Show me the specs
So I am a big spec junkie, in general, with all things I buy or make. From watches to can openers, I enjoy the challenge of optimizing something for its intended use. However one thing I find with the watch cummunity is that some specs dont get enough attention and some get too much.
The obvious one is water depth resistance. Everyone will say its important but most well versed enthusiasts will acknowledge when you get beyond 200m/20atm you're really going above what is actually practical.
One spec that does not get nearly the attention it deserves in my opinion is magnetic resistance. Not only is magnetism much more common in modern day to day life, it is also much more likely to catch you off guard than accidently dipping your watch in water. A simple iPad case, bag clip, speaker, laptop, etc. could throw off your watch's ability to function correctly. Yet everyone always debates crystals, cases, bands/bracelets and water depth like any single one of them can make or break a watch.
I propose we should have our specs listed by priority of importance. So here is my spec list in order, assuming looks are a given because that is much more subjective.
- Movement reliability and accuracy (mech or electronic) - obvious, a watch tells time after all.
- Case design and material - this determines physical durability, assuming you wear your watch not leave it in a box.
- Crystal and dial design - these two work in tandem and should be protected by the case. Its more important to look how they work with eachother rather then their specific material. Sure saphire doesnt scratch, but if properly protected acrylic and and mineral wont either. No material is perfect in any case.
- Anti-magnetism - go ahead and try to understand this one, its not easy; maybe why its often overlooked? But like I said, much more likely your watch will accidentally come close to a magnetic field than taking an unplanned plunge deeper than 10m. Applies to mech and electronic watches too by the way.
- Bracelet/strap - should truly be based on intended use. If you go to the gym with your steel bracelet...well...I guess you can, its just not very practical. There's a reason why the Nato strap was invented, as well as resin cases and bands.
- Water resistance - at the bottom, where it belongs (no pun intended). There are watches you will never purposly take into water and they are rated and designed as such. Conversly, all watches intended for water have the minimum 100m or higher rating. And really even the 30m dress watch will likely survive you being pushed into a pool as a prank, as long as you get right out and its gaskets arent 50 years old.
Interested to see if others agree or disagree. I have this debate all the time with other watch nerds so happy to broaden to a wider group.
Well rounded nerd, into music, guitar pedals, all things DIY, and watches!
This can be tough. It is quite easy to list a bunch of specs we all love, then we get served the same boring watches. But some things I like to tell myself I look at, but often do not get past point 3:
This can be tough. It is quite easy to list a bunch of specs we all love, then we get served the same boring watches. But some things I like to tell myself I look at, but often do not get past point 3:
Bezel, crown and lume are very good ones I would agree. I did not list them as to me that is all part of the case and dial design, but good comment as they would be important sub categories at the very least.
I think your 1, 2, 7 are more the subjective matters or what I call the "looks" category and definitely would not debate those since everyone just has their tastes.
Heritage is interesting as it could very much relate to reliability, so it could be both technical and emotional.
Anti-magnetism haven’t been on my top priority list (since im new in watch collecting), but all me personally look at specs as well when looking for a watch. Started with a seiko 5, price to get into this rabbit hole was my first concern. Then water resistance and size are next.
Agree with you on the ”looks” part, but then case design include lug width and bracelet/strap (ease of bracelet options). And anything polished means less anti-scratch-magnetism.
now im struggling with my first swiss made (hopefully spec worthy diver) and looking forward to give 4hz movement a try.
Anti-magnetism haven’t been on my top priority list (since im new in watch collecting), but all me personally look at specs as well when looking for a watch. Started with a seiko 5, price to get into this rabbit hole was my first concern. Then water resistance and size are next.
Agree with you on the ”looks” part, but then case design include lug width and bracelet/strap (ease of bracelet options). And anything polished means less anti-scratch-magnetism.
now im struggling with my first swiss made (hopefully spec worthy diver) and looking forward to give 4hz movement a try.
I ordered a Ball watch as my first "luxury" Swiss watch. Based on looks but also because I feel it offers great value in specs. Check them out!
My two penn'oth worth as a contrasting opinion, because I like talking and it's a really interesting topic...
I can't really give you any kind of list because nothing you mention really matters to me at all! With the exception of my G-shock, which I have purely for function, I wear watches because of how they make me feel. End of story. Specs have practically nothing to do with improving the feeling I get from a watch or my enjoyment of it and are really just incidental, so I barely think about them when I'm looking to add something to my collection. If a watch isn't water resistant, I keep it away from water. If the crystal isn't sapphire, I try to be more gentle with it. If the bracelet is a bit rubbish, I'll swap it. Case design/material from a specs stand point rather than an aesthetic one? I truly don't care. Honestly, if I really loved a watch I would wear it even if it didn't run! Just like Andy Warhol and his tank which he didn't even bother setting to the right time.
Perhaps the only thing in the specs I may look at is the lug to lug, as this would greatly affect how it looked and thus how I felt about it. But if I REALLY felt emotionally attached to it, I don't think even that would put me off.
I think you and I are great examples of the Yin and Yang of watch collecting. You love the mechanics and function. I am all about heritage, stories and emotions. Just shows what a diverse range of folks watch appreciation attracts. I enjoy reading about what other people love and appreciate in watches, so reading your and others lists really is very interesting.
My two penn'oth worth as a contrasting opinion, because I like talking and it's a really interesting topic...
I can't really give you any kind of list because nothing you mention really matters to me at all! With the exception of my G-shock, which I have purely for function, I wear watches because of how they make me feel. End of story. Specs have practically nothing to do with improving the feeling I get from a watch or my enjoyment of it and are really just incidental, so I barely think about them when I'm looking to add something to my collection. If a watch isn't water resistant, I keep it away from water. If the crystal isn't sapphire, I try to be more gentle with it. If the bracelet is a bit rubbish, I'll swap it. Case design/material from a specs stand point rather than an aesthetic one? I truly don't care. Honestly, if I really loved a watch I would wear it even if it didn't run! Just like Andy Warhol and his tank which he didn't even bother setting to the right time.
Perhaps the only thing in the specs I may look at is the lug to lug, as this would greatly affect how it looked and thus how I felt about it. But if I REALLY felt emotionally attached to it, I don't think even that would put me off.
I think you and I are great examples of the Yin and Yang of watch collecting. You love the mechanics and function. I am all about heritage, stories and emotions. Just shows what a diverse range of folks watch appreciation attracts. I enjoy reading about what other people love and appreciate in watches, so reading your and others lists really is very interesting.
I couldnt agree more! I think I'm actually more like you than you think. If I like a watch, I'll get it if its within reach, thats all there is to it.
The point I want to drive rather is I feel some people will sometimes write off a watch, or claim one is superior to another based on specs. But if youre going for specs, focus where it matters more, based on use, and if not dont focus on it at all as you said.
Oddly enough for me a good design combined with a good spec is what elicits my emotions haha. But I can totally see how some focus more on the look and feel.
I ordered a Ball watch as my first "luxury" Swiss watch. Based on looks but also because I feel it offers great value in specs. Check them out!
Thank you for the recommendation! Been looking at Ball watches, and i feel like they’re a bit too fancy for my taste 😂 (looks-wise).
So far im into Squale or entry level Longines divers, but God help me these Prospex Divers keep pulling me away 😭
Thank you for the recommendation! Been looking at Ball watches, and i feel like they’re a bit too fancy for my taste 😂 (looks-wise).
So far im into Squale or entry level Longines divers, but God help me these Prospex Divers keep pulling me away 😭
Tissot's Seastar divers have an option with a magnetic resistant balance spring. May be limited based on your wrist soze though.
Great post - got me thinking. The entire thread brought up some very good points. I think AntiMagnetic, METAS, Gauss rating is more important than ever. Omega seems to be the Frontline Mover for brands in this area. The entire Omega lineup appears to have specs that blast past the Rolex Milgauss (allegedly the original AntiMagnetic watch) The company tag line is Honoring Science for the Milgauss. Very cool seconds hand on that piece.
Specs come down to marketing. Rolex is the king of marketing since day one - probably why they use a crown logo. Milgauss obviously not the AntiMagnetic leader but marketed that way. The first oyster case marketed for water resistance by a failed attempt to cross the English Channel. Sir Edmond Hillary didn't wear an Explorer but he did market Explorer for Rolex. The Submariner I believe originally had a 200m water resistance but 300m is it's standard for quite some time. Then there's Seadweller etc. Marketing had created the order of importance in watch making IMO. Rolex is a better "Brand" because of it's marketing.
Omega going for massive METAS ratings is brilliant. Our world is addicted to plugging things in to an electrical socket or battery powered. All this current creates Magnitism. What a subtle way to make a statement about analog tech being important