“Signed” Crowns

Dislike. It's like having name labels on your underwear. to paraphrase Paul Fussell on monograms, it implies that one is worried about proving the ownership (or manufacture) of the item. Furthermore, they are never facing the right direction and nobody sees them anyway. It's just silly all the way down.

It's like they only exist so weirdos can obsess about the watch having the original crown in another forty or fifty years.

I feel the same way. A lot of watch reviewers take this into consideration when considering whether a watch is good quality, though: “this watch does not have a signed crown!” (I guess I’m thining of Ben from Ben’s Watch Club). Personally, I don’t think it adds much.

I voted B, but I could have just as easily voted C. I think they are overrated, but I also don’t really care about them.

I quite like them, but it's not going to sway my decision on a purchase. It's even less important than WR!

I think they are a nice to have, but I don't need one. I think having one is one of the things brands point to in order to justify a higher RRP.

I don't see how it's a sign of quality in any way.

It’s a nice to have. It’s more like a nice Easter egg if it’s there. I like them if they are there, but it’s not a show stopper.

Signed crowns are a "thing" in watch reviews for the simple reason they are an easy to show talking point. They serve no purpose at all, but having one, or not having one gives people something to talk about and fluff up the run time on the video.

The same applies to pressed "upper" clasps, they are no better or worse than milled ones, but it gives the reviewer something else that can be seen to talk about.

It's harder to justify or explain why something "feels" a certain way, than it is to show a useless spec/feature.

Occasionally when reviewers venture into the world of feeling, they end up contradicting themselves. I remember a Bruce Williams video where he was a comparing a couple of watches, and he commented that the Oris had a lot of backplay in the bezel. Then, after talking about the other two watches' bezels (no backplay, no complaints), said the Oris had the "best" bezel feel. He liked the bezel more, but objectively the bezel action wasn't as precisely machined/fitted.

I like them, but don't have to have them.

It's nice, but not needed. It's more a way for brands to show off their metal skills than anything else. Just like a nicely polished chamfer and a variety of case finishings show off the fact that a maker can turn out a refined case, signed crowns and case back designs can show off their ability to do clean etching.

I don’t need it to be signed but it’s great if it is. Most of mine are signed and I appreciate that but I don’t miss it if it’s not there.

Male endlinks also don’t bother me all that much…. but it seems to be a huge issue for every reviewer.

It’s one of those things that YouTube types get VERY hung up on and I wouldn’t blame young pups for thinking, oh, that must be something very important. Yet you can see from this poll, the vast majority don’t care or are indifferent. Just one of many things that YouTube types go on about that doesn’t reflect the real world.

It needs a D) I like them but it is not the most important thing.

I like them, but functionally, they're no different. I think it's just a nice touch. Actually it really depends on the logo on it. IMO a signed Seiko crown would look cooler with the old whirlpool logo rather than an S.

My $25 used Columbia has a signed one I like a bunch, but my $75 Eddie Bauer doesn't.

I like signed crowns but they aren’t a requirement for me. Out of curiosity I just checked and all but 3 of my watches have a signed crown. The most unique is my Henry Archer Vesterhav with the Henry logo and a blue colored ring that matches the second hand.

Like 'em, but not a must-have.

Nice to have when done especillally well, but it's not a dealmaker (or breaker) by any stretch.

The functionality and action on the crown is far more important to me than branding. A nice signed crown is a bonus, not a must.

I had to look at my crown on my most worn watch to even remember if there was anything on it. Nope. I guess Marathon could've put their little cog logo on it, but it wouldn't really be worth it.

It's not required, but there is great utility on having a signed crown. Imagine a Rolex without one. Now imagine a vintage watch that or clone where sometimes the crown is a great indication of something fishy going on. It's not hard to do. It's a nice touch. If you don't believe me imagine waking up and your Omega, Grand Seiko, Tudor or Rolex without one. So while I have many watches without a signed crown and it's not a requirement...

Not mandatory, but please be consistent!! Like Seiko signs some of their crowns but they couldn't be bothered to do it on their 55th anniversary divers release

I only like signed crowns when they are aligned after screwing them down, if not they just look ugly and bug me a little.

I like them, but there is something to be said about the watch not needing branding everywhere one can cram it. Do we need to have the brand logo on

the front..

the back..

the side…

the rotor…

And the clasp?

I dislike it that watch reviewers talk about the lack of a signed crown or clasp as a negatives.

D. Nice to have but dont mind if its not there

D. I prefer them, but they aren’t ‘required’ and it’s not a big factor in the decision to purchase.