I have posted comments elsewhere that express a pet peeve of mine regarding how we describe the design of certain watches. Most of us are not designers, architects, or art historians. We use imprecise terms to describe design elements that we like or dislike in watches.
Using architectural terms to describe watches is usually inaccurate. It is like nails on a chalkboard every time I see something described as Art Deco or Bauhaus. Not every vintage tank watch is Art Deco. Very few watches fit any recognized definition of Art Deco. Here is one taken from the internet:
Rectangular shape, accented by curved elements, made before 1940. Yes, this could have been worn in Havana or Miami in the 1930's. (What is fascinating is that the Bulova designer knew to simplify the dial for such an ornate case.)
Pre-war watches are not necessarily Art Deco. There are Craftsman elements that are just as strong in many of those designs. And Craftsman is just a step past Art Nouveau and Belle Epoque (Mercedes hands anyone?). Post-war watches are usually not Art Deco in any meaningful sense. Perhaps, they do not easily fit a particular style.
There is another recent thread on the merits of Nomos. Nomos is minimalist, Bauhaus inspired, and definitely German. Bauhaus was as much a design style as architectural one. (You can have a Bauhaus toaster more than you can have a Prairie School toaster.) As a movement it lasted decades longer than Art Deco. But like all trends it had an end, even if its influence had a longer tail. Nomos interprets the language of Bauhaus, but it is a simulacrum. It is every bit a work of nostalgia as a Timex Marlin reissue.
I think that my objection is that we just categorize watches based on our limited understanding of design language. Perhaps, the designers and architects can help us out here. Perhaps, I am just wrong and need watch design patiently explained to me.