I’ve watched quite a few watch reviews, and I understand why certain things are desirable for a watch to have. Sapphire glass for scratch resistance, a good power reserve, a reliable and accurate movement, a legible dial and hand set, a well built bracelet with a solid, reliable clasp, and… a signed crown?
I've read that a signed crown can help determine if a watch has been repaired or not, or help determine authenticity. But to some, it seems just the sight of a bare crown is disgusting and intolerable.
I have to say, without looking, I probably couldn't even tell you which of my own watches have signed crowns. It seems like a weird thing to fixate on, but I'm probably missing something.
Do you care about a signed crown? Is there a purpose? What’s all the fuss about?
This account is verified. WatchCrunch has confirmed that this account is the authentic presence for this person or brand.
Its nice to have but by no means a deal breaker if I love the rest of it
Most people want to feel like a brand is giving them good value per dollar, not that a brand is cutting corners to save a few bucks.
An unsigned crown is a sign of cost cutting, like mineral crystal, pressed clasp, aluminum bezel insert, plastic movement holder, and hollow end links. None of those things prevent a watch from working properly, but they are cheaper than the alternatives.
If you're buying a budget watch from a budget brand any, or all of the above listed things are acceptable, but when you're paying $1K+ they become less tolerable to many.
Up until the internet nobody knew what a "signed crown" was.
Or a loupe.
Or a timegrapher
Or +/-
Or fit and finish
Or a beater
We just bought watches we liked and wore them.
No overthinking whatsoever.
Like a watch-buy a watch-wear a watch.
Those were the days.
Yeah. I remember those days.
But this also makes me wonder why the Invicta gets so much hate. Signed crown, dial, caseback, rotor, and… the ultimate in signed watches... No corners cut here!
I don't think its because of the crown etc, many "homage" watches seem to get a lot of hate generally.
I personally dislike signed crowns for several reasons. I despise excessive branding (once on the front and once on the back is plenty of external branding). It's just more visual clutter I don't want. And of course, it's something to annoy the obsessive, as that logo or name will almost never be oriented in a pleasing manner.
The originality factor and the "not generic parts" even when new seems to be the only raison d'etre. Someone noted that Seiko doesn't sign crowns, and they make every part of their watches. So it's a countersignal. They don't need to announce that it's a Seiko crown. The whole watch is made by Seiko, there's no need to brag.
I believe the notion that a signed crown is some hallmark of quality or prestige is a very recent folly.