You might recall a famous scene from the 1923 silent film Safety Last where the great actor and stuntman Harold Lloyd dangled from the side of a New York skyscraper, at one moment hanging on for dear life on the hands of a clock. You almost certainly know this image, even if you do not know the film or Lloyd, and as a watch-loving person – as you certainly must be – you might have wondered how in the world was the actor able to grab hold of the clock’s hands. Were they not shielded by glass or something? Depending on your age and how strong a grip watches have on you, you might have even wondered that before thinking about how this scene was shot.

Indeed, in ages long past, one might adjust a watch by turning the hands themselves, as you might also have noticed from films and other depictions and recreations of the past. Movements, all mechanical back in these periods, were a little better protected but not by much. The clockwork was protected by doors, through which servicing was done, and the largest ones were walk-in (or climb-in) engines. Pocket watches were much the same, with the movements of key-wind and key-set watches needing to be accessed directly to, well, wind and set them. The invention of the keyless works by Adrien Philippe (of Patek Philippe) in 1843 went a long way towards resolving this issue, and other advances in winding and setting the time generally made watches safer and easier to use. That is to say, the machine itself was less at risk of unintentional damage from handling and from the influence of the outside world.

Thus, the importance of the sapphire crystal protecting the dial of your watch from the elements cannot be overstated. The hands, or whatever the display style might be, are how we tell the time and the crystal is thus transparent in its virtues. So far, so clear but when it comes to the caseback, things get murky real quick. Take for example this question: what information, if anything, are enthusiasts trying to gain by having what amounts to a sapphire crystal window over the movement? The comparative value versus the dial is objectively lower, and not by degrees but orders of magnitude. Most mechanical watches and virtually all quartz ones reflect this fact. Look no farther than Rolex and G-Shock for evidence, if any is required. The aforementioned advances in watchmaking made accessing the movement for anything other than servicing unnecessary and undesirable, from a purely objective machinist standpoint.

And yet, watch industry executives constantly remind us – in person and in various brand advertisements – that no one buys watches these days for purely timekeeping reasons. Your watch, despite the seconds it tracks so assiduously, does not improve your time management prowess. Well, the smart watch certainly might, and the emphasis on display real estate, which also doubles as the user interface, tells the story. Ah, but those troublesome watch insiders whisper ever so loudly: a smart watch is not a real watch. It is only real timepieces that dare to thrill you with their frenetic kinetics, or so the exhibition caseback implies. Is this really what all true watch enthusiasts demand?

The editors of WOW Singapore and Thailand roll up their sleeves and talk it over, with a special guest appearance by the editor of WOW Malaysia.

Ashok Soman (AS): Happy mid 2024! And we find ourselves with yet another watch fair around the corner. It has got me thinking about trends again...my least favourite topic. In preparation for this relatively stomach-churning process, I went trawling through my cache of old ideas that seem really cool but probably are not. Long story short, seems like tradespeople are trying to build a narrative around exhibition casebacks again.

Ruckdee Chotjinda (RC): In fact, I’ve just completed my Watches and Wonders Geneva registration last night. Time flies indeed!

AS: Oh the nightmare of the registration photo! Seeing is not always worth something and I do not get why these badges need our mugs on them. By the same token, I really do not get why we need to see every calibre out there, but that means I might indeed be partial to talking about the dearly beloved exhibition caseback. Some observers think that now that Rolex is getting into it – in a more significant way than it has before – that others may go the opposite way. Good news I think because quite a number of movements could do with a bit more modesty.

No sooner had this thought given me cause for some smug self-satisfaction than a piece of copy came my way that gave me hives...well not literally but when I see commentary that suggests, even with all the winking and nodding in the world, that a quartz watch should have a display back, I am struck by recollections (hand-me-downs for sure) of the quartz crisis and what the landscape looked like in the 1990s.

Daniel Goh (DG): Just to jump in here, I disagree with all the negative commentary that quartz watches get. I think the invention of the quartz movement was an (important) historical component in the evolution of the watch industry. Sure, most of the quartz movements aimed to be cheaper to manufacture but is that not a natural part of every industry? Like how watchmakers also moved from making every component by hand in barns during winter months (according to Swiss watch lore) to industrialised production lines for mechanical watches.

RC: So, Daniel, are you team exhibition caseback all the time or just sometimes? What are your criteria?

DG: Good question. I think for me it depends on what the watch is trying to achieve. At the more affordable levels, an exhibition caseback is always good, regardless of the level of finishing or even the type of movement as previously mentioned with the Paulin or Seiko 5 because it really helps to generate interest in these little machines we put on our wrists. Conversely, if a watch is say a field watch, or a dive watch with historical provenance for that matter, it does not fit the purpose of the watch to put a sapphire crystal on the caseback.

RC: Oh ... you touch on a subject that is dear to my heart there. I was quite shocked when IWC gave their 2013 Ingenieur line a sapphire crystal caseback. I was like ... oh, no. No, no. Two refreshes and 10 years later, the caseback is now solid once again. Outside of special purpose watches like that, I have been generally partial towards exhibition caseback, but these days I am quite indifferent. Most watches with very well-finished movements seem to come with one anyway, and I am not going to ask the manufacture to close that window to beauty.

DG: I, on the other hand, used to love exhibition casebacks because I get a window into the heart of the watch. But these days, just knowing the movement is there and just knowing the level of finishing on it is good enough for me, so it does not matter to me whether it is an open or closed caseback, what matters is the reasoning behind the choice. Sometimes I do wonder if this is because, due to my job, I am privileged enough to have seen so many beautiful watches and movements practically every other day. I am dying to know the perspective from the average joe watch buyer. If you, our dear readers are reading this, feel free to drop us an email, facebook message, Instagram DM whatever to tell us your thoughts.

AS: For the purposes of this story at least, I shall be the (sort-of) naysayer, and I have mighty forces behind me...I speak of course of the great titan of the closed caseback, Rolex! Ok seriously though, given that Rolex has a commanding market share (the dominant player in watchmaking for watches above CHF3,000), the fact that it never went in for the display caseback says a lot. Maybe it is the strange Britishness of Rolex that makes it so shy. I am reminded that the late George Daniels, that paragon of English watchmaking, wrote in his book Watchmaking that proper gentlemen did not trouble themselves with the innards of clocks nor the hows and whys and the whatnots; that was for tradespeople. My how times have changed!

RC: Yes, you brought this up once. Was it in an interview or in a book of his?

AS: A book for sure, which I sadly do not own but will be happy to receive (if anyone relevant is reading this: hint!). He was just expounding on the history of appreciating watches, which in the era of the pocket watch was quite different. This is pretty interesting because it is documented (not well) that Bovet made exhibition caseback pocket watches for China back in the old 19th century (when all those fine gentlemen were making mischief in the mysterious Orient). These would have to have been glass, perhaps of the mineral variety; we shall have to ask Bovet for more information.

RC: That is interesting to know. Thanks. I would chalk that up to evolution then, cultural and technological.

AS: There are practical reasons, lest we forget, that showing off the movement took awhile to catch on. To get right to it, sapphire crystal was required because everything else was just too fragile; there is also the matter of rubber gaskets and all the water-proofing work that would have been done in the 20th century. I suppose that all those fine Geneva watches with positively baroque finishing would have been prefect to go into cases that maximised visibility.

DG: Speaking of this, I wonder what other concessions brands have to make in order to have an exhibition caseback? I am sure in terms of water-resistance, they either have to over-engineer the caseback with that sapphire insert to still stay waterproof, especially anything above 100m of water resistance?

AS: Well, the short of it is that exhibition casebacks add height to a case and water-resistance is at the heart of it. So, if you want an exhibition caseback, you have to accept that you are introducing a potential point of failure to an otherwise happy case. This is related to what the Seiko Epson chaps told Ruckdee too; it is not only water-resistance that is negatively impacted. In order to overcome this window to multiple possible disasters, casemakers are obliged to beef things up and do whatever else is necessary, so that a return trip to the manufacture for any given watch does not become necessary.

RC: Now that you have said that, I would not need, say, a slim Cartier Tank Louis Cartier with hand-winding movement to have an exhibition back because its presence would change the proportion of the case in a negative way. I think the current models also have mineral crystal above the dial, not sapphire! Not sure why, though.

DG: In this regards, I think sometimes the watch industry can be quite fickle in their reasoning for including exhibition casebacks. On the one hand, they go to great lengths to include one to show off the beautiful finishing of their movements; on the other hand, I have heard from the watchmakers at Montblanc that they are one of the few brands that also finish the inside of the barrel (that houses the mainspring), which no one except (maybe) another watchmaker will ever see.

RC: Well, what can I say, these products (and brands) operate in a realm of their own when you think about it. There are certainly more instances of whimsy and romanticism than many other industries. I am saying this in a loving way, of course, not as a complaint. I think we all love a good story. And it is even better when the story is backed by a strong product.

AS: Journalists, collectors and enthusiasts frequently talk up the virtues of the exhibition caseback, mostly I think because we just have to ogle the calibre like horological perverts. On that point about Cartier, I think the Tank mainly illustrates that opting out of the display caseback lets you stay slim and maintain the proportions that you desire. On the other hand, Piaget and Bulgari have done just fine (and perhaps a bit better than) with the display caseback. To be fair, those brands accept a lot of risk in terms of build quality and they are not doing anywhere near the volume that Cartier is.

DG: Besides the proportions, is there an “absence makes the heart grow fonder” element with closed casebacks? Like for example I love watching the tourbillon function but more and more I find myself asking for a tourbillon that does not show on the dial. And also, I love how vintage watches with solid casebacks can still blow me away when watchmakers open them and I finally see the fantastic movement inside.

RC: That wanting to have the tourbillon but not needing to see the tourbillon part is a sign of experience or maturity, whichever sounds less elitist. I will want to see my tourbillon though if I had the means to buy one in the future. But for that vintage watches part, I think it is the sense of discovery, because you wanted to be surprised by what you see inside.

AS: Of course, vintage watches will not have exhibition casebacks...but then again, it is the display caseback that lets collectors avoid the dreaded curse of the dedicated engraving. As in, having one’s name engraved on the back because the conventional thinking is that the value drops when one does any sort of personalisation of this sort. The contemporary exhibition caseback neatly makes that a moot point... unless it is Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso, where you can happily have both a solid caseback and a display one. How about that for having one’s cake and eating it too?

RC: There are very few display ones in the current Reverso collection. I think the line-up right now has either a solid caseback or the second dial? Come to think of it, I never had a Reverso with a solid caseback in my lifetime. They were with either two dials or an exhibition caseback.

AS: The whole point of the original Reverso was to protect the crystal so I suppose that is on point, so to speak. Still, this is one area where an exhibition caseback might be needed because there are so few form watches with form movements....most Tank models use round calibres, for example. Ditto for Bell & Ross and just about all brands that bank on automatic movements.

RC: Hmmm .... Interesting. I did not think about movement shapes the whole time that we were writing the above paragraphs. I was thinking solely about finishing and such. And, you know what, reading what you both put out above, I can come to think of an instance where I disagree with an exhibition caseback: when the movement is significantly smaller than the case! It looks funny to me. It feels like we (the maker and the buyer) are faking something or engaging in some kind of make-believe.

AS: I think this entire back-and-forth could be dominated by the issue of small movements in massive cases, which was one of the downsides of the big watch trend that ruled the roost in watchmaking for the last 20 years or so. This is especially so because the offenders span the gamut of brands, from the most modest to the highest of the high. It remains a relevant and decisive point for me, when it comes to pulling the trigger on a watch. To be blunt, a movement that is too small for the case, and is there for the world to see, will immediately be struck off my list. I will say that if the movement is hidden behind a closed caseback, I am willing to overlook the mismatch between case and movement; this is especially true when this mismatch is not evident dial-side. I admit to a level of hypocrisy here because I will also make excuses for brands with form watches that use (necessarily) smaller-than-ideal round movements so that they can go with the most conventional automatic winding system.

Back on that point of only showing off something that needs to be shown off, the form movement is as good a moment to make good on having the exhibition caseback in play since it is both unusual and shows a certain commitment on the part of the brand. Especially if the brand has gone to the trouble of having a micro-rotor and finishing things up nicely! As mentioned, finishing is a no-brainer and can also show off innovation...or perhaps a traditional approach if the brand wants to keep the tourbillon bridge-side. Just seeing a bunch of brands turn their movements inside out to put the tourbillon dial-side is sometimes painful! To say nothing of those that engineer their chronographs just to show the column wheel dial-side too.

DG: Just to add onto this point, I think the same can also be said for technical innovations right? For example Omega’s Speedmaster Super Racing. Without the exhibition caseback no one would be able to see their new Spirate balance, which they spent a considerable amount of resources to develop. Or in the same vein, most people would not be able to see exactly how a co-axial escapement differs from the regular Swiss lever one.

AS: It certainly gives brands the chance to engage the public and explain their innovations. To return to quartz here, as far as innovation goes, Spring Drive is a good reason to have an exhibition caseback, but as opposed to that bit about co-axial and all the silicon developments, Grand Seiko always makes it a point to cover up the quartz regulator! Here, it is as Ruckdee says, all about finishing.

On that note, to stay with innovation for a bit – or rather to build on Daniel’s point – the display back shows off a mechanical movement’s ability to be antimagnetic without the need for a soft iron inner case. Well, IWC Ingenieur aside there in consideration of Ruckdee’s point. Regardless, I always thought that Blancpain hit a home run with its dive watches by daring to put display casebacks on. Certainly not traditional, but this aesthetic touch speaks directly to the silicon escapement parts that make it impossible to magnetise the movement and to advancements in build quality. As a kicker, the brand gets to merge its tool watch DNA with its fine watchmaking aspect: Blancpain calibres are wonderful to look at (machine-finished to be certain but still lovely). Dive watches are thick boys, famously, and the Fifty Fathoms is big in all kinds of ways, but the brand does not need an inner case here so no loss in going for the display caseback.

DG: Just a thought: if the casebacks are used predominantly to showcase all these interesting points of a movement, i.e. finishing, technical innovation, will there be a misconception then that when a brand chooses to use a solid caseback, even for legitimate reasons, consumers will think that there is nothing interesting about the movement and thus the brand chose to cover it up?

RC: More good points there. Panerai comes to mind because I have a Luminor on my wishlist. While I have zero doubts about the brand’s integrity, I would prefer to see the movement used in the specific model of my interest, on the website if not through the caseback. I cannot say I will not feel more confident when I do. However, the current state of uncertainty is not a dealbreaker for me because I am buying it for the case design, not the movement.

AS: Once more, I call upon the Jolly Green Giant...it is a brave soul who would suggest that Rolex calibres are less than excellent just because they are hidden away behind a solid caseback! There is also Montblanc, which has been making hay with its closed casebacks and the colourful engravings there. This is all a result of new laser engraving technology that gives the metal itself colour! And, to finish my Blancpain point, that brand puts a premium on its technical savvy as far the dive models are concerned. The display caseback is the justification but in no way affects the proposition of a Submariner, in my opinion. That veers into the power of branding though, and is outside the purview of this effervescent threeway.

DG: That is a good point, but yes, I think branding deserves its own separate “Conversation”.

AS: The exhibition caseback is a form of branding for some! I mean, when it first appeared, in the 1990s probably, the late Gerd R. Lang just wanted to indicate that the engine inside the watch was mechanical. He was the sort of watchmaker who never cared for quartz and found it soulless so, when he introduced the sapphire crystal display caseback properly in contemporary wristwatches, it was to honour mechanical movements.

RC: Gerd Rudiger Lang, who founded Chronoswiss?

AS: Indeed yes, the very same! The exhibition caseback then went on to become a branding tool and a way to up price points of course. I think Lang would not be unhappy to learn that the many watchmakers who work for decades to polish bridges, to cite just one example, finally get to show their work. And maybe charge for it too. Certainly, the celebrity watchmakers who emerged – first from the AHCI and now of course extending to the likes of Rexhep Rexhepi – would probably never have done so without the display caseback. The world would be a poorer place if the Dufour Simplicity had to cover up all the wonderful work – although Dufour himself was making a point about simplicity and subtlety in the amount of work and dedication required.

DG: In this regard, could not the same be said for the question of the display caseback on quartz watches? If the brand places emphasis on their quartz movements and things such as Spring Drive technology, the transparent caseback is a great way to honour these movements as well. Unless you are a brand like the revived Accutron which displays their electric movement technology dial-side.

RC: I like that particular Accutron you are referring to. I think it can be both a conversation piece and a wearable lesson in wristwatch history. Frankly, I have a better chance of buying that watch with the electric movement shown dial-side than the version with a regular dial that hides the movement.

DG: I guess as a conversation piece it works best dial-side because as you mentioned, you wear your watches with the caseback facing your wrist and not the sun...

AS: That reminds me of that old joke about watch bores who would like nothing better than wear their watches back to front...

RC: I remember seeing some photographs online. It was a thing, right? People outside of the collecting circles must have thought that we are all a bunch of crazy nerds, which we are. So, to conclude this article? Ashok, some final thoughts?

AS: Crazy nerds indeed! It bears remembering that, as Daniel noted, quartz was a great leap forward in timekeeping and the elitists out there are, at least in part, bemoaning the fact that it democratized wristwatches. The real problem is not the looks of quartz but the fact that it is cheap. On the other hand, it is also worth remembering that there is an emotional and aesthetic value to watchmaking, quite apart from precision timekeeping – quartz is nothing next to the atomic clock. There is something to see, and understand based on what you see, in mechanical watches; everything electrical is invisible to the human eye. Watching a quartz movement reveals nothing about how it works, in other words. But human time requires human hands, and human eyes too...and so the exhibition caseback is probably here to stay. It is one reason that I own a Rolex with just such a caseback, even though it was wildly unpopular back in its day.

RC: Brilliant. Daniel?

DG: For me, on the question of casebacks, I stick to my stance that regardless of finishing, the choice of closed or open rests solely on purpose; if there is a good reason to show or hide a movement. Most times, brands do have a reason for this anyway; it is just that the reason is not often publicized. It has to be discreetly coaxed out of the watchmakers as evidenced by Ruckdee’s conversation with Grand Seiko. Unfortunately, not everyone gets the opportunity to do this and it rests on us as Editors of our respective magazines to uncover this interesting information and put them on “display”.

RC: Very well said. I like this Spider-Man moment. What is the line again? With great power comes great responsibility? Thank you both for your time this morning. And I look forward to doing more great things with you two west of our longitude in April.

AS: And that is a wrap, and possibly the first in a long-running menage a trois (hopefully)! We are indeed going west! If you see us in Geneva, dear readers, say hi!

DG: Thank you both for the invitation! It is always great to speak to fellow enthusiasts and geek out over something that most would consider quite insignificant.

This article first appeared on WOW’s Spring 2024 issue.

For more on the latest in watch reads, click here.

Consider for a moment, the watch on your wrist. Since you are reading this magazine, we take it for granted that you must be wearing one, but if you are not, simply think of your daily beater or maybe your most cherished ticker. There is probably a story to this watch, and not merely the marketing one that everyone knows. No, this story is the one only you know about this specific reference you wear because it is tied directly to you. In other words, the story that the brand very publicly tells about the watch has now been augmented into some personal interpretation – consciously or unconsciously – by you.

You might find this somewhat difficult to accept but consider that one watch you have that was passed down to you by your father, or perhaps the one you gifted yourself for some milestone or other. Maybe you even lucked out and “won,” a piece at auction, forever earning you bragging rights... We all have these kinds of stories and they will be very specific, even if this generalisation here belies that. By the same token, you might also have a special story – the sort you can confidently tell at meetings and parties and instantly grab the spotlight with. These are the kinds of rich tales that we seek out in our annual personal watches story earlier in this very section (or the sorts of watches that we imagine would come with a wealth of inherent narrative quality).

Do some stories prove more compelling than others, even if these have very little to do with the virtues of the watches they are tied with? No doubt you have your own stance on this, or you have considered whether a brand’s marketing message aligns with your own expectations and experiences. Having said that, plenty of watches are sold on the merits of narrative thrust, or even the power of a singular brand identity. Not the marketing power of the brand, mind you, but the message itself. Think of the dive watch that serves, at best, a back-up function rather than the brand, which might be the king of luxury sports watches. Or perhaps the aviator’s timepiece that was only used by pilots before proper instruments debuted in the cockpit.

Now, storytelling and mythmaking in watchmaking are popular, if somewhat tricky subjects. They might even be the same subject... The editors of WOW Singapore and WOW Thailand find a wholesome and completely positive angle to it all. Well, very nearly completely at least.

Ashok Soman (AS): And so it is that another year in watchmaking comes to a close, but I am glad that we do not have a history or tradition of doing best-of year-enders. We do these sometimes though, so when you suggested something like this for our conversation, I was sold on it. But then you threw your support behind my idea about stories, myths and legends in watchmaking. Why the change of heart?

Ruckdee Chotjinda (RC): It was sudden and immediate. When I saw this among your topic proposals, I was like, wow, this is great. Storytelling is a subject I would love to explore. We (meaning the collective people, not just the two of us) always say that watches are more emotional products than tools or necessities these days. Stories just sweeten everything then.

AS: Indeed they do! I think there is this understanding amongst contemporary brands that storytelling is important. You know, whereas brands in the 1960s may have been more product-centric – most watch brands did not even use proper names for models till around that time – today everybody embraces the concept of selling around an identity that the brand has. Or perhaps an identity that just one watch family is associated with.

RC: A name can do wonders for a watch. On your point of identity, I can readily think of Monaco. When you say the name to most people, they have an image of the beautiful, coastal, city-state in mind. When you say it to watch people, the picture that comes up is that of a square piece of metal!

AS: It is like a lightbulb went off in someone’s head in Switzerland – what if watches had names rather than reference numbers... In fact, it is great that you bring up Heuer, or TAG Heuer in today’s context, because Jack Heuer was one of those watch executives responsible for the whole ‘names are great’ thing. So, he is one of the original light bulb guys, and he is also the person who moved Heuer into a sort of emotional space by linking the watches with motor racing, and more specifically, racing drivers.

RC: And the effects were long-lasting. I discovered Monaco through one of those racing connections a good three decades later or so. It is not that I had aspirations to become a race car driver, but that storytelling kind of reverberated and brought the watch to my attention at one point in time.

AS: In the era of Jack Heuer, watch brands discovered that they needed a Carrera – the Porsche Carrera to be more precise – and so they went about making it happen. This is also tied into design, of course; do not get me wrong because there is a compelling emotional power behind the Porsche Carrera, or the Eames chair for that matter. But to return to Jack, he also became one of the industry’s first popular leaders, and it is perhaps no accident that his story is so closely tied with that of Heuer, and now TAG Heuer.

RC: Did he also invent the practice of watch placements in movies?

AS: I am not sure who actually pioneered the practice of watch product placements on the silver screen (as it was at that time), but for sure Rolex sort of wins that battle, although that was mainly down to people (directors, producers and prop folks) who felt that characters needed symbolic gear. Actually, the most famous story that we all know in this area belongs to a most inappropriate watch, that also happens to have a name – Rudolph Valentino’s Cartier Tank. It was most definitely not a period- appropriate choice. It was The Son of the Sheik (1926), and Valentino irritated director George Fitzmaurice by insisting on wearing his favourite watch, context be damned! It was not a great movie or anything, but Valentino made it memorable, while also giving us an iconic shot of him wearing the watch alongside Vilma Banky, because he died shortly after, and this was his last film. So, a great story that one cannot make up! Cartier makes lots of hay with this...

RC: I remember reading about that now that you bring the name of the movie up. On the contrary, Pierce Brosnan’s Seamaster in his James Bond films was period-appropriate, if somewhat more technologically advanced than anything Omega was making. It was also one of the most successful watch placements in movies if you ask me. And, to link that with our conversation today, it involved a lot of storytelling, albeit a purely fictional one.

AS: Ah yes, Omega and James Bond is one of the great purposeful relationships between cinema and watchmaking, but arguably this brand has something even better: a real story, and one that made an impact on the world – and went beyond our humble little blue dot. Of course, this is the Omega Speedmaster of 1969. No explanation needed there I think!

RC: No. None is needed there at all. The Moonwatch is that kind of story that books can be written about – as indeed there have been. It is an amalgamation of facts, myths, legends...everything. You can essentially add a good vintage hand-winding Speedmaster to your collection and say, ok, I am good and settled for the chronograph department. But this James Bond versus Moonwatch discussion also brings us to the division between storytelling of something that is made up and something that actually happened.

AS: Ironic that it (the original Moonwatch) was a manual-winder, given that it was the same year as the famous introduction of the automatic chronograph. I think people even forget – not seasoned collectors of course – that the original Moonwatch was a manual- winder. That, essentially, is the power of a great story. The advertising message is easy: if the watch is good enough for NASA astronauts, it is good enough for you. But the message people get is more about a feeling – the same feeling we all share when thinking about the great endeavour of putting people into space, of exploring beyond the confines of our world. I think I argued in my chronograph special that no one even really thinks of the Moonwatch as a chronograph – it is just the watch that went to the moon. And now it is even more accessible because you can get the MoonSwatch!

"The irony is that you cannot have a powerful story without a power- ful watch"

RC: Now, that is storytelling about a story, which is also about a story! What kind of Inception have you inflicted on us? Anyway, so you would agree with me that storytelling has an influence on the purchase decisions of most people. Like boomers were easily convinced they needed a Moonwatch, and now millennials may also get that same fire ignited, but through the MoonSwatch? Or are we overreaching?

AS: Yes, perhaps watch brands stumbled into an inception-like moment (but in time rather than in consciousness) with the Moonwatch...and now the MoonSwatch. I think such connections definitely pull people in, and that is why storytelling has become paramount in watchmaking – perhaps even in the negative sense where the watches themselves are besides the point. If one looks at brands that want to sell many hundreds of thousands of watches, powerful stories are, arguably, more important than timekeeping chops. The irony there is that you cannot have a powerful story without a powerful watch, which by the way is also what separates the Rolex Cosmograph Daytona from all other chronographs. It too transcends its origins and complication; the watch is a statement piece that watch lovers everywhere have elevated far above its objective value, and values.

RC: Powerful stories with powerful watches ... I am inclined to cite the example of one collection: the Van Cleef & Arpels Poetic Complications. I mean, if their Pont des Amoureux watch is not storytelling, I do not know what is. In fact, my Facebook page has just reminded me about two weeks ago that I once posted a wristshot of the Midnight Pont des Amoureux watch in white gold. It is the lesser-known 42mm version in white gold that was designed for men if you recall.

AS: Well, now we are in quite a different space with Poetic Complications! The Pont des Amoureux is a pure story, with mechanical watchmaking simply providing the kinetic power behind it. So here, the watch is merely a delivery mechanism for a story – a theatre if you will – that unfolds upon your wrist. Genius-level stuff! It took a jewellery brand to make this happen, which is odd given that watch brands have been making automata for hundreds of years. I think Van Cleef & Arpels have written themselves into the story of watchmaking with the Poetic Complications. At this level though, it is hard to grasp how successful it is at selling watches. Well, storytelling that you can see on the wrist is definitely a winner, and Van Cleef & Arpels proved it, as you say. It is also hard for brands to replicate this sort of thing, which is also appealing to the brands, from a business standpoint I suppose.

RC: So far we have been talking about storytelling of specific watch models or collections. We need to tackle also the subject of storytelling at the brand level. Most notably, for the longest time, we have classical brands leveraging on their long history, records or inventions, for example. It is, of course, right and appropriate. But what meaningful discussion can we have about this? What would be the most obvious and not so obvious effects that this storytelling might have on potential buyers?

AS: On that note, this is the perfect moment for a certain brand to make an entrance – Patek Philippe. I know, you might expect me to get into the weeds of the Nautilus (and maybe I will later) or my favourite, the Grandmaster Chime, but really it is the Calatrava that draws my attention. And thus, I mean the entire assortment of Patek Philippe; here is a case where the brand makes all the difference. And, it is a difference that is just as visceral as the Moonwatch.

Perhaps Patek Philippe is a character itself, playing its part in a theatrical story about a Geneva family called the Sterns, who happen to make watches – and they are engaged in the business of keeping a storied Geneva name in watchmaking alive. Not only are multiple generations of Sterns in the family business, Patek Philippe itself has made a world where the watch is something to preserve for future generations. A true legacy product, in other words. It is definitely not an accident that Patek Philippe also happens to have the most famous and impactful watch advertising of all time, arguably, in the form of the Generations campaign. You never really own a Patek Philippe.... Gives me chills just thinking of it. Truly genius-level stuff.

RC: The whole arrangement is very compelling indeed. The message and the visuals did make a lasting impression, and in such a way that most people can relate to, whether or not they will actually get to own a Patek Philippe in this lifetime. I have a couple of Patek Philippe references that I would love to add to my collection at some point, but they may not be attainable as long as I continue to work as a starving writer (as one of my associates likes to call herself).

AS: It might be that just the dream of owning a Patek Philippe could be transferable – as in your kids could try to get that reference 6104 that you missed, or something like this. These days, Patek Philippe is so successful that you could insert any reference you want here because it might be impossible to get anything. This is the opposite of instant gratification, and likely something every watch brand out there would give both arms (and maybe a leg) to have. By the way, I would argue that we may want for less if we just spent a little less on our favourite hobby, but I digress.

RC: That situation where demand far exceeds supply is not limited to traditional houses such as Patek Philippe. About three months ago, I had an interview with Max Busser when he was in Bangkok for the 15th anniversary of PMT The Hour Glass. At one point, he said he knew to gratify long-time customers who have supported him with allocations, but then MB&F had to leave something for newcomers to enjoy as well. Now, Max is a great storyteller himself, and I am using the term in the sense of admiration certainly.

AS: Max Busser has succeeded in turning his childhood obsessions into objects of serious horological desirability! In a way, his brand is himself, but not just his persona or personality, but literally his own memories and experiences...which he has skilfully crafted into various timekeeping objects that also resonate with other humans. What was the tagline that MB&F used?

RC: I checked just now: “A creative adult is a child who survived”. Maybe we did not survive. We are not creative enough 😀

AS: That’s the one! Well, I failed to get the MAD watch yet again so...

RC: Ahh ... Sorry about that. I have not tried my luck myself. I have handled the first one once in Geneva in 2022. It was a fun watch to have on the wrist. And during that visit, I was told about the next level of storytelling which went beyond the creations and touched upon the site where they are created: their new MAD House!

AS: I visited the MAD House after Watches and Wonders Geneva this year. The flavour of this manufacture visit was indeed quite different. But really, they could have any space they wanted, as long as they have Max! But you know, in terms of just what is on the wrist, I think it is simply about looking for the time and finding something that makes you smile. A beautiful dream. What is that experience worth? What price can you put on a dream? MB&F is not alone in asking that question; a number of other creators come to mind, not least of all Urwerk, but also classical stuff such as Rexhep Rexhepi’s Akrivia, or Laurent Ferrier. Funnily, a couple of those names have a Patek Philippe connection...

RC: I can see very clearly what you mean. Yes, they may be (relatively) new to the industry, but they are also storied, in their own way. And their story does add to the appeal, at least for me. Without the story, an MB&F or an Urwerk may be incomprehensible, regardless of the efforts that go into designing and making one. And, without the story, a Rexhep Rexhepi or a Laurent Ferrier may not stand out from the rest of the market, regardless of their craftsmanship.

AS: Once again, I think, we find an Inception level moment here! Rexhep is a really young guy, yet his story is so compelling to many collectors – certainly far more than his production could ever keep up with. The details of Rechep’s story, strangely, might not be important – I imagine that many do not know it, at least at first – but once you learn about them, they raise the profile of any given watch that he makes. Plenty of watchmakers can say this, of course, but most have not made as much of it as Rexhep.

RC: Well, what can we say, watches are emotional products, right? And people are emotional beings. We probably feed on this romanticism like when the more avant-garde timepieces of MB&F or the more surrealistic creations of Van Cleef & Arpels give us a sense of escapism. In the case of Rexhep, he is very fortunate in that Switzerland has treated him well as a new home, and I am very happy for his success.

AS: We can certainly hope that all this success leads to more success, but for others too. Just as Patek Philippe’s success leads to success for other brands too. This is the sort of virtuous cycle that just makes me want a Patek Philippe even more! I guess I marketed myself into it! Thank goodness Patek Philippe continues to advertise, even though they probably have no need to...

RC: I am impressed at the level you can connect the dots and turn that into purchase justification. I mean, I do it too, but usually it is more direct and not as collateral.

AS: And you know, dear readers, that Ruckdee and I write this story together, live. It all just comes together so you are witnessing the act of me convincing myself of something I had already convinced myself of. How is that for the power of storytelling in watchmaking?

RC: Ha ha. You should win a medal right there. But before we take too many pages, allow me to ask you a very important question. What do you think of brands that are created on the basis of historical figures, but do not have a direct link to the original company? I am thinking particularly of Louis Moinet here because I admire the level of storytelling. And I bring it up because it is very pertinent to our topic of discussion today.

AS: To me, the tale of Louis Moinet is inextricably linked with that of Jean-Marie Schaller. Schaller is the man who founded and runs the Louis Moinet watchmaking brand, but he is certainly not a descendant of Moinet! Yet somehow, he was drawn to this then-unknown watchmaker, to the point that he took a chance on an auction lot (written by the great Arnaud Tellier) in 2013... The rest is history now, but Schaller could easily have missed his shot at the Comptoir pocket watch, and indeed nearly did. As a matter of weird fact for this story, the other party bidding on that lot was none other than a certain Geneva brand with a famous museum in that city, and Tellier is perhaps best known for his work at the Patek Philippe Museum.

RC: Oh, I did not know that bit about the other bidding party. That is interesting.

AS: Schaller told me that himself recently, and I just caught up with Tellier at the Singapore Watch Fair, just to tell him that Schaller and I were just talking about him.

RC: I think what Schaller is doing with Louis Moinet is not very different from what Pascal Raffy is doing with Bovet. The stories are artfully woven into the respective brands. The key difference may lie in the fact that the original Louis Moinet was long gone and now re-established through research and acquisition of the right to use the name, whereas the right to the Bovet name was more or less passed from one hand to another through acquisition until it landed with the current owner.

AS: Bovet is not a brand I find a lot of opportunity to discuss so thanks for bringing it up. In the old days of the original Bovet name, watchmakers survived and thrived based on patronage. Just think of the mighty Abraham-Louis Breguet and the fact that he was as popular with the Capet dynasty as well as Napoleon.

Anyway, Bovet today is a passion project of Raffy’s, and it shows in the form of contemporary watches. In a way, Raffy’s interest sustains that enterprise, and enables the brand to find a second life; that is clearly similar to what Schaller is doing with Louis Moinet. In other words, neither of these gentlemen are just in it for the money, yet they are just as responsible for certain dreams of watchmaking as Max Busser is. Maybe it is best to find a contrast here, like Jean-Claude Biver with Blancpain and Hublot; both brands are owned by groups now, but the power of these brands is clearly much more than just any one group or owner.

Just for fun, let me add Ferdinand Berthoud here because the contemporary watches owe their existence to the passion of Karl- Friedrich Scheufele and status of Berthoud, with Chopard remaining in the background. To be clear, I mean to say here that the stories of these brands go beyond founders or owners (past and present); the involvement of watchmaking conglomerates does not matter. So, the shadow of legacy falls over us once again.

RC: I suddenly think of Bruno Belamich and Carlos Rosillo of Bell & Ross.

"One might view storytelling about watches the way one feels about watching a movie - it is good if it is entertaining"

AS: Bell & Ross is a brand that I do find a lot of opportunities to discuss, and it certainly gives us a lot of talking points! These guys captivated the public with a design, so I come back to that Eames chair I guess, but added a tonne of narrative too. As early as the launch of the brand, they already had a collection called Heritage, which was very forward-thinking and bold for a new brand. On the other hand, this gives us the chance to address the spectre of mythmaking in watchmaking, which is the idea that contemporary branding is all about marketing stories. Bell & Ross, whose independence is beyond question, guaranteed as it is by Chanel, is certainly a savvy marketing force.

RC: I should add also that they always had impactful visuals to amplify their stories. I remember complimenting them more than once on their relevant and tasteful photographs, whether the campaign was more technical-oriented or a fashion-forward one.

AS: Bell & Ross visuals are impressive, as anyone with eyes will agree, but it also feeds into the marketing narrative. So, to put it out there, the flipside of storytelling is that collectors and enthusiasts will accuse brands of just making up stuff to sell products. This applies to brands both new and heritage. The lines between fantasy, myth and legacy are sacrosanct to some, or perhaps I should say many.

RC: Well, I would not say that they are totally wrong, but I should view this storytelling as a means of entertainment, for the lack of a better word (I will have to consult the dictionary for the meaning of sacrosanct, by the way).

This may be a stretch of a comparison, but for me it is not totally unlike when you go to a movie. You pay for something you already know is made up or imagined. Those stories or those visuals may serve to bring a watch to my attention, and then it is up to me to decide if the actual product is worth the money being asked, if it fits with my collecting criteria or if it serves a purpose in my daily life. I was inclined to buy a Luminox a few months ago because they had a nice one out with a titanium bezel contrasting against the Carbonox case. I would have used it as my go-anywhere, do-anything watch. But, no, I do not have any illusion of becoming a Navy SEAL when I strap the watch on, for example.

AS: In that sense, what you want in a watch is a good story, and Bell & Ross certainly delivers. The brand’s most famous pilot’s watches are all the evidence required there. To me, it matters if any given brand is motivated by a certain spirit, and the watches are representative of that spirit. The opposite are those brands that make clear tributes (or copies, if you are feeling less than polite) because that is a pure cash- grab that trades on the willing-seller willing- buyer mentality.

RC: Well, yeah, the tributes can be a grey area sometimes. To me, there is nothing wrong with corresponding to a genre, but certain specific details that remind a person too much of an established brand should be avoided. I am talking about some fonts, some markers, you know. But as you say, there are willing buyers, so...

AS: It can get confusing to even experienced collectors when a brand presents historical notes no one ever heard of, leading to accusations that said history is made up, with the sole purpose of tricking people into buying. This one is not limited to new brands or anything - the contemporary A. Lange & Söhne brand is not the A. Lange & Söhne of old, and neither is anything that emerges from Glashütte today. I would argue that most of those brands are trying to be true to the spirit of watchmaking in that region, or the specific history of one name or other. I mean, it is not like Glashütte watchmaking was the equivalent of gold in the old days. On the other hand, nobody is trying to revive the Lepine name and connect that with the famous old watchmaker – this would be the sort of mythmaking that reasonable minds could agree is a bit shady.

RC: Well, we do have the revival of Ferdinand Berthoud that you mentioned, which seems so far respected by the industry, including yourself?

AS: Or Louis Moinet, if Moinet had been famous, which he was not. Ferdinand Berthoud has the good fortune of being in a similar place as some other brands we noted, specifically Bovet, in that it is owned and run by Karl-Friedrich Scheufele as a passion project. The Scheufele family is, of course, famous for being behind Chopard (as alluded to earlier) so I think this keeps Ferdinand Berthoud safe; the fact that the watches are amazing also helps! By the way, it should be noted that Ferdinand Berthoud is a Fleurier band, same as Bovet, and this is because the watchmaker himself was born there, even though he was mostly known as a French watchmaker. It is rather like Abraham-Louis Breguet in that sense.

RC: So where does that leave us? That storytelling is a needed marketing tool that can make a life-changing difference for a watch or a brand when properly and beautifully executed?

AS: These days there are simply too many stories to keep track of! Brands would do well to remember that less is more, sometimes – credit where credit is due, Ferdinand Berthoud seems to be a big believer in that philosophy. Brands do try very hard to make some stories a reality – most recently seen in all the sustainability claims being bandied about – but such stories must have a measure of reality or be in good faith to be easily accepted by watch buyers. A useful example is that of the Rolex Explorer, which people genuinely forget was not the Everest-topper itself. I have to remind myself sometimes that the model was made as a tribute to the act of summiting Everest, even though it was not the Rolex model that made it to the top of the world.

RC: Yes, I understand what you are saying. And, yes, I think a lot of people did not have this fact clearly in mind generally. I mean, I also had the same misunderstanding for some years when I first became interested in watches. The clarity you mentioned did not come to me until some time afterwards. Maybe the storytelling by Rolex visuals was too effective? Anyway, it served a purpose for the brand, and it was indeed inspirational for the potential buyers. It certainly has more gravity than the story (more or less a joke) I like to tell people of an impulse purchase of mine in late 2019.

It was a watch I wanted but did not need – not that any watch is truly needed, of course. The story would go like this, “Baht was strong. I was weak. And I was also alone in Paris.” The manufacture had their story for the design or creation of that watch, of course. But it is my version that I used more often, and it made people laugh (and also think that I am rich). So, this is storytelling at a personal level, not at the brand level.

AS: Well ultimately, the stories we tell about the watches we own are the most relevant ones, even if they are not always the most interesting.

RC: Hmmm ... I didn’t see that coming. You are spot on! AS: It also speaks to perhaps my final reason for wanting to make storytelling the subject of our conversation this time.

RC: Ok. What is that?

AS: To recap some of our other discussions, there is the subject of so-called investment watches, which is something we could return to discussing all the time. It is a rich area, perhaps because it is fundamentally ridiculous. Then again, I found myself wondering if a watch might ever be worth more than the sticker price, especially if said watch was worn and had visible signs of wear.

RC: You mean, as in worn by a famous actor or celebrity, thereby improving the provenance of the watch?

AS: Very astute of you, yes. The Paul Newman effect, in other words, except not for a Daytona with (what we now call) the Paul Newman dial, but an actual watch that the actor Paul Newman wore. Obviously, we have one very real auction result of just such a watch (and a recent cautionary tale that is still unfolding, involving the Marlon Brando Rolex GMT-Master). In the case of the Daytona, the fact that it was Newman’s property and he wore it, and owned it for reasons specific to himself (and the fact that he was who he was), all contribute to the now-famous price paid. Of course, you might say that the watch also fetched a record price because of all the hype that it generated, which helped to sell many other Newman Daytona watches. That is true.

RC: This proves once again the effects of storytelling, but this time by the watch-collecting communities and the auction houses, not the brands themselves.

AS: Thus I thought about whether we would pay for the story of a specific watch – like the story of your Paris “weakness,” for example. The hypothetical auction lot listing would make that point, enshrining your previously personal story into something rather more... well, just more. The watch of renowned Thai watch journalist and WOW Thailand editor, which he acquired in Paris after a fortuitous encounter with the Forex market... Anyway, you get the idea because the above hypothetical is clearly a sales pitch, even if it is true. Any prospective buyer would have to assess that story, independent of anything they objectively know about the watch (the specifications and so on) and the story the brand tells about it.

RC: I had the pleasure of doing that “story” assessment earlier this year when I was at Zenith and they had the Chronomaster Revival Manufacture Edition watch available. It is that watch you can buy only if you visit the manufacture, that I mentioned in my story about the same for the WOW Singapore Legacy issue. I knew about the Manufacture Edition from long before and secretly thought about buying one. This is the watch with a special dial that comes with a story of prototype dials being discovered in the famous attic [in case you missed the grand tours of the Legacy issue – Ed]. The story was solid enough for me, but the gods of Forex did not smile upon me this time round. Maybe next year.

AS: Right, and if you buy that watch, then the story of how you came to want that watch would enter into it. But it is important that it is your story, just as much as it is your watch. You wear it, and maybe even feature it (certainly on social media but perhaps in print as well) or have it written about by some other publication (or collector/influencer – insert story contributor here). All this adds to the story of that specific watch – maybe you even give it a nickname that enters wide usage. Such a watch would have some extra value that you, the owner, have added. To me, that might be worth more than the sticker price. What say you?

RC: I think you need some kind of stardom to attract that kind of extra value?

"In the end, the best watch is the one you bought, out of all the ones you could have bought...or perhaps it is the one you missed"

AS: But then again, there is nothing special about the collector Henry Graves right? He was just a wealthy banker, and not even especially wealthy. The watch, on the other hand, is so famous I do not even need to name the brand that made it. So, let us say, a collector who happens to be deep into one brand...so deep he not only knows the management but also some of the watchmakers and machine operators. He might say, casually, to the CEO of the brand that he would love a certain style of dial, with specific hands, to go with favourite complication. Now, the CEO knows that his brand has nothing like this, but he decides to have one made for his favourite customer. And now, you have a very special piece for a very special person, who is otherwise quite ordinary to the world at large.

RC: That is true about Henry Graves. And I see what you mean regarding VIP client requests. Perhaps, this is how the owner of the now-famous OAK collection got some of the pieces that were showcased in London last year. Many of the pieces were created especially for him in the very fashion you described!

AS: Exactly right, and I certainly knew nothing about the owner of the OAK collection before he began to seek press coverage. Whether he sought that coverage or not though, his pieces would be valuable just on the strength of his personal stories with them. That is to say, each one would be of value to him, and possibly to any given observer. Now, this is all a very roundabout way of saying that our readers are, in fact, adding value to their own watches. It may not be monetary value, but if you like your watch enough, it ends up being worth a lot more than what you paid. Sort of the story of every Patek Philippe watch, I suppose! The only reliable way for it to be worth anything is for you to forget about its cash value. In the end, everything is about the legacy concept, which is what gives the Patek Philippe marketing campaign (it certainly is a marketing campaign) its power.

RC: Well, thank you then for the idea to write a story about stories that totally make up a larger and even more meaningful story. I think we have provoked some thoughts among our readers and completed an article that is much more worthwhile than a round-up of the year’s best watches (in our opinion).

AS: In the end, the best watch of the year is the one you bought, out of all the ones you could have bought. Or perhaps it is the one you missed... This personal aspect is what I love about this hobby.

RC: And that’s a wrap! I am glad we had a chance to put all of these in writing. And I should let you go prepare for your trip now. Will be following your WOW SG Instagram for postcards from Sardinia!

AS: Onwards to the new watches of 2024! And yes, Sardinia beckons.

This article was first seen in the Festive issue of WOW Singapore.

For more on the latest in luxury watch reads, click here.