards certain brands, but that’s not an indication that the general public does.
For myself, I certainly don’t. Those brands you mention are nowadays luxury brands where the price charged bears no relation to the actual manufacturing costs. For myself, I increasingly trend towards micro brands or nice vintage. The value offering tends to be much better, and some of the modern micro brands are far more innovatory in terms of styling. The movements inside may be off the shelf ebauches, but who cares? They keep time well enough and are easy and cheap to fix. I’m nowadays far more interested in what the watch looks like than what engine is inside, provided it works well enough. And when it comes to styling, there is a lot of exciting innovation outside those brands you mention.

Reply
1. Robert-Jan says:
  
  Dec 05, 2022 at 20:43
  
  Well, not entirely. We discussed this topic during our editorial meeting in the office and also had a look at the models that get most demand on Chrono24. With over 100 million page views a month, hardly a subset anymore. Instead, I would say that micro brands are still a subset of the watch audience.
  
  Reply
2. dr
  JakobR says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 05:18
  
  Value is completely subjective as is the perception of what constitutes innovation as I invite you to show me a a micro brand or any watch that is more innovative than say the apple watch. In that regard I’d say it makes any analog watch pretty much obsolete be it a micro brand or an ultra complicated Patek.
  All to say rather than try and convince us with a lot of words that your choices are superior to the author’s why not just be happy and let others do the same. Cheers.
  
  Reply
3. Enuona says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:16
  
  I do like the concept of microbrands. At their “normal” pricepoints, they offer great value.
  
  I do however believe they collectively are running out of steam as far as design innovation concerned. They are at a threshold where they either have to repeat themselves or make odd choices in terms of colours and so on. The problem seems to be that they cannot (or will not) stick to their best designs, and at some point all these changes of design turns into regression.
  
  My impression is that quite many microbrands are driven by the desire to design new watches, and that they don’t stop when they have made something really good. No. They’ll change it. Because they want to design watches, and because that’s the main thing. Further, some of their great work are sold as limited editions, and they therefore have to change the design (for the worse) if they want to profit by selling more of the successful iteration.
  
  There are not that many microbrands that changes their modus and becomes focused on taking their work to their next level by small incremental improvements. No. Most of them keeps on designing at the same level, and the designs regresses.
  
  Those who choose incremental improvements are eventually becoming mainstream, with their watches increasingly similar to the bulk of fairly good/great stuff from any other mainstream manufacturer. Because good is good and bad is bad irrespective of brand.
  
  They deserve quite a bit of credit, e.g. by widespread use of titanium. And there are microbrands that have changed the perspective. Like Studio Underd0g with their humoristic, colourful and fun approach – using a chinese movement that will intrigue anyone who want something special at a budget. There are probably more microbrands doing this, but they are the only ones I’m aware of who have successfully made frequent changes in (dial) design a real, proper feature, that makes the brand.
  
  As far as movements concerned, most microbrands are more or less at the same level, and may struggle if they move a step or two up the ladder. I’d say accuracy is rather important as far as watches concerned, and some microbrands could really benefit from picking the somewhat better alternatives within the ranges they are using.
  
  I really would have liked it if microbrands shifted focus to become more about incremental improvements of their best designs rather than reinventing the wheel over and over again, because when they do that, there will be regressions. And microbrands cannot afford regressions.
  
  Reply
  1. MB
    MarkB says:
    
    Dec 06, 2022 at 11:00
    
    There’s a lot of truth in that. If you look at the microbrands that are doing well and those which have made the leap up to independent manufacturer level, there’s been a continuous honing of successful products, including improvements in movements, bracelets, build quality and finishing. Zelos, with their adoption of LJP movements to turn the Swordfish into the Spearfish are a great example of that. It’s why movement and other parts manufacturers increasing the performance and quality of their products is so important to the industry.
    
    Reply
    1. Enuona says:
      
      Dec 06, 2022 at 12:13
      
      Basically all true. They add diversity which is great, and they are nibbling the lower middle of products from the large brands, which have forced the larger brands to sharpen up their performance in order not to loose out. I’d say they have caused a reduction in crap from the major brands, and hopefully that continues.
      
      By taking a different perspective they have delivered different looks.
      
      Mainly I believe they have entirely modernised the fieldwatch segment, and I believe that’s important because that segment has been kind of chained by it’s own history.
      
      I believe the microbrands reinvented that segment by e.g. unlocking the size constraints, extensive use of titanium which is functionally very useful in this segment, and by making them way more legible for practical purposes they actually are intended for. Many classic fieldwatches are indeed good looking, but as far as practical usage concerned they are fairly (that’s me being very polite) outdated.
      
      Reply
      1. MB
        MarkB says:
        
        Dec 06, 2022 at 19:49
        
        Boldr and RZE in particular. Formex make a nice one too, albeit at a slightly higher price.
        
        Reply
        
        Enuona says:
        
        Dec 06, 2022 at 23:23
        
        Not sure where they fit in the history of titanium microbrands, thus it might be that these crossed my path at the right time and I therefore (possibly wrongly) assume those were pioneering a certain level of quality and popularised this segment.
        
        If I am right, those will still not become iconic because they are not consistent in their design, of dials/hands in particular. Instead of sharpening they have blurred their design language and are moving here, there and everywhere. They haven’t settled, but I do believe they’ve had opportunity to do so at a point. If they are not tight and consistent, they will never approach a low level of iconic status.
        
        Reply
Fizzuks says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 18:06

Loved this article and your thoughts on it. I too think about the evergreen loves people have in watches and while I have one in my collection (Polar 16570) I also look to find versions of the iconic watches that are just a little bit….different. Rather than buy the new (or even the last gen) speedmaster, I picked up the 2018 Basilworld CK2998 with the Pulsometer. I would love a reverso, but I want the tribute to 1931 with the black dial and only Reverso text. I try to find the little ways to have an icon, with a twist.

Reply
1. Enuona says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 01:11
  
  I do believe Speedmaster is rather educational for fresh collectors in particular, as they always have the basemodels as a rather conservative backbone to measure all variations up against? Great for getting a grip on what separates the good from the great and so on? I noted the Alaska tribute for sale in my home market last week and it didn’t stay available for long, a snap and it was gone. I could easily perceive that one as a first walk off the pavement, but I’ll should probably get to the pavement first 😉
  
  Reply
dr
JakobR says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 18:20

Great collection, but even better article as it probably most accurately portrays the inclinations of many of the readers (and contributors) of this site. Meaning, it is not a VERSUS as many articles are set up to be click bait and provoke comments but rather a celebration of one’s watch COLLECTION which in the end is a reflection of one’s own personal values which admittedly may evolve over time. More of these please.

Reply
1. AF
  Freeza says:
  
  Dec 05, 2022 at 21:46
  
  Yup,here is to less wankers (in the comments) telling people what they should be thinking and should be wearing and more reflection on why people chose the watches they did.
  Hint there is always more than one correct answer!!!
  
  Reply
1Gav1 says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 19:07

A damn fine collection. As you say, these are classics that have stood the test of time – I find myself gravitating towards the evergeens in the same way.

Reply
MB
MarkB says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 19:21

These watches, although very nice, are a little rich for my relatively small watch allowance. It’d be interesting to read an article on watches deemed to be iconic yet cost under £1k. Turtle? Classic Square? Murph?

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:38
  
  Good idea, I’ll put it on my list!
  
  Reply
Warky says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 21:09

It’s nice to have some “classics” in the collection – but it would be boring as hell if that was all you had….

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:38
  
  Very true indeed!
  
  Reply
RB
Chronogiraffe says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 21:51

10 days ago I was looking at my own collection and made many of the same considerations as you just described. Ultimately, I ended up with the conclusion that I “only” had classic safe bets and I needed to spice up this part of my life. As I have always been an admirer of the GO Sea-Q 39.5 mm with the black dial and the odd sized numbers I decided to make a swap when an opportunity came. Good-bye to my brand new Speedmaster Hesalite which was the one in my collection I was wearing the least. (Probably not a popular Fratello move 😉 )

Reply
1. D.deGreaut says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 10:39
  
  Oh wow, interesting swap! Both great watches though, how are you feeling about it now?
  
  Reply
  1. RB
    Chronogiraffe says:
    
    Dec 06, 2022 at 15:17
    
    I still feel really good with the decision, and now 2 weeks into the honeymoon-phase it has also made me realize that I have a weird crush on watches showing the date (probably why I didn’t use the Speedmaster as much as I would have loved to). I still miss the bracelet on the speedy though – that comfort and look is amazing and the taper made it a great fit for my 17 cm wrist.
    
    I haven’t tried the the GO bracelet yet – but at almost 2500€ retail price I will probably have to enjoy the fabric strap for a little while.
    
    Reply
2. AF
  Freeza says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 12:50
  
  Nice choice. Love G.O.
  
  Reply
RP
robertpeterman says:

Dec 05, 2022 at 22:52

Great article. This is absolutely a perfect collection. Yes, the four in this article are definitely timeless designs. They will be with us for many decades.

Reply
KD
Kim007 says:

Dec 06, 2022 at 06:22

While I appreciate the attraction for classic watches, just can’t bring myself to purchasing one. The road less traveled always attracts me. Cars, watches, vacations, everything.

Classic watches have stories already written. Prefer quality watches not living off the past and not ubiquitous. Snobbery? No. Just enjoy owning watches on few wrists with unfinished stories. Sure, some watches in my collection may never be classics. Don’t care.

Reply
jh
James H says:

Dec 06, 2022 at 11:02

Speedmaster, Oyster, Submariner, Santos, Reverso, Tank, Calatrava (RIP), Royal Oak, G-Shock Square, Tuna… Classic never goes out of fashion (or production). A real problem for brands that can’t boast one. These innovative ‘greats’ have much to offer enthusiasts, newbies and not least, their manufacturers. They both transcend and anchor their respective brands and define direction. Manufacturers can still riff on a theme and these core classics have spawned whole ranges and innumerable special editions to keep us happy. Of course, ‘classic’ implies longevity and most of these watches are at least 50, some near 100. But classics are be being born today (in addition to many ‘really nice watches’), so what do we think? A good article? For my penneth, I humbly submit the GS Snowflake.

Reply
1. MB
  MarkB says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 13:12
  
  The BB58 would be another.
  
  Reply
2. JC
  Rouxbix says:
  
  Dec 06, 2022 at 13:56
  
  For sure. Or maybe any Spring Drive with textured dial and Zaratsu polish. I know there are a lot of them, and that may be an argument against, but it’s hard to image a true collector wouldn’t at least consider adding one to their collection given the quality finishing and innovation. Mine is the Skyflake. I own several of the classics listed in the article and comments, I love them all, but I’m not sure any of them are more pleasing on the wrist than the GS.
  
  Submission: Tudor Pelagos, BB or Chrono? Tissot PRX?
  
  Reply
MG
maciej-g says:

Dec 06, 2022 at 12:05

An interesting analysis… what makes icons icons. Because not all of the mentioned qualities apply equally to all those four watches.

What does “timeless design” means…? Something that looks equally good at any time in history, transcends fashion? I believe it applies to the Omega and Rolex but not necessarily to the other two…. Reverso’s Art Deco hasn’t proven very timeless, and the Santos design is also quite old-fashioned. And yet they stood the test of time. The Speedmaster is truly timeless, very simple, monochrome, yet interesting with many details to look at. The Rolex is very simple and actually quite boring visually (though purposeful), which kind of also makes it timeless.

Their histories is a key ingredient for their status indeed… yet the Rolex story is easily the weakest here. The Speedmaster hasn’t been made “ to honour” space exploration, the Santos to “honour” early aviation, the Reverso to “honour” polo… compared to the other three Explorer has no story.

The quality is an absolute must—no crap product achieves cult status. And that’s what all four provide…

Value is a result of the first three.

Reply
SB
S.M.B says:

Dec 06, 2022 at 23:09

I love the “classics” with a bit of a twist. I bought the 39mm Explorer because it is different and same with my black dial Marlin.

Reply
RV
ralfybaby says:

Dec 07, 2022 at 03:57

Wind up watches are obsolete by design. They have been superseded by quartz, cellphones and smart watches. Yet we still yearn for them, like we do for classic cars, motorcycles, even clothes and shoes. They connect us to a time where you had to read a map, remember a phone number, read a paper newspaper and book a flight at the travel agent downtown.

Little wonder it is that we love the designs from the “golden age” the most.

Daan needs a Zenith El Primero 😆

Reply
MG
maciej-g says:

Dec 07, 2022 at 08:38

Having reflected on this a bit I think if I was to choose a one and only watch it would probably be the current Speedmaster Professional. It’s history combined with the simplicity and timelessness of the design and versatility make it somewhat of horology condensed. However it’s not the most practical one without the date (yes, I use it a lot) and medium water resistance…. So an alternative chronograph could be the IWC Pilot 41 (i wish it came with a black dial, not the shiny blue). Or, a do-it-all, simple, understated, beautiful Grand Seiko (few references come to mind…).

Reply
1. Warky says:
  
  Dec 08, 2022 at 09:30
  
  If I was only allowed one watch it would be my Antarctique.
  
  Dumps on every other watch I own and is actually incredibly versatile with its robust construction and easy change bracelet/strap system.
  
  I couldn’t care less about the “history” of a watch if I am only allowed one. From Santos to Moonwatch, Submariner to Reverso, these are all modern recreations of historic pieces that look like the original…..but aren’t it.
  
  In a collection of course it is very nice to have them. But if you only have one watch it needs to be good at absolutely everything and none of the above are. Whether it is water resistance, lack of date, how it wears with a tux etc all of the classics have a weakness.
  
  Reply
  1. MG
    maciej-g says:
    
    Dec 08, 2022 at 11:55
    
    Okay, let me expand… I tend not to aim too higj (unrealistically high) in my plans/dreams, hence the my grail watches aren’t that amazing by some standards (despite obviously being in total awe and amazement about various Gronfelds, Ferriers, Berthouds, Journes, Czapeks and others…)…
    
    The Moonwatch, as I said, is a “nearly perfect only watch” for me. But it’s not prefect (as said above) and it is not the only “nearly perfect only watch” for me. The IWC Pilot Chrono (with the colour caveat). Another chronos, a little more on the luxury side than the Omega and IWC, would be the JLC Master Chronograph Calendar or Glashutte Original Seventies–but again, GO would need to make it with either pure white or deep black dial to be perfect.
    
    But if a chronograph isn’t truly the best “only watch” because perhaps it doesn’t go well enough with a tux, then:
    
    a time-and-date Grand Seiko.. ideally one that dosn’t exist, which could be one of the new Evo 9 designs (or something a bit simpler) with the new hi-beat movement but–again–with a simple, timeless white or black dial. This, I think, constitutes a perfect, simple, the most versatile one watch to it all…
    
    I really wouldn’t need/want to go any more luxurious/exclusive than that (I think).
    
    Reply
Nick says:

Dec 07, 2022 at 15:54

Classics of today’s once had been the most advanced of their times, i.e. Breitling Navitimer, Rolex GMT Master, etc. They were develloped for a certain and special purpose. Back in the 1950/60s only few people went around the world in airplanes needing a GMT or even Navitimer. The Submariner at its time was develloped as a diving Instrument for only a couple of daring specialists. The classics of tomorrow will be defined by generation Z which is not even familiar with the music and culture of the 1970/80s, why should they appreciate even older watches? From their perspective the Apple Watch and Tesla will be their classics. And so it will continue with future generation when remembering their “best years when everything was better.”

Reply
1. Enuona says:
  
  Dec 08, 2022 at 13:48
  
  …but the “smart” watches still are replicating the dials of mechanical watches which means they are not dead, and “modern music” is viewed as innovative whereas it actually leans VERY heavily upon classic. It was always the case and still is. The main difference in “modern” music is a lot of standardisation (e.g of beat rates), segmentation of composing/writing (Motown was industrialising hits), and saving money by getting rid of musicians to the benefit of computerised imitations.
  
  It happens and is for real, but I’m not convinced that it’s very beneficial for the human kind. A significant majority don’t care, but there are no tracking in a mechanical watch. That is freedom/liberty. Leaving the iPhone at home increases the chances for getting to know and learn something from people you meet, less chances for that with earplugs and a digital book on a phone.
  
  Reply