This was the first watch I ever designed.
So i was going through some old files and found this, i thought it was interesting enough to post, it is from 2011. I'm a jeweller/goldsmith by trade and we have an annual design competition called "The Goldsmiths Craft and Design Awards" I won a Gold Award for it, which was pretty cool. I also thought I came up with an original idea for a watch that flips and has two faces, surely no one has thought of that idea before!
19 comments
Sort by
Luke
New to the watch world, love the idea of designing and making my own watches. I have created my own designs and have attempted to make a case from scratch.
london
Member since
Last active: 5 months ago
That's amazing, great job!
Whilst one would always think of a Reverso for a reversible watch face, I think this more than satisfies originality when approaching the idea again. I like how the crown slots into the bracket on the moon face. Did you ever consider trying to get it into production?
Hi - You made a very interesting and fascinating design 👏...Reversable dials have been around for several decades if not longer; the Reverso is one of the most famous, although Patek also made watches very similar to it as well as reversible complicated pieces, not to mention Tag Heuer and some others.
Because of all this history, there are innumerable patents that must be worked around as JLC has strictly covered everything possible...In fact, Tag had to circumvent some 25 odd patents to be able to release their model with two faces, some 24 years ago...It is a hotly contested area of watchmaking!
Your design is different from all those however, because you have incorporated the elements for the flipping mechanism/holder as design elements, whereas other brands try their best to 'hide' this mechanism. So yes, you have an interesting design and it is very worthy for production somewhere; however any company working with you with have to address these selfsame patent issues.
Whilst one would always think of a Reverso for a reversible watch face, I think this more than satisfies originality when approaching the idea again. I like how the crown slots into the bracket on the moon face. Did you ever consider trying to get it into production?
I tried but could never figure out a double sided movement. But that was years ago, this is the first time I've seen this design in a very long time. With a bunch of other designs also I found.
An amazing design, for sure. Under the cuff of a suit, chef's kiss, this would look incredible. It's subtle yet exudes class. Well done!
Hi - You made a very interesting and fascinating design 👏...Reversable dials have been around for several decades if not longer; the Reverso is one of the most famous, although Patek also made watches very similar to it as well as reversible complicated pieces, not to mention Tag Heuer and some others.
Because of all this history, there are innumerable patents that must be worked around as JLC has strictly covered everything possible...In fact, Tag had to circumvent some 25 odd patents to be able to release their model with two faces, some 24 years ago...It is a hotly contested area of watchmaking!
Your design is different from all those however, because you have incorporated the elements for the flipping mechanism/holder as design elements, whereas other brands try their best to 'hide' this mechanism. So yes, you have an interesting design and it is very worthy for production somewhere; however any company working with you with have to address these selfsame patent issues.
Wow that's alot of history! Thanks for informing me!
I tried but could never figure out a double sided movement. But that was years ago, this is the first time I've seen this design in a very long time. With a bunch of other designs also I found.
Yes, I could see that being an issue - especially with the fact you couldn’t just whack something thin inside like an ETA 7001. Saying that, some Reversos are just a single watch face and a protective back, so perhaps if one of your faces was particularly ornate or engraved but just decorative, you could maybe work out the two-face option down the line (or licence it to someone).
No, purely decorative design features are the most complex to patent (if at all) and most are actually unpatentable (in the watch industry at least). It's all about the functionality of the mechanism. A decorative squiggle will not change that..
No, purely decorative design features are the most complex to patent (if at all) and most are actually unpatentable (in the watch industry at least). It's all about the functionality of the mechanism. A decorative squiggle will not change that..
Is that addressed to my above comment? I merely suggested doing one watch face and one decorative face as a starter to see if that works for getting the concept into reality; the main drawback seemed to be getting a movement / complication that could power the two watch faces. I was genuinely curious about the idea and what happened, so forgive me if I am not addressing the real issues, or thinking about the complex patent issues down the line. I am not a watch maker, so I will happily keep my questioning to a minimum.
I like that there is actually a stated purpose to having the two faces. What size was this intended to be?
Is the hinge design deliberately reminiscent of a make-up mirror? I'm guessing that the lugs and clasp were not fully developed, as I can't decipher them.
Is that addressed to my above comment? I merely suggested doing one watch face and one decorative face as a starter to see if that works for getting the concept into reality; the main drawback seemed to be getting a movement / complication that could power the two watch faces. I was genuinely curious about the idea and what happened, so forgive me if I am not addressing the real issues, or thinking about the complex patent issues down the line. I am not a watch maker, so I will happily keep my questioning to a minimum.
Since I work in the watch industry, all I am trying to do is help explain how this stuff works in the world of watchmaking, on that long road where ideas get turned into actual watches. That's all 🤓
On the plus side, you foresaw the integrated strap/bracelet trend...
an interesting watch to see would be one with 2 watch faces that turn when you put the watch on upside down. 2 of those really thin quarts would work with a see thru case back. Velcro to hold the thing on.The caseback side would have slightly recessed crystal for work.
That's a really cool design.
Since I work in the watch industry, all I am trying to do is help explain how this stuff works in the world of watchmaking, on that long road where ideas get turned into actual watches. That's all 🤓
Out of curiosity, why would something like a metal back with a design be more difficult? Would it be acceptable to construct a prototype regardless to show of the concept? Genuinely curious now.
No not more difficult to make as a design on its own; I meant that adding a design element, as a possible work around exisiting patents, would not really help achieve that. For patents on hinging/flipping a case or dial it is only about the actual construction.
Each time I see a reverso I wonder why there aren't more (clones)homages.
Hi - You made a very interesting and fascinating design 👏...Reversable dials have been around for several decades if not longer; the Reverso is one of the most famous, although Patek also made watches very similar to it as well as reversible complicated pieces, not to mention Tag Heuer and some others.
Because of all this history, there are innumerable patents that must be worked around as JLC has strictly covered everything possible...In fact, Tag had to circumvent some 25 odd patents to be able to release their model with two faces, some 24 years ago...It is a hotly contested area of watchmaking!
Your design is different from all those however, because you have incorporated the elements for the flipping mechanism/holder as design elements, whereas other brands try their best to 'hide' this mechanism. So yes, you have an interesting design and it is very worthy for production somewhere; however any company working with you with have to address these selfsame patent issues.
Genuinely curious, what patents could JLC have, utility or design, that prevents anyone from making a two faced watch? The patents on the Reverso must have expired decades ago. I don't see why anyone can't knock off a Reverso as they can a Submariner. They can't just get a new patent, since a patent has to be "novel." And the 24 years between TAG and now is enough time for whatever those patents were to have expired.
Genuinely curious, what patents could JLC have, utility or design, that prevents anyone from making a two faced watch? The patents on the Reverso must have expired decades ago. I don't see why anyone can't knock off a Reverso as they can a Submariner. They can't just get a new patent, since a patent has to be "novel." And the 24 years between TAG and now is enough time for whatever those patents were to have expired.
That's a perfectly valid point you bring up.
It is important to remember that patents like this are almost never 'single' patent deposits; every aspect can be (and often is) deliberately patented separately. Does the flipping of the watch face use ball bearings to lock in place, or a click? Are the hinges (if used) at 12 or 3 o'clock? Multi-leaved or single? What kinds of springs are used? Where are they used? Can the watch face be flipped whilst wearing the watch? Is the watch itself double sided or one sided? What maximum thickness movement can the patent accomodate? And so on and so forth.
In this manner a 20 year patent life (as internationally recognized) can be lengthened a long time. Take the old patent out before deadline (or just a couple of the subsidiary patents) and re-work some detail enough to make it count as new. Happens all the time to valuable watch patents.
But patents are only one part; there can also be legal consequences arising from the (originally patented) product itself. Once a company has produced a well known and recognizable (watch) product for several years and it is successful, the name and features can be copyrighted (to a degree at least) and imitating it could lead to court... In just a couple of cases I know, a tiny independent in Japan was threatened by a Swiss company for using a titanium balance, and Cartier has blocked people from making versions of the Tank à Guichets, but neither party had the cash to fight the patents out, even though they could win, and they walked away, patents be damned.
There are many Swiss watch patents like these that could likely be successfuly ignored in details and successully fought, however, if the legal costs of fighting it out would be excessive, many companies choose to do their homework in advance, (like Tag H) or just drop the idea.
A patent is only as good as the cash you have to protect it.