Retro-contemporary watches: Timeless or just a fad?

Retro is always in style…just depends on the era.

I believe that your premise is incorrect. There is no new trend merging "retro" and "contemporary". Those terms really don't have meaning in watch design.

Watch design is inherently conservative. Take Alpinist for example: the handset was first used in watches more than a hundred years ago, the indices were a popular style in the 1950's, the black dial became important for military issued watches in the 1940's, the cyclops is decades old, etc. It has an interior rotating bezel, which is a neat trick, but not contemporary. No part of that watch is contemporary.

In each of our collections we have a limited variety in handsets, case shapes, indices, and all else. This is driven by market factors. Even Breguet numerals never entirely went away. Baltic didn't bring them back, Timex never lost them.

The design DNA of every watch goes back to the same few watches. There are only so many ways to impart this information in a small space.

I think "classic" styles never completely go out of fashion. James Dean looked cool in jeans and a t-shirt in the 1950s, and people will look cool in them in the 2050s.

The same thing is happening with these watches, they are "timeless" designs that with slight tweaks will continue well into the future. They may never be the trend setting designs, but they will always appeal.

Bonus if you can name Dean's most famous watch.

It's this ethos that makes me love Lorier as brand whose entire catalog is based around the idea of blending vintage and contemporary.

The age of retroism I'm referring to is the 70s to the 90s. It was the most innovative era of watch design.

Ploprof on the right is fully Retro. The one on the left is retro-contemporary.

Great example!

I appreciate retro designs for sure and smaller case sizes. I checked out your brand previously. Do you ever plan to do any 36-37 mm watches in the future?

I would have said Steve McQueen myself (except for the Monaco) but good question about James Dean. Are you talking about what he was wearing during his tragic car crash?

The age of retroism I'm referring to is the 70s to the 90s. It was the most innovative era of watch design.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. What you have stated is an opinion. It is not any sort of objective truth. I don't think that the 1980's or 1990's were the most innovative period of watch design (think Tags, Fossil, and quartz Omega). I also disagree about the 1970's, but for entirely different reasons. Of course, that is just my opinion. What exactly would be an "age of retroism" anyway? My point is that watch design rarely looks anywhere but backward for inspiration.

Our perspectives are probably colored by our ages. For the young the past is some sort of magical era. If you lived through it, not so much.

No, more in Rebel Without a Cause.

Rebel without a Cause, last I researched it was a Westclox Wrist Ben.

But I believe he is more known for his Gold JLC something, rebranded and sold in the US as LeCoultre

You're right; when it comes to taste, it's all about opinions and perspectives, just like yours. However, you mentioned that my "premise" was incorrect, suggesting you measured it against a contrarian view where retro-contemporary designs don't exist. That's where I respectfully disagree, not based on opinion, but on facts.

Your argument seems to rely on a logical fallacy that assumes because everything is evolutionary, there's no specific style that focuses more on previous eras than others that continue the evolutionary process. By the way, the evolutionary process in design is not unique to the watch industry; it's present everywhere.

The theme of retro-modern exists across all design fields and consumer goods markets. In fact, it's even taught as a specialized class to industrial designers, and watch design is a common target for practice among designers. In the watch space, it's an interpretive art form that raises the intriguing question: "If X was made today rather than 30 years ago, how would it look, and how does it connect?"

The intention to revisit a specific era ultimately determines the outcome and deserves a label to describe it, whether or not we personally agree with it. Moreover, it's widely accepted that in product design, retro typically refers to the 70s to the late 90s, while vintage refers to the 20s to the late 60s.

Many brands specifically focus on the retro area, reinterpreting designs from that age with a contemporary twist. Some brands approach it more on the nose, while others take a subtler approach. Over the years, I've had the opportunity to collaborate with numerous creative directors in the luxury industry who have made this style their specialty.

Now, whether the retro era was the most innovative in the horological industry is a topic up for healthy debate, and this is where objectivity becomes harder to find. However, one objective truth remains: watches specifically and intentionally designed to be retro-contemporary/modern do exist, regardless of one's personal preferences for the theme.

Your argument seems to rely on a logical fallacy that assumes because everything is evolutionary, there's no specific style that focuses more on previous eras than others that continue the evolutionary process.

Buckle up, the ride may be rough. Remember there was an exit ramp at "agree to disagree".

Some people think that it is clever to use a term like "logical fallacy" when what they really mean is "I think that you are wrong." They believe that by using a term like "logical fallacy" they have revealed some greater truth and can shut down any further debate. There are types of logical fallacies that are well known. One is the "appeal to authority". A good example may be found here:

In fact, it's even taught as a specialized class to industrial designers, and watch design is a common target for practice among designers.

See how it is asserted that because it is taught to industrial designers it must be true. Is this a "fact"? You assert "facts", while I only give mere opinions. What "facts" that have been taught turn out later not to have been true? I am sure that the list is long. (I originally stated that "I believe that your premise is wrong" clearly characterizing my statement as opinion. Yes, it is the "I believe" part that you should have paid closer attention to.)

Well, let's break down my "fallacy": where do I assert that "everything is evolutionary"? Is it because I stated that watches can be traced back to earlier pieces? That's a bit more narrow than the broad assertion that "everything is evolutionary". Let's say that you design a modern dive watch. Now remove all elements of that design that borrow from dive watches of the past: nothing from a Fifty Fathoms, or Submariner, or Sea Wolf, or Luminor. What's left?

The rest of your assertion of my "fallacy" also misreads my argument. When did I say that "no specific style that focuses more on previous eras than others that continue the evolutionary process." Well, I didn't. Those are your words. The name for the logical fallacy that you are employing here is the strawman fallacy. You set up an argument to knock it down.

In your comment you clarify that "Reco" as you call it seeks to answer if "X was made today rather than 30 years ago, how would it look[?]" So, updating materials, and perhaps manufacturing methods lies at the heart of "Reco", not originality. And as you define it, it is not even "evolutionary", if that was ever the goal.

As I see it (n.b. this is opinion not fact) what you call "Reco" is clever way of asserting originality in the recombination of old ideas and, perhaps, modern materials. Setting MacBeth in outer space will not make me Shakespeare.

"Reco" all that you want. I am not a hater. I wish you success.

Borrowing from the past in watch design will always be a thing because there's only so much you can do with a 50mmx50mm space on a wrist, known designs sell and most of us look back fondly at our childhoods of next to zero responsibility and the talismans that remind us of that time (or times our parents told us about) will always have a draw.

In my opinion there’s nothing wrong with taking a vintage look, adding contemporary components and styling and calling it new.

But taking retro look which by definition is taking a vintage look and making it new, then adding contemporary design and components seems redundant.

Let's get right into it. Your response, while attempting to appear agreeable, comes across as disingenuous. You offered an "exit ramp" of "agree to disagree," trying to seem magnanimous, but your subsequent words reveal your bad faith in this debate. Allow me to address your flawed arguments and highlight the evident gaps in your claims.

You make vague references to "logical fallacies" and "strawman fallacy" while sidestepping the core point of the discussion. "Reco" watches do exist, and they represent a culmination of new manufacturing and design practices, irrespective of how subtle or obvious the changes may be. Your attempt to downplay this trend and dismiss it as a mere combination of old ideas with modern materials is a disservice to the creative minds behind these watches.

Furthermore, you boast of your experience and knowledge without specifying any particular expertise. Your assertions about the "design DNA" of watches going back to a handful of models show a lack of nuance and a superficial understanding of the complexities within the watch industry. Watch design is an evolving art, shaped by various influences, and to reduce it to a narrow set of elements is reductionist at best.

Your insistence on the lack of "contemporary" elements in certain watch models fails to recognize that "Reco" watches aim to preserve the timeless charm of classic eras while integrating modern innovations. It's about striking a delicate balance, not erasing the past. Your fixation on historical elements overlooks the creative ingenuity in updating materials, manufacturing techniques, and overall design approaches.

Your MacBeth analogy, though creative, misses the mark entirely. "Reco" watches are not attempts to recreate Shakespeare; they are about reviving classic designs with a contemporary twist. It's about embracing the nostalgia while celebrating progress.

In closing, I won't claim superiority or infallibility, but I'll emphasize that your arguments lack depth and understanding of the evolving watch design landscape. To dismiss "Reco" watches as mere recombination is to ignore the craftsmanship, creativity, and vision of those who bring these timepieces to life.

In the spirit of robust debate, I encourage you to delve deeper into the intricacies of watch design before making sweeping statements. And while we may not see eye to eye, let's strive for meaningful and informed discussions in the future.

Wishing you a more open-minded approach to the diverse world of watch design.

This response falls into the ad hominem fallacy. You attack me and my motives. I am encouraged to "delve deeper into the intricacies of watch design before making sweeping statements." Do you think that nearly a half century as a watch consumer is not enough? Do you have any special credentials that allow you to be the gate keeper?

No, you don't. You have designed a dive watch. You hope to sell it. You believe what you are saying, I don't doubt your sincerity. I disagree with you about the high-mindedness of liberally borrowing from the past and spinning it as "new".

Again, you have designed a dive watch. You added some orange details and blue lettering. Yes, orange was popular in previous decades. Your reward will be determined by the market, not me.

You find yourself arguing with a random stranger on the internet. You could have dismounted your high horse gracefully. You chose not to.

Chief, it's evident that you're projecting a lot in this exchange. If you can't handle criticism, then you shouldn't dish it out yourself. Now, let's address your accusations of an ad hominem fallacy. You claim I attacked you and your motives, but I merely pointed out our differing perspectives.

Ironically, you've engaged in the very ad hominem attack you accuse me of, questioning my experience, credentials, and design efforts. It seems there's a double standard at play.

While your long-standing history as a watch consumer is commendable, it doesn't equate to the knowledge and expertise of a watch designer. My background is extensive, and I've been designing watches long before Belhamel.

Working closely with creative directors and watchmakers has given me valuable insights into various design themes, including retro-contemporary. It's evident that our perspectives differ significantly.

While I won't deny your passion for watches, it's crucial to acknowledge the perspective of an actual designer who's worked in the industry for years.

You may not recognize the retro-contemporary theme, but many designers and brands embrace it, along with other common themes in the watch industry.

Let's drop the accusations and agree to disagree. I won't engage in further debate, but I stand by my observations. After all, we can all learn and grow, no matter our age.

The Ploprof reissue is actually on my current buy list. Pure vibes that one.

Ngl, you come across as quite petty and snob-ish. I agree that most watches are a continuation of something that came before it. But that don't mean those new vintage or retro watches aren't a deliberate style playing into those themes. Bit weird hill to die on.

What exactly would I be projecting? (You really can't help with the insulting, can you?) No. It is just that I was unaware that watch designers thought that they had somehow found a new way to combine the old and the new and had named it. I dissented. You have not found a new way to mix chocolate and peanut butter. It is delicious if you do it correctly, but it is not new.

After all, we can all learn and grow, no matter our age.

Again with the digs, again not subtle.

I will not turn it back on you or your watch. But, here is my challenge to you. You have placed your design in among watches that you believe (or maybe you don't, perhaps I am projecting) are the best examples of the modern trend of combining "retro" elements with contemporary design and materials (if I understand you). What have you borrowed from the past and rendered modern in your application? What elements nod towards the three decades that you mentioned and how have you brought them to the present? You have a watch to sell. So far, aside from me you have elicited an appreciation of the Ploprof.

Welcome to WatchCrunch. Feel free to judge me based on this limited interaction. And pick up that Ploprof. They are not for the shy.

Awesome post! 🤩

Thank you for sharing this with us

Keep up the good work 🙌🏾

🍻

Wow - these targeted advertorials are really trying to single out individuals now. “Insult me till I buy your watch” is a new one on me though, I wonder if this tactic works? I do know what I will think now when I hear Belhamel…

I too wish to know more about these big red boots, especially with regards to the ire they cause.

Simplexity is best

Fully agree!