(#defsoneanddone) One & Done - Chapter Seven (Jaeger-LeCoultre)
Foreword
Welcome and welcome back! If you're new here, I'm exploring the 20 best-selling watch brands of 2022 (as seen on GQ Australia) and answering the question: If I could only have one watch from this brand FOREVER, which would I pick?
Today we are looking at Jaeger-LeCoultre, but if you want to see my previous article where I covered Tudor, follow #defsoneanddone or click the link here!
As always, tell me what you think! What watch from this brand would YOU want forever? I'd love to hear from you!
#14 - Jaeger-LeCoultre - Reverso Tribute Monoface Small Seconds
Ever since becoming a watch guy, JLC has repeatedly caught my eye for having just some of the most beautiful and iconic designs in watchmaking. But I always have mixed feelings about them! From the exceptionally vicious price hikes to their designs, I’m constantly flip-flopping on whether they are worth their retail value or not – right now, probably not.
All the red tape aside, it does feel like JLC has hit their stride both creatively and technologically regarding their collections, from the Polaris to the Master Control. But honestly, it would be criminal to even utter the name Jaeger-LeCoultre and pretend that the Reverso doesn’t exist.
Although, at THOSE prices? In THIS economy? Feels almost like highway robbery.
Regardless, the Reverso stands alone as the most iconic design to have ever been produced by “the watchmaker’s watchmaker” – The MF DOOM of horology, if you will, initially made in 1931 for a fancy rich person that didn’t want to damage the crystal of his watch during a game of polo.
What even is polo? Isn’t it that game they play in Heathers? My partner forced me to watch it, shut up.
Through this, the Reverso instantly gained icon status as the world’s premiere reversible dress watch, allowing the crystal to be protected by the case while sacrificing the watch's timekeeping requirements. Because, you know… you turned the watch around.
Also, contrary to my own belief that the name was just a silly, goofy way to indicate its reversible nature, “Reverso” is in fact Latin for “to turn [around].” Neat!
In a sea of iconic Reverso designs, I always find the model that frequents my attention is the JLC Reverso Tribute Small Seconds Monoface. At 8.5mm thick with only a 27.4mm case diameter, this iconic piece is a dress watch through and through. Design-wise, I mean – what’s there left to say about JLC? They’re masterminds. The sunray brushed dial, dauphine hands, that iconic click when you lock in the reversing mechanism – bliss. Not bad for the world’s most expensive fidget spinner.
That feeling of serendipity that oozes from every pore of this magnificent piece is most likely due to JLC’s adherence to the Golden Ratio. They believe that the Reverso is a watch that can be recognised as one of the few things in the world that universally symbolises beauty and harmony.
Which is as fascinating from a design and engineering perspective as it is an exceptional marketing move. Who wouldn’t want a watch that is mathematically/scientifically proven to be beautiful? Creationist Extremists, probably. (for legal reasons that’s a joke.)
Maybe slightly controversially, I much prefer the monoface model of the Reverso as opposed to the duoface, mostly because if a watch has an intended purpose, I like to use that watch in the way it was built. Give a watch 300m water resistance? I’d jump into the waves with it. Chronograph? I’ll time my cooking.
To that end, the reversible feature always appealed to me because of its intended purpose – to shield the watch from harm. That’s why a duoface watch never made sense to me – am I protecting the watch with another watch? That seems a bit too first-world personally, and I’m excessively first-world.
Don’t let this take away from the fact that the price of a JLC nearly doubled over the course of a year. That is just straight criminal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73x0OooMSRQ
Thanks so much for reading! I love being able to practice my article writing skills :). #13 is up next - Vacheron Constantin!
I am not Gerald Genta. I like to draw watch ideas. They usually suck. #defsnotgenta for more.
Come on, Heathers played croquet. Polo is hockey on horses. Both do use mallets though.
Thank you. This never made that much sense to me either. Anything that is smacking into a watch crystal and doing damage is probably doing the same to a dainty case back or your hand and wrist. If it's someone swinging a wooden mallet from atop a moving horse, maybe take off the watch.
Agree here too. As neat as it is, it belies that the whole affair has devolved into gimmick. That's fine, but just admit it. You can have heritage or opportunizing on some neat tricks that defeat the heritage, but not both. The inclusion of the duoface creates a situation where the Reverso is both too stagnant and too off-base and modernly updated for me. It totally misses the sweet spot of a gradually updated design.
I disagree with their claims about golden ratio beauty. Maybe if the watch weren't being carried on a stretcher that utterly ruins the proportions and overly elongates it, but that is not what we have.
Come on, Heathers played croquet. Polo is hockey on horses. Both do use mallets though.
Thank you. This never made that much sense to me either. Anything that is smacking into a watch crystal and doing damage is probably doing the same to a dainty case back or your hand and wrist. If it's someone swinging a wooden mallet from atop a moving horse, maybe take off the watch.
Agree here too. As neat as it is, it belies that the whole affair has devolved into gimmick. That's fine, but just admit it. You can have heritage or opportunizing on some neat tricks that defeat the heritage, but not both. The inclusion of the duoface creates a situation where the Reverso is both too stagnant and too off-base and modernly updated for me. It totally misses the sweet spot of a gradually updated design.
I disagree with their claims about golden ratio beauty. Maybe if the watch weren't being carried on a stretcher that utterly ruins the proportions and overly elongates it, but that is not what we have.
I really did not pay attention to that movie.
Come on, Heathers played croquet. Polo is hockey on horses. Both do use mallets though.
Thank you. This never made that much sense to me either. Anything that is smacking into a watch crystal and doing damage is probably doing the same to a dainty case back or your hand and wrist. If it's someone swinging a wooden mallet from atop a moving horse, maybe take off the watch.
Agree here too. As neat as it is, it belies that the whole affair has devolved into gimmick. That's fine, but just admit it. You can have heritage or opportunizing on some neat tricks that defeat the heritage, but not both. The inclusion of the duoface creates a situation where the Reverso is both too stagnant and too off-base and modernly updated for me. It totally misses the sweet spot of a gradually updated design.
I disagree with their claims about golden ratio beauty. Maybe if the watch weren't being carried on a stretcher that utterly ruins the proportions and overly elongates it, but that is not what we have.
I think people misunderstand the purpose of a watch like this. The point is not crystal protection so much as announcing to the world that you’re the type of dashing gentleman who gets up to feats of daring do that mighty require your watch to be protected. Like water resistance on dive watches. A gentleman probably isn’t diving in his Submariner, he just needs ladies to understand he’s the type of hero who will probably be rescuing a drowning lad or winning a bet by swimming out to his yacht later in the evening.