What are your thoughts on watch design? Prefer to stay constant or go the extra mile?

HODINKEE Radio: Consistency Vs. Variety In Watch Design (Rolex, Omega, and MB&F)

In watch design, does fortune really favor the bold?

www.hodinkee.com

Hello Watchcrunch,

For the uninitiated, Hodinkee has a podcast called Hodinkee Radio where the host, James Stacey, often brings on members of the Hodinkee team to cover different watch conversation topics.

I heard this a little while ago and wanted to try the start discussion feature on WatchCrunch so here I am. I thought it would be an interesting discussion point.

This is the blurb for the podcast:

Some watch brands never seem to change, while others are constantly trying to re-invent what they do. That's the topic for this episode of HODINKEE Radio and I asked Jack, Danny, and Cole to weigh in with their perspectives on the concept of consistency vs. variety in watch design. 

Now I ask you how do you feel about watch design? Do you like consistency or variety?

To get a better idea of how these are defined, they refer to Rolex and Cartier as brands who rely on consistency and brands like MB&F and G-Shock who have a lot of variety in their catalogue.

They also mention Omega as an in-between, where they have their core models that don't change, while still offering a large variety even with those model lines.

If this conversation point has been brought up before, my apologies!

Reply
·

I'm such a centrist on this. 

If you are an established brand, you risk alienating fans if you change. You also risk losing sales if you don't change. It's a knife's edge. If we look to Disney for some inspiration though, the way becomes clearer. Disney routinely changes small things in their parks that mean the experience changes enough to trigger FOMO, but not enough that you lose out on the overall nostalgia. 

A newer brand though? Even more perilous. With watches being mostly the same form factor, you can't stray too far from what's been developed or you risk consumers seeing you as just a novelty. However, stick too closely to what has worked for others and you get labeled as a rip off. You have to vacillate between those poles while trying to find a hit watch you can then ride forever like the Rolex OP or the Speedy. 

For me, Omega/Swatch navigates these waters between stuffy & new the best with having their tent poles of the Speedy & SM and then trying other things with different models/brands (MoonSwatch). 

·

Jedi nailed it, the independent and micros are in the best spot to push the envelope. One Watch also helps with that in that allows conservative brands to take a risk on a single watch, but it would be cool if they allowed for the makers to have a line that allows their makers to get crazy, similar to what AMG and Polestar used to be.  

·

Only so much you can do with round but, Let's not get carried away!!!

Image
·

My preference is for a brand to stick with a design style for models/ranges. I like what CW did starting with the C60 Trident Mk3, right through the latest the C65 Aquitaine. All of the dive/sport lines within CW now have a unified design language, so upon seeing a C60, C63, or C65 you can spot immediately that it is a CW.  

I realize the brand is under 20 years old, but in the last 18 years they have a lot of different designs. 

·

I feel like a common design DNA is something that more watch brands should take the time developing. 

For me, the Omega Seamaster 300 is, in many ways, the perfect, on paper watch.  The tech is best in class.  They're available.  They're luxury items but not super ridiculous for someone who spends some time saving.

But if I asked you, what is the design element that ties all the generations of seamasters together, what would you answer? I don't think there's a single common element aside from the logo.  

Take a look for yourself.

https://www.esquire.com/uk/watches/g22861582/the-iconic-omega-seamaster-through-the-years/

I think there's something to creating a distinct design ethic that is identifiable as uniquely theirs.  Its not just Rolex either.  Cartier has it's Roman numerals and even Grand Seiko has done much to develop a Grand Seiko look (kit Kat bar hour markers, the broad sharp dauphin hands, and a textured dial).

It always feels like a missed opportunity to me.

·

As George Carlin says, it's always in the last place you look because once you find it, you stop looking. Brands that are still messing with the formula haven't gotten it right yet.

There is a fine line between consistency and stagnancy. I could list several of the iconic models and about half I think are timelessly perfect, and the others I find to be stale and overplayed. Several of the most loved "grail" models are, in my eye, unlovable tired cookie-cutters that no amount of futzing can fix.

·

Agree with a lot that has already been said but I think both are important and that’s why almost no one owns just 1 brand. Even consistent brands like Rolex and Omega occasionally push the envelope with materials and colors from time to time. 

·

I think a way around this is to put out special editions.  I don't think it would tarnish Rolex's rep if they put out a ceramic cased Sub.  And even if people hated it, they would still love the regular Sub and over time the ceramic ones would still end up being worth a ton of money.  In that regard, I'll be surprised if Swatch never puts out another collab with Omega.  I think they've seen they can do things like that without ruining the Speedmaster name and heritage as long as it's a limited thing.

·

If people are buying or waiting to buy your watches, would it not be stupid to change the design?  It is hard to fault the plan of any company that is profitable but that is from a business perspective.  As a consumer, the watches I like should remain the same while the ones I dislike should be changed into something I do like.  Unfortunately for me I am not a big enough influencer for any watch company to care.  I don't see any harm in doing some new models in an existing line which is probably the safe play for currently successful companies.  

·
UnholiestJedi

I'm such a centrist on this. 

If you are an established brand, you risk alienating fans if you change. You also risk losing sales if you don't change. It's a knife's edge. If we look to Disney for some inspiration though, the way becomes clearer. Disney routinely changes small things in their parks that mean the experience changes enough to trigger FOMO, but not enough that you lose out on the overall nostalgia. 

A newer brand though? Even more perilous. With watches being mostly the same form factor, you can't stray too far from what's been developed or you risk consumers seeing you as just a novelty. However, stick too closely to what has worked for others and you get labeled as a rip off. You have to vacillate between those poles while trying to find a hit watch you can then ride forever like the Rolex OP or the Speedy. 

For me, Omega/Swatch navigates these waters between stuffy & new the best with having their tent poles of the Speedy & SM and then trying other things with different models/brands (MoonSwatch). 

I like the Disney comparison. I can see it similar to Rolex in the sense that they do make small changes and do introduce some different things (green crystal on the Milgaus). 

For newer brands, I think it can depend on how they position themselves. Not sure if by newer brands you are referencing microbrands/independents or just large new brands (Monta, CW) but either way you may want to be that brand that shows consistency all the time or a brand that thrives on a variety. As @KristianG pointed out I think recently CW has done a good job at both by having a model line, something consistent, then in the model line showing variety, as Omega does with their model lines. Definitely not something easy for brands to navigate.

·
MinnKonaMike

Only so much you can do with round but, Let's not get carried away!!!

Image

Not sure that the keyboard was planned to be worn, haha. This does give me Fallout Pipboy vibes.

·
Edge168n

I feel like a common design DNA is something that more watch brands should take the time developing. 

For me, the Omega Seamaster 300 is, in many ways, the perfect, on paper watch.  The tech is best in class.  They're available.  They're luxury items but not super ridiculous for someone who spends some time saving.

But if I asked you, what is the design element that ties all the generations of seamasters together, what would you answer? I don't think there's a single common element aside from the logo.  

Take a look for yourself.

https://www.esquire.com/uk/watches/g22861582/the-iconic-omega-seamaster-through-the-years/

I think there's something to creating a distinct design ethic that is identifiable as uniquely theirs.  Its not just Rolex either.  Cartier has it's Roman numerals and even Grand Seiko has done much to develop a Grand Seiko look (kit Kat bar hour markers, the broad sharp dauphin hands, and a textured dial).

It always feels like a missed opportunity to me.

The Seamaster is an interesting case example. Omega had a large variety of models existing prior to the bond SMP300. I feel like they realized they need one classic design to go on with, then established other model lines underneath it. From 1995 to now the SMP300 has been relatively consistent. In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty small compared to something like the Submariner, however, it's now easier than ever to spot a Seamaster. I could easily confuse a vintage Seamaster with a vintage Constellation.

·
thekris

I think a way around this is to put out special editions.  I don't think it would tarnish Rolex's rep if they put out a ceramic cased Sub.  And even if people hated it, they would still love the regular Sub and over time the ceramic ones would still end up being worth a ton of money.  In that regard, I'll be surprised if Swatch never puts out another collab with Omega.  I think they've seen they can do things like that without ruining the Speedmaster name and heritage as long as it's a limited thing.

I would be surprised if Rolex did a special edition. I know they have in the past with things like the Kermit, where it's an anniversary edition, and the James Cameron Deepsea but those are few and far between. Part of me almost doesn't want them to get into the Special Edition game because it will start making it hard to follow. I can't tell you how many times I find a new Omega watch that I've never seen because it was a limited/special edition. As a collector, I find that cool, but as a consumer, it can get confusing. How do I know if I have a real Omega product or if someone faked it and sold it to me as a rare special / limited edition? (obviously research cuts through a lot of the BS).

·
Velomax

If people are buying or waiting to buy your watches, would it not be stupid to change the design?  It is hard to fault the plan of any company that is profitable but that is from a business perspective.  As a consumer, the watches I like should remain the same while the ones I dislike should be changed into something I do like.  Unfortunately for me I am not a big enough influencer for any watch company to care.  I don't see any harm in doing some new models in an existing line which is probably the safe play for currently successful companies.  

That's a point touched on in the podcast. They were talking about why change something that clearly is working and has people lining up to buy. Furthermore, they touched on the point that Rolex is a private company, so they don't need to succumb to the whims of investors. They don't need to pursue growth.

·
unseenhero

I would be surprised if Rolex did a special edition. I know they have in the past with things like the Kermit, where it's an anniversary edition, and the James Cameron Deepsea but those are few and far between. Part of me almost doesn't want them to get into the Special Edition game because it will start making it hard to follow. I can't tell you how many times I find a new Omega watch that I've never seen because it was a limited/special edition. As a collector, I find that cool, but as a consumer, it can get confusing. How do I know if I have a real Omega product or if someone faked it and sold it to me as a rare special / limited edition? (obviously research cuts through a lot of the BS).

I just used Rolex as an internet sample, I’d be surprised if they did something like a different case material. Then again, being surprising is great advertising. 
 

This is a slippery slope. Swatch got so much buzz because of the novelty, they’ll get a lot less buzz if they make a habit of doing crossovers with their other brands. That said, I think they will and it’ll work as long as they don’t do it very often. 
 

I don’t disagree about Omega, but I assume they do that because ethe watches keep selling. To be honest, if I were about to buy an Aquatera and a special edition came out, I’d consider buying that because of the exclusivity. Of course I wouldn’t be offered one, but I’d probably be interested. 

·
unseenhero

The Seamaster is an interesting case example. Omega had a large variety of models existing prior to the bond SMP300. I feel like they realized they need one classic design to go on with, then established other model lines underneath it. From 1995 to now the SMP300 has been relatively consistent. In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty small compared to something like the Submariner, however, it's now easier than ever to spot a Seamaster. I could easily confuse a vintage Seamaster with a vintage Constellation.

I agree they've converged somewhat.  But there's still a wide divergence in visual style even among last couple of gen models.  As an enthusiast, I can see some of the similarities.  As a nonenthusiast, they might as well be made by different manufacturers.

This is a Seamaster 300

Large, zoomable image of OMEGA Men's Seamaster 300 Master. 1 of 15

This is also a seamaster 300

Why the NEW Seamaster Diver 300M is Worth the Price Increase - YouTube

This is also a seamaster 300.

Image

Versus the submariner.

rolex submariners

I don't even like the submariner!  but I feel like Omega, with such history, could do more to keep the generations tied together.

·
Edge168n

I agree they've converged somewhat.  But there's still a wide divergence in visual style even among last couple of gen models.  As an enthusiast, I can see some of the similarities.  As a nonenthusiast, they might as well be made by different manufacturers.

This is a Seamaster 300

Large, zoomable image of OMEGA Men's Seamaster 300 Master. 1 of 15

This is also a seamaster 300

Why the NEW Seamaster Diver 300M is Worth the Price Increase - YouTube

This is also a seamaster 300.

Image

Versus the submariner.

rolex submariners

I don't even like the submariner!  but I feel like Omega, with such history, could do more to keep the generations tied together.

You could argue the Yachmaster and Sea-Dweller/Deep Sea are also Submariners.

The difference in brands is the categorization.

·

I like the way Omega does it.