Why do we associate square/rectangular-shaped watches with formal/dress?

I was doing my usual Monday morning routine yesterday before work: Looking at watches that I cannot afford and I began to look quite closely at the many square/rectangular-shaped offerings online, I began to think to myself "Hmm, if the water resistance was bumped up and maybe if I swapped the crocodile-strap(they all seem to come with that style of strap) with a plain leather or bracelet of choice - it could make a great everyday watch, easy to tuck under sleeves and the shape looks comfortable - my G-Shock is square yet it seems to be an exception"

Then I began to notice that on a lot of these watches they were categorized as formal/dress and so I just began to wonder: why? Is there a specific reason/logic behind it?

Here are some examples of some of the cool looking watches I found:

Oris Rectangular: 

Oris Rectangular Automatic 01 561 7783 4065-07 5 19 17

Longines DolceVita:

Image

Hamilton Boulton:

Boulton Small Second Quartz
Reply
·
Image

I wear this guy all the time with some very casual clothes. i like the oxymoron of an objectively dressy watch with some shorts and sneakers. to me they just look stylish and dont require a certain dress code.

·
mikavate
Image

I wear this guy all the time with some very casual clothes. i like the oxymoron of an objectively dressy watch with some shorts and sneakers. to me they just look stylish and dont require a certain dress code.

That is a lovely watch, suits you really well (and I love the shirt!) What is the model of that watch? it's so classy and easy to read.

·

Before the early 1950's they were just watches, no one referred to them as dress watches. Most watches were rectangular, tank or tonneau.

Those case shapes went out of style, never really to return.  Most watch makers stopped making those styles.  The one that continued, Cartier, was clearly always a "dress" watch. You also have a bit of "survivership bias" going on. Many of the best preserved vintage watches were higher end watches.  These watches were babied a bit and worn less. The Elgin that was worn everyday on the factory floor does not look as dressy as the Wittnauer that was owned by a bank manager.

Military watches were round.  They gave us field and pilot watches.  Rectangular watches never experienced the style evolution of sports watches or divers. They are always going to be associated with a more formal past.

·
Aurelian

Before the early 1950's they were just watches, no one referred to them as dress watches. Most watches were rectangular, tank or tonneau.

Those case shapes went out of style, never really to return.  Most watch makers stopped making those styles.  The one that continued, Cartier, was clearly always a "dress" watch. You also have a bit of "survivership bias" going on. Many of the best preserved vintage watches were higher end watches.  These watches were babied a bit and worn less. The Elgin that was worn everyday on the factory floor does not look as dressy as the Wittnauer that was owned by a bank manager.

Military watches were round.  They gave us field and pilot watches.  Rectangular watches never experienced the style evolution of sports watches or divers. They are always going to be associated with a more formal past.

Thanks for the reply (incredible and interesting read). I never really thought about "survivership bias" - I guess because the watches I have are more affordable/lower-end scale/Watches have became more durable (and my attitude is that I wear a watch "whatever the weather" which can be seen as pretty dumb :P but I digress)

For some reason I feel really invested into square/rectangular watches now.

·

I’ve had the same question. I personally don’t like them at all. The design at the core of most watch faces (two or three little rods rotating around a fixed point) makes a circular face the natural choice. a square face literally feels like trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to me. 

·
LucasAndacielos

I’ve had the same question. I personally don’t like them at all. The design at the core of most watch faces (two or three little rods rotating around a fixed point) makes a circular face the natural choice. a square face literally feels like trying to shove a square peg in a round hole to me. 

I never thought about the "square peg in a round hole to me" way of thinking before, though I still like them - I definitely want to try one on to see if it would feel more comfortable then my regular round watches.

·
Image

Hard to think of sporty rectangular watches other than this one! 

·
nytime
Image

Hard to think of sporty rectangular watches other than this one! 

OOoo not seen this before

·
Image
·
nytime
Image

Hard to think of sporty rectangular watches other than this one! 

There's this

Image

Sure, it's not really a watch, but whatever.😂

This mess is, apparently, a watch as well.

Image
·
thekris

There's this

Image

Sure, it's not really a watch, but whatever.😂

This mess is, apparently, a watch as well.

Image

I think it would take me a minute or two to tell them time on the one below ! 😂 and that's true about smartwatches. I'm just trying to keep the "tech" on me at just having a phone. Would hate alerts/notifications popping off on my wrist!

·
thekris

There's this

Image

Sure, it's not really a watch, but whatever.😂

This mess is, apparently, a watch as well.

Image
Image

Oh I forgot about these

Image
·
nytime
Image

Hard to think of sporty rectangular watches other than this one! 

This has been imitated, but there is really nothing else out there like it in the history of watches. It is sui generis.

·
DancingWatch

Thanks for the reply (incredible and interesting read). I never really thought about "survivership bias" - I guess because the watches I have are more affordable/lower-end scale/Watches have became more durable (and my attitude is that I wear a watch "whatever the weather" which can be seen as pretty dumb :P but I digress)

For some reason I feel really invested into square/rectangular watches now.

Your post is one of the reasons that this came out of the box today. For an example of survivorship bias see this recent post.  I think that watch was too nice to wear for many years and then too out of date for many more.

Image
·
Aurelian

Your post is one of the reasons that this came out of the box today. For an example of survivorship bias see this recent post.  I think that watch was too nice to wear for many years and then too out of date for many more.

Image

That's such a lovely gem, thanks for sharing it with us. Something about the photo with the flower in the background makes the shot perfect for me (I'll try to explain) - The watch just kind of "fits" and seems just as bright and dainty like the flower! 

I will have to check out Bulova's offerings in the future.

·
nytime
Image

Oh I forgot about these

Image

I honestly don't understand what people see in these things.

·
thekris

I honestly don't understand what people see in these things.

This thread has brought up a lot of watch company names which I hadn't heard of.

That "Gerald Charles" looks sweet and I would definitely include G-shocks/Digital watches. Perhaps I should have clarified my initial post with "mechanical"(My bad)

·
DancingWatch

That's such a lovely gem, thanks for sharing it with us. Something about the photo with the flower in the background makes the shot perfect for me (I'll try to explain) - The watch just kind of "fits" and seems just as bright and dainty like the flower! 

I will have to check out Bulova's offerings in the future.

A note about Bulova: I believe that from 1945 to 1965 Bulova consistently made watches of quality and beauty to rival those of any manufacturer, anywhere. I also would not own one made after 1975. Fair minded people can disagree with both of those opinions.

·

Any of Bell& Ross offerings are sporty. I think you are just thinking of dressy square watches.

If we look at all the calatrava, jlc moon phase etc, you will find a lot more round face dress watches than square faces. The shape isn't the determining factor. 

·
kungfupigeon

Any of Bell& Ross offerings are sporty. I think you are just thinking of dressy square watches.

If we look at all the calatrava, jlc moon phase etc, you will find a lot more round face dress watches than square faces. The shape isn't the determining factor. 

That's true (your username is amazing by the way!) guess I was heavily influenced by what I have seen/read

·

The Santos is both sport and dress I suppose. I would rather like one because it's not my style. 

Which means it would look great because i have very poor sense of style

·
DancingWatch

That's true (your username is amazing by the way!) guess I was heavily influenced by what I have seen/read

(haha thanks!)

Ya, if you think about it the square makes a lot more sense for digital watches.  All those calculator Casios, G Shocks, Fitbits and Apple Watches too.