The Case for Minimalism

There’s a flow, like a feng shui to the overall design of a watch, and if you’re gonna go minimalist, it’s a razors edge of the design dance. You get one detail wrong and it’s all off. That’s my interpretation on it anyway. It’s easy to be simplistic in approach but still not achieve minimalist in design.

Like you, I find it difficult to articulate exactly how I see it, but I thought I’d give it a shot.

The Patek for instance is all wrong, but probably not a candidate for the minimalist style anyway, more of a dress.

The Lange is close, were it not for the text on the bottom. It’s about the removal of the unnecessary. The Junghans and the Hamilton the same. The Hammie loses another point for the sunburst dial. The MVMT almost makes it the closest, I hate to say, were it not for the handset and the textured dial.

I dunno, I ain’t no expert.

Love the Bauhaus design minimalism!

Rolex used to do minimalism (or some version of it) the best imo

Is this a joke? Is this even close to minimalism? Gold, fluted bezel, marble multi colored dial, day and date complications, and tons of text. Oh. You mean because they purposefully left off indices and have squared handset. 🙄

i cant give my opinion about a patek or a lange since i dont have any experience with them. but when i hold my orient bambino and daniel wellington the case detail design, dial proportion, the crystal shape is the different. that makes the orient is so much better design than the daniel wellington. eventhough the material is the same the execution is different. in my opinion

This Nomos Orion gets close, but this Braun does it the best even though it should be marketed as a unisex instead of a womens.

The Sinn 1736 Klassik comes to mind. Who needs a seconds hand, anyway?

Minimalism is like acting in that it shouldn't call attention to itself. You don't notice it when it is done well. If it looks empty or spartan, it is BAD. 

It is personal ultimately especially for pieces which have very little on display.

I think that minimalist pieces must have a certain logic behind the drive for very light visual cues for a less busy dial. Dressed pieces have that a lot as many of these would have two hands, no date, and perhaps a seconds hand at best. 

This makes it equally difficult to not have flagrantly poor use of space, thus every visual must be implemented with care and logic. The recent Calatrava Clou de Paris from Patek work well in that aspect, Lange Saxonia because there is great balance with all the components on the dial whilst maintaining what is inherent to the brand. 

The Must from Cartier or some vintage Piaget with no indexes at all, just hours and minutes feel perfect for their intended use: no show off as they can be worn at the office or at social events without causing people to think that your watch is ostentatious.

I think that laziness would be to either copy the competition without adding your own touch, or to come up with a very obvious design to reduce costs for the company.

I could see H. Moser releasing a model with what Meistersinger uses a lot (1 hand for many models) but also removing the indexes.

That is the difference between SIMPLE and SIMPLISTIC.
Some incredible watches have a design easily understood and
uncomplicated in form.

The overwhelming majority of these clean designs are treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.

Another day I saw a WatchFinder video where "The Talking Hand" compared watches with soup. 
The complicated watches can be treated as veggie soup, you just need to put all your pantry into a pan and then blend the juice. That veggie soup will be great regardless.

Now, a clean design is more like a good miso soup, since it just uses a few ingredients any particle that goes wrong will spoil the entire experience.

Is that minimalist for a peacock? 

The Braun is a good example. Nice coffeemakers too!

Think of a cheap pair of blue socks next to a pair of higher thread count blue socks like some gold-toes. Though they look similar, one can just ‘sense’ the richer, thicker appearance of the latter. 

Minimalism is like good editing where every unnecessary word is removed but the meaning is retained.

This is one of mine that nearly nails it. You know the brand.  The brand has a mark that is memorable.  You know the name of the watch. Start and end at "12". That's the only number that you don't need to supply yourself.

Also, no need for color, the dial is readable without any aids.  Why do the MVMT and Braun use color? Lack of confidence.  They still feel like they need to guide your eyes. The Nomos, Hamilton, Lange and Sohne, and Junghans are confident enough to trust you.

I struggle with this myself. As @DariusII alluded to, the quality of execution definitely comes into play in terms of what makes a watch desirable, however I'm not sure if that would fall into the category of "design".

Before I became seriously interested in watches, I used to wear a Movado Museum watch, which in my mind is the epitome of minimalism. No hour markers, just a single dot at the 12 o'clock position. Nicely shaped hands of an appropriate length, interesting lugs, and a great contrast between black and gold. YMMV.

I drive a fast car that doesn't look like anything special.  If you're really paying attention, you see the signs, but it's rare anyone bothers.  I just look like any other sensible guy driving a sensible car.

My point is that I don't need my things to be flashy, I buy them for me, not you.  

The thing is, if I'm paying $20k for that Calatrava, what am I actually paying for?  I don't want a flashy dial, but I want something that's interesting to me.  I want to like looking at it.  So I really don't get "minimalism".  The whole point seems to be to make a watch face that does the job without being interesting in any way, and that feels like a waste of money to me.  My car is hilariously fun to drive, what does a minimalist watch have going for it?  Sure, maybe it's got a great movement, but the minimalists won't let me enjoy looking at that either.

I respect stripping away the unnecessary and showing the time in the simplest manner possible, but I can't justify paying much money for what the manufacturer didn't do.

To me, there’s far too much going on with that watch to call it “minimalist”, at least as I understand the term. I see thoughtful touches without being flashy. 

Yes it was a joke, and relax, its just a watch. no need for panties in a bunch? 😂😂

Uh huh, sure bud.

I struggle with this issue. I find some  minimalist dials very boring. I can’t stand Junghans for example. However, sometimes I love a simple 3-hand watch with a well executed dial and indices with no other complications. It all depends on the particular execution. Hard to explain  to other people. I know what I like  when I see it. 

This time is not a joke..

i guess i like exciting-minimal designs. No need for condescending and arrogant comments beyond this though ;)

I have found my Junker's Bauhaus watch more interesting in theory than in actuality. I loved the idea of very clean lines, a watch reduced to the bare minimum, a watch with an interesting history.  When I got it though, I found it to be...er...boring. I rarely wear it, even though I think it is a lovely watch. It offers little to study when I am sitting in Starbuck's with my flat white. 

In my opinion, nomos and junghans are better in the minimalist department. Lange, with their saxonia thin...Damn, I had that in my hands, so simple, yet so beautiful!

I'm no expert, but I think they way I look at this is, "If the name and logo were removed from the dial, would I be able to tell the watch brand?" In my opinion, minimalist design still manages to capture the essential elements of a brand's design language, while lazy design probably doesn't.