Unique piece Roger Smith at the British Watchmakers Show...

I have no interest whatsoever in paying a premium of any sort for hand made products. So Roger Smith isn't really my jam...

With that in mind, he is looking to get something in the neighborhood of 500,000€ for this watch. There isn't a watch in this world worth that amount and there never will be, not even if the indices and bevels were painstakingly polished by the King of England.

Good opportunity? Define what type of opportunity?

Seeing the waitlist people endure to get one of his watches, getting one at auction is one of the few ways to jump the line, assuming it is to your liking. So yes, good timing opportunity. Investment wise? Hard to say when at this level. The market on the highest end watches is all over the place. I wouldn’t do so with my money, but I don’t fault anyone that has that level of expendable cash.

He closed the waitlist in 2021, so (supposedly) no one can order one. That's why this is an opportunity to get one fairly soon.

So as a layman if I saw a Roger Smith watch in the metal would I be able to appreciate the artistry, finishing and skill? Or is this more like a £20,000 bottle of wine, where a mortal would be unable to appreciate the differences?

Let’s try it this way; if you hand an average person a GO watch, say $10k in value, I am willing to bet the average answer when asked, “What does this cost?”would be in the hundreds of dolllars range. Id wager even Rolex would likely get similar responses, based on some vids I’ve seen.

Even in the hallowed halls of WC, even amongst some enthusiasts there is a lack of appreciation for higher end pieces. Now, without a lesson, would anyone know they are looking at an entirely in house watch with most parts being machined precious metals that are all one of ones? And would anyone appreciate that? That comes down to personal views. People spend millions on one of one art pieces, his watches are no different, but for many, they are fine buying a poster in a really nice frame at HomeGoods, or a machine made Seiko. There isn’t a wrong answer, but I think we can appreciate that it exists, even if beyond our means.

Yeah... but appreciation for the craft isn't really the point here. There was more manual labour involved I'm creating fine pocket watches during the 19th century, after all they didn'thave CNC and R Smith uses them according to his own statement. I can buy an entirely handcrafted minute repeater for barely more than scrap metal (under 10000€ and those suckers are big). Where are all those "connoisseurs"? This is about brand prestige, the Daniels and Smith names sre well known and hyped up to a decent degree, and having what others don't.

There is little attention to detail with many collectors. I think there was a video by, I believe, WatchBox (I can try to dig it out) that shows a high end collection of independents with a dodgy Metalem (I think) dial on a Dufour simplicity. C'mon man, don't tell me that dude appreciates the "craft" 😉

So as a layman if I saw a Roger Smith watch in the metal would I be able to appreciate the artistry, finishing and skill? Or is this more like a £20,000 bottle of wine, where a mortal would be unable to appreciate the differences?

Sticking to Roger Smith here; I hear you, in that pocket watches are largely forgotten and they were made using much more rudimentary tools in comparison, but they were also not being made to the same standard or the same materials. For modern collectors, they do not want the pocket watch and for those that simply want the best that money cannot buy, a watch from Smith is arguably right up there.

The best in what regard though? Performance oriented materials, probably not. Precision, most definitely not. A precise machine crafted part should ideally be left unfinished. Hand polishing used to serve a purpose, reduce corrosion, but we don't need that anymore... because modern materials. So that watch is, much like an antique pocket watch, arguably not made to modern standards either. Collectors don't want pocket watches, fair enough. But "the best"? Nah, I don't see it. Fact is, the Co Axial was, according to Mr Smith, envisioned as a way to make mechanical watches as accurate as quartz but not run out of juice. It fail at that. Seiko succeeded with what they call Spring Drive ... and yet here we are.

Setting the failed vision aside, R Smith watches are also not technically very sophisticated as far as mechanical watches are concerned. They are using a modified variant of an escapement that was invented to scale in mass production and that's about it. No super duper complications that would require nevel alignment of some fancy gears and levers along some incredibly hard calculations. So not the best? But then it also isn't the simplest execution of a watch, after all making something with as few moving parts as possible would be quite an achievement. So again, middle of the road and neither here nor there.

So is it the best finished then? I mean, there's not much else left that it could possibly be the best in... That leaves us with an ill defined metric, how is "finishing quality" even measured? Flatness & reflectivity? Number of interior angles? Correct me if I am wrong but there is little on these watches resembling macroscopicly discernable hand craft features like tremblage. So the goal is to be "perfect"? I'd argue that if uniformity of some sort was the goal then, if money is not a constraint (and clearly it isn't), then effort should be focused on developing a machine to do the job. If humanity was on a mission to create a machine that cuts an interior angle and proceeds to polish the sucker with 75000 pieces of soft wooden sticks until they wear out for 6 months uninterrupted we could totally do it. Same for guilloche done with a rose engine. A machine could absolutely do this job and more uniformly so. But watchmakers do all of it by hand and the machine made dials are usually of the uglier CNC variety. Why, well, if you ask me because a machine democratises a product to the point where it becomes attainable by the masses. And the main point of high-end independent watchmaking is to be the opposite of attainable. That's not to say there aren't some innovations still coming out (e.g. the Krayon everywhere) but it seems to me that's more like a bonus rather than the main selling point.

So if R Smith is TRULY, i.e. in an absolute sense (and not relative to an arbitrarily chosen group of peers), amongst the best then that's at being unobtainable. Collectors want it because they want it. And wanting something for no reason or even because others can't have it just for the sake of having it is totally fine, I don't judge. I just don't buy into the idea that it's trying to be the best at anything that has to do with being a watch because I believe it is a compromise in almost every way imaginable.

Then again, I am an imbecile so it wouldn't surprise me if I am missing the point 😉🍻

The best in what regard though? Performance oriented materials, probably not. Precision, most definitely not. A precise machine crafted part should ideally be left unfinished. Hand polishing used to serve a purpose, reduce corrosion, but we don't need that anymore... because modern materials. So that watch is, much like an antique pocket watch, arguably not made to modern standards either. Collectors don't want pocket watches, fair enough. But "the best"? Nah, I don't see it. Fact is, the Co Axial was, according to Mr Smith, envisioned as a way to make mechanical watches as accurate as quartz but not run out of juice. It fail at that. Seiko succeeded with what they call Spring Drive ... and yet here we are.

Setting the failed vision aside, R Smith watches are also not technically very sophisticated as far as mechanical watches are concerned. They are using a modified variant of an escapement that was invented to scale in mass production and that's about it. No super duper complications that would require nevel alignment of some fancy gears and levers along some incredibly hard calculations. So not the best? But then it also isn't the simplest execution of a watch, after all making something with as few moving parts as possible would be quite an achievement. So again, middle of the road and neither here nor there.

So is it the best finished then? I mean, there's not much else left that it could possibly be the best in... That leaves us with an ill defined metric, how is "finishing quality" even measured? Flatness & reflectivity? Number of interior angles? Correct me if I am wrong but there is little on these watches resembling macroscopicly discernable hand craft features like tremblage. So the goal is to be "perfect"? I'd argue that if uniformity of some sort was the goal then, if money is not a constraint (and clearly it isn't), then effort should be focused on developing a machine to do the job. If humanity was on a mission to create a machine that cuts an interior angle and proceeds to polish the sucker with 75000 pieces of soft wooden sticks until they wear out for 6 months uninterrupted we could totally do it. Same for guilloche done with a rose engine. A machine could absolutely do this job and more uniformly so. But watchmakers do all of it by hand and the machine made dials are usually of the uglier CNC variety. Why, well, if you ask me because a machine democratises a product to the point where it becomes attainable by the masses. And the main point of high-end independent watchmaking is to be the opposite of attainable. That's not to say there aren't some innovations still coming out (e.g. the Krayon everywhere) but it seems to me that's more like a bonus rather than the main selling point.

So if R Smith is TRULY, i.e. in an absolute sense (and not relative to an arbitrarily chosen group of peers), amongst the best then that's at being unobtainable. Collectors want it because they want it. And wanting something for no reason or even because others can't have it just for the sake of having it is totally fine, I don't judge. I just don't buy into the idea that it's trying to be the best at anything that has to do with being a watch because I believe it is a compromise in almost every way imaginable.

Then again, I am an imbecile so it wouldn't surprise me if I am missing the point 😉🍻

I have no interest whatsoever in paying a premium of any sort for hand made products. So Roger Smith isn't really my jam...

With that in mind, he is looking to get something in the neighborhood of 500,000€ for this watch. There isn't a watch in this world worth that amount and there never will be, not even if the indices and bevels were painstakingly polished by the King of England.

You’re absolutely on point with almost everything. Roger Smith will tell you himself he is not the best, however that is not the point. He is a unicorn, he is one of a couple of people on the entire planet that can take gold bar, plate, silver ingots and jewels and melt, bent, shape, polish, shine, cut, to his own design and produce a highly accurate time piece that is VERY durable and likely to still be around in a few hundred years (apocalypse and zombies aside). It’s that simple.

One doesn't simply determine if a Roger Smith is their jam. It's everyone's jam, if the jam is within reach, for most it simply isn't.

Okay but if you value that he can "take gold bar, plate, silver ingots and jewels and melt, bent, shape, polish, shine, cut, to his own design and produce a highly accurate time piece that is VERY durable and likely to still be around in a few hundred years" then wouldn't you want the watches to actually be made that way and not just in a workshop owned by a dude who has a track record and, in theory, could do it? He CNCs at least some of the parts and finishes them, along with his employees. These precision machines may or may not be necessary to actually make the watches in that form because the Co-Axial movements has such fine tolerances. According to this interview it is in part for scaled up production

"We’ve always used CNC machines,” explains Smith. “I’ve never shied away from showing that. If you want to make more than one watch a year you need to use CNC, there’s no question. Making pocket watches by hand is one thing but the reduced tolerances required for wristwatches is something else entirely. You make a change to one component and it affects five others. I’ve done it before but I don’t want to make watches that way."

But I like the unicorn analogy. Part of the appeal is certainly in the story and mystery surrounding what these watches are, how they are made and how common the required skills are (they are probably rather uncommon). And that's what you are paying for, a feeling that owning such a watch gives you which is arguably far more special than the watch itself. And that's okay. On some level most things are subjective. For many people watches seem to be an emotional thing, and that's totally fine, but for me they are absolutely not.

What I don't buy, but maybe I am just too thick to see it, is that there is some rigorously measurable quality to these watches. There is, as far as I can see, no data to back accuracy or durability claims. If there is, I am absolutely willing to change my mind and then some. Equally, there isn't any attempt made to leverage all existing technologies in order to maximise for any such quality. For some people merely an abstract feeling of quality (as AllTheWatches put it) along with a "consensus among experts" may be sufficient. For me it is not, my assessment is obviously still 100% subjective but I want to be able to measure/quantify the features (I work in the hard sciences if that isn't obvious 😜). With R Smith, or anything else that costs that amount of money, I can't see how to do that because everything seems like a compromise of some sort. It is that simple 😉🍻

Okay but if you value that he can "take gold bar, plate, silver ingots and jewels and melt, bent, shape, polish, shine, cut, to his own design and produce a highly accurate time piece that is VERY durable and likely to still be around in a few hundred years" then wouldn't you want the watches to actually be made that way and not just in a workshop owned by a dude who has a track record and, in theory, could do it? He CNCs at least some of the parts and finishes them, along with his employees. These precision machines may or may not be necessary to actually make the watches in that form because the Co-Axial movements has such fine tolerances. According to this interview it is in part for scaled up production

"We’ve always used CNC machines,” explains Smith. “I’ve never shied away from showing that. If you want to make more than one watch a year you need to use CNC, there’s no question. Making pocket watches by hand is one thing but the reduced tolerances required for wristwatches is something else entirely. You make a change to one component and it affects five others. I’ve done it before but I don’t want to make watches that way."

But I like the unicorn analogy. Part of the appeal is certainly in the story and mystery surrounding what these watches are, how they are made and how common the required skills are (they are probably rather uncommon). And that's what you are paying for, a feeling that owning such a watch gives you which is arguably far more special than the watch itself. And that's okay. On some level most things are subjective. For many people watches seem to be an emotional thing, and that's totally fine, but for me they are absolutely not.

What I don't buy, but maybe I am just too thick to see it, is that there is some rigorously measurable quality to these watches. There is, as far as I can see, no data to back accuracy or durability claims. If there is, I am absolutely willing to change my mind and then some. Equally, there isn't any attempt made to leverage all existing technologies in order to maximise for any such quality. For some people merely an abstract feeling of quality (as AllTheWatches put it) along with a "consensus among experts" may be sufficient. For me it is not, my assessment is obviously still 100% subjective but I want to be able to measure/quantify the features (I work in the hard sciences if that isn't obvious 😜). With R Smith, or anything else that costs that amount of money, I can't see how to do that because everything seems like a compromise of some sort. It is that simple 😉🍻

The price is not about utility, it's about the artist's legacy that you are buying into.

Look at the market for Renaissance art that was made by the masters of roughly the 1400-1700s. It sells in the hundreds of millions not because it is technically better than art today, but because it is a direct tie to the legacy of art in a place and time. in fact, the pants and canvases they used were much worse than what we paint with today.

Daniels and Smith are somewhat like Renaissance artists for what they accomplished. They've put their mark in the history books to be remembered, and the products they make are tied to that legacy.

Look at DaVinci and the Mundi Painting. It sold for over 400 million in spite of the fact that experts and historians argued it was likely made by one of his students. Nonetheless it sold for what it did because of its legacy.

It is not about utility, on that I can agree.

Daniels, maybe, his work has had an impact in that he influenced a major player to adapt a new escapement. That's a first in who knows how long even if Daniels' declared goal of majorly improved accuracy (source: R Smith) in mechanical watches on a large scale hasn't been accomplished and the project thus ultimately cannot be classed as a full on success. But Smith hasn't put any marks anywhere as far as I can tell. Only time will tell whether anyone will remember Roger Smith for any meaningful period of time. I in fact have a hard time imagining a future where Smith will have a lasting legacy because he will always be thought of as "the student". You think different and that is okay. As I said earlier, I am just an imbecile with an opinion based on the limited information I am able to comprehend.

At the end of the day, we all get a "vote" based on our opinion. Only the future will reveal what the majority thinks of either man's work and what the real legacy will be. I certainly don't care very much for either of them because I don't think watches, mechanical or otherwise, are art but I may be in the minority here 😉🍻

Hmmm not art you say?? Try checking out Van Cleef and Arpels https://youtu.be/ONAW6IeFVO8?si=ansmOXs3lMyprX10

correction to the above:

I don't think watches, mechanical or otherwise, are art, that is to say an artistic aspect will never be the main selling point for me, but I may be in the minority here because clearly there is a market for Metiers d'art collections and such.

It just doesn't impress me. I am more excited about the simplifications to astronomical complications done by Oechslin. It is my professional experience that making something simple that works reliably is far more difficult than making something incredibly complicated that kind of works. It is why I like Rolex and also I am seriously considering one of the Ochs&Junior perpetual calendars. The raw cases with visible machining marks don't bother me one bit, it emphasises the engineering aspect after all 😉 we all got our preferences, nothing wrong with that, no?