Timeless Watch - how to classify?
Got the model 003 in for review. I always struggle to describe a watch like this. It’s fancy, but not a dress watch. Thoughts?
36 comments
Sort by
Loren
Founder of TheTimeBum.com watch review site. Co-founder of the District Time Watch Show (districttime.com). Microbrand enthusiast.
Washington D.C., DC, USA
Member since
Last active: 14 min ago
6.75” / 17.15 cm
Why is it not a dress watch?
That would be what I would wear it for 90% of the time.
It’s confused… don’t know what it’s trying to be. Probably expensive as well.
It’s confused… don’t know what it’s trying to be. Probably expensive as well.
$1600
$1600
I rest my case…
There is a lot going on, and it seems to conflict. It’s too thick to be dressy, and you have a nice simplistic outer ring, but the industrial flourishes in the middle are not complementary. It’s nice, but it’s like that retro Chrysler family wagon that looks like a 1920s gangster-mobile, interesting but kind of odd.
Neo-retro pastiche.
It’s uh…Timeless?
Dress casual?
Very nice! I'm stuck with this problem with several of my watches. Most of us don't wear a coat & tie to the office these days. Perhaps it's time for a new category to keep up with the times. I vote for "Business Casual". That's a perfect look for the office on days when you want to look a bit more dapper.
Why is it not a dress watch?
That would be what I would wear it for 90% of the time.
I tend to think of dress watches as small and thin. The bigger it is, the less formal and the harder it becomes to put it in that category.
Dress casual?
Yeah, that’s where I usually end up. But it’s like “dress diver,” it exists but doesn’t sound like it makes sense.
It’s uh…Timeless?
Which is arguably the opposite of what you would want to name a watch company.
Why is there a stabilizing bar in the middle of the dial? This isn’t an M5.
I tend to think of dress watches as small and thin. The bigger it is, the less formal and the harder it becomes to put it in that category.
I think those lines have been blurred enough to consider this a dress watch; but I see your point
I think those lines have been blurred enough to consider this a dress watch; but I see your point
True. And a lot of smaller brands actually aim for those grey areas because that is where they can stand out. Whatever you call it, it’s still a damn pretty watch.
Why is there a stabilizing bar in the middle of the dial? This isn’t an M5.
Because … reasons?
Why is it not a dress watch?
That would be what I would wear it for 90% of the time.
Agreed.
Water resistance? (50 or under: Dress Watch.) 😎
Crystal? (Sapphire: Dress Watch.) 😎
I tend to think of dress watches as small and thin. The bigger it is, the less formal and the harder it becomes to put it in that category.
Bah, humbug. It's all about streamlining. Size is relative; if it's too big for your wrist, fine. Otherwise, if it looks elegant (which this one DOES!) it is a dress watch.
Not sure why it needs "classification," per se. It's certainly an interesting design. Timeless seems to be a one-man shop, which is probably why the watch has so many different elements to it (too many, really). There are things I like on it -- the guilloche, the white hour ring, the gold minute ring. And things I don't like -- that thing in the middle (dealbreaker), the lugs, the crown, the offset date window. I do have them on my favorite brands list, in hopes that he'll design something a little calmer and cleaner in the future. In the meantime, I'd "classify" this as an intriguing near-miss, and not worry about whether it's a dress watch or not.
True. And a lot of smaller brands actually aim for those grey areas because that is where they can stand out. Whatever you call it, it’s still a damn pretty watch.
Agreed. It's gorgeous AF
Confused is indeed the operative word here. There's nothing at all that's pleasing or unified about this alledged design.
It looks like it’s trying too hard , sorry the first thing I thought when I saw the word “ Timeless” on the brand , what it doesn’t run ? Too many “ things” on it competing to be “ Old world” JMTCW
Neo-retro pastiche.
A pastiche was my problem looking at it . Good call
I would classify it as kitch.)
When you want to appear dressier, but still majorly over the top. Wouldn't classify it as a "dress" watch in a usual sense, but I don't think that this category really exist.
If you can wear a submariner with a suit, you can wear this watch with a suit. And smaller thin understated watches are going great with everything really. It's the reason we call it "dress" watch, because usually those watches are not very loud and don't distract from a nice outfit, but rather elevate the whole look. It works the same with a casual outfits. So "dress" watches are not limited to only wearing with a formal attire, tho we can't really call it "dress". But it's a demagogy.
Design wise, I'm struggling to call this "understated" in any way.) It's loud, it's heavy and it's very brutalistic. It's rather an everyday watch, but it takes a certain character to wear this everyday. It's like I can't call Breguet Tradition or a Patek Philippe Complications or Grand Complications a "dress" watches as a small, thin, clean and understated.
Personally it's not my cuppa tea, it's a bit on a chunky side with those thick lugs, golden inserts and everything.) But it's definitely an interesting model.)
I'd really call it an everyday watch and enjoy all the comments telling you that you can't call it "everyday")
dress watch is essentially a basic watch with no purpose) Tool watch can be used as tool. Everything else is just a watch
well, you still can use it. doesn't mean you will tho.)
I guess I just a huge advocate for wearing "dress" watches casually, like you would with your "GADA" watch, because you know, those elegant pieces are quite awesome.)
Mesmerizing
It's pretty but not $1600 pretty. Love the guilloche on the dial though.
It is a dress watch
I would classify it as kitch.)
When you want to appear dressier, but still majorly over the top. Wouldn't classify it as a "dress" watch in a usual sense, but I don't think that this category really exist.
If you can wear a submariner with a suit, you can wear this watch with a suit. And smaller thin understated watches are going great with everything really. It's the reason we call it "dress" watch, because usually those watches are not very loud and don't distract from a nice outfit, but rather elevate the whole look. It works the same with a casual outfits. So "dress" watches are not limited to only wearing with a formal attire, tho we can't really call it "dress". But it's a demagogy.
Design wise, I'm struggling to call this "understated" in any way.) It's loud, it's heavy and it's very brutalistic. It's rather an everyday watch, but it takes a certain character to wear this everyday. It's like I can't call Breguet Tradition or a Patek Philippe Complications or Grand Complications a "dress" watches as a small, thin, clean and understated.
Personally it's not my cuppa tea, it's a bit on a chunky side with those thick lugs, golden inserts and everything.) But it's definitely an interesting model.)
I'd really call it an everyday watch and enjoy all the comments telling you that you can't call it "everyday")
Well put