The paradox of a beautiful movement behind a solid case back
Is it a waste to put a great looking movement behind a solid case back? This Omega 861 ticks away in my Speedmaster Mark II. I’ve only looked at in person a couple times: once when I was buying the watch and asked the dealer to see it, and again when I took it for a service at my watchmaker’s a couple years later. Both times, I thought about installing a display back so I could enjoy it whenever I wanted. But, there is also a strange appeal to it being hidden away from prying eyes. Like a secret, it’s almost more special to know it’s there but only being able to see it on special occasions.
7 comments
Sort by
Rick
Canadian watch enthusiast with a penchant for vintage tool watches from the 60s and 70s. IG: orangehand77
Great White North
Member since
Last active: 4 days ago
I would hate to have a beautiful movement like that covered up.
And the other paradoxical question that follows...why have an open caseback for a standard boring uninteresting undecorated movement?
I was really pleased when Grail Watch collaborated with Franck Muller to offer the 30th Anniversary chronograph set and delivered the chronographs with open casebacks, but also provided the solid casebacks in the event you wanted to swap them out for design purity reasons.
I don't understand why this isn't standard practice for any watch over $5,000 that has a gorgeous movement hiding behind a solid caseback.
Mystery and anticipation. You know the whole "dress that makes you think about what's underneath" thing? Compare that to the skank that leaves nothing to the imagination. Which is more interesting and alluring?
I personally think that decorating functional machinery beyond basic refinement is silly. Supposedly the ornatemeness of hidden movements in American railroad pocket watches was mere oneupsmanship and showing off by the makers. It's like the Harbor Freight golden socket wrench. Cool but kind of a ridiculous waste of money too.
Indecent watches are vulgar. It's the same as cars that want to have the engine on display. Get some taste and class and cover that stuff up.
Lol. Tell me how you really feel. You definitely make some compelling points.
I’ve also heard that decoration originally had a functional purpose, with striping and perlage trapping dust or debrit and keeping it out of the moving parts.
And the other paradoxical question that follows...why have an open caseback for a standard boring uninteresting undecorated movement?
I was really pleased when Grail Watch collaborated with Franck Muller to offer the 30th Anniversary chronograph set and delivered the chronographs with open casebacks, but also provided the solid casebacks in the event you wanted to swap them out for design purity reasons.
I don't understand why this isn't standard practice for any watch over $5,000 that has a gorgeous movement hiding behind a solid caseback.
Even better when brands give the customer both a solid and display back or simply the choice of one or the another.
Lol. Tell me how you really feel. You definitely make some compelling points.
I’ve also heard that decoration originally had a functional purpose, with striping and perlage trapping dust or debrit and keeping it out of the moving parts.
Yes, Geneva stripes or whatever was intended as a dust catcher. I expect meshing parts to be polished smooth. Did I mention that I have exactly one (crummy) sexhibitionist case back and have never seen the guts of any of my better pieces? I am so fine with that.
The caseback is another complication. The refinishing and polishing of a watch movement is part of the design and craft process. It is about the designer taking the time and thought to give something more than just a functional look, but to create a deeper relationship with the parts. Not everything designed is for the user to see or understand, but more so for the watch collective to have a conversation.