Analog GMTs. Just look bad to me. I just don't get it. Digital and hybrid analog-digital watches do this without looking bad.

Most Tudor watches. I don't like the hands, though models like the Ranger with different hands look good.

Squale. Worst logo ever and ruins otherwise great looking watches. I would rather wear a 50mm Invicta monstrosity (I wear 36-40mm watches typically) because they at least have some concept of dial balance, as bad as the dial may be. Really sucks because I like Squale's designs a lot otherwise.

Cartier. Not ugly, but I would never want to get one. Way too formal for me.

I just like to buy what I like. There isn't an "oh, I need these types of watches" and then force myself to buy watches that I don't really like just to fill that gap. As a result, my collection is fairly diverse, but it's not based on some strategy or anything like that.

Really depends on what watch it is. For instance, there is no way that I would have bought my Nomos if it had a central seconds hand. The small seconds are a key part of the design.

On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't want small seconds on my Khaki FIeld for example.

A lot brands just take a generic watch design and slap small seconds on there, which looks awful. To look good, a watch needs a cohesive design and to do that, elements like the seconds need to be considered in the rest of the dial, as well.

Actually it's orange in bright lighting, but looks red in darker lighting. Also not lume. Looks really good and actually works together well with dark red straps despite being orange due to the red-ish shade.

Finland has a rather generic watch brand called Leijona that sells watches at a relatively low price range (like 50-300€). I like my Järwi, but you are not assembling watches in Finland for the money range that they sell stuff for, so it's clearly China-made and only the design is done in Finland.

However, they have a Leijona X Voutilainen collab series that's far more expensive and assembled in Switzerland under a Finnish watchmaker. None of these watches have any appeal to me, but could be worth mentioning.

And if you have unlimited money, there is Voutilainen itself. Rolex is spare change compared to these.

If I'm spending 4k on one watch, which I wouldn't do, any visible imperfections are not acceptable. If the level of QC is on the same level as watches at 1/10 of that, why spend that much, even if I like the design?

That said, if an imperfection required a loupe or other magnification to be visible, I would not mind. If I can't see it, it makes no difference.

If it isn't using the brand of another company, it's not a fake. Simple as that.

I think this stuff is all overcomplicated. Rolex, Omega, whatever watches aren't being made by their original designers. They are just copies/fakes if you want to call them that. The only difference between this and a homage is that in the former case the company has the rights to slap a particular name/logo on the dial, which the other doesn't.

And if somebody asked me if my Pagani was an Omega (which would never happen outside of fantasy), I would tell them that it's a Pagani. No reason to complicate things.