In 2019, you may have a better chance of finding a Yeti in the foothills of the Himalayas than finding a certain steel watch at retail. In the midst of hype and information overload, I entertained a blasphemous thought:
“Are some watches objectively better than others?”
Unsurprisingly, there seems to be several schools of thought on the subject. I will briefly discuss two. Afterwards, I will share my own thoughts on the subject.
The first school boldly declares that only a certain species of watch is worth collecting – a crossbreed of exclusivity, distinction and prestige. Additionally, an in-house movement and outstanding hand finishing are preferred in fine specimens.
These watches are declared objects of art, status and desire which can usually only be enjoyed with a “refined” palate and a considerable net worth. Naturally, this school of thought believes that certain watches are objectively better, they have already committed to the idea with their wallet.
The second school contends that all watches have equal value and simply represent different merits. In short, no watch is objectively better. This seems to be the mainstream viewpoint represented by enthusiasts and collectors.
It should be noted that is a rather convenient point of view. It is inoffensive and allows everyone to participate regardless of taste or wealth.
From a commercial point of view, rigorous criticism and debate would likely hurt sales overall; particularly, for certain nameless brands. Silence or praise is the default marketing strategy. As in “a rising tide floats all boats” type of mindset.
That being said, there are some watches which by certain metrics are objectively better. For example, a carefully adjusted observatory chronometer will keep better rates than a low-grade unadjusted watch. This can be objectively proven.
What about other metrics? Even as a watchmaker, I struggle to create a set of objective criteria. Applying a set of parameters would prove incredibly difficult if not impossible. There are simply too many variables. Ironically, it would also be incredibly time consuming.
So how could more subjective aspects, such as finishing, be measured? Who would be given authority to make such sweeping judgments? Should we encourage and celebrate the Geneva Seal or Fondation Qualité Fleurier for setting standards to compare to? Or the work of the GPHG? While not perfect, they certainly could be reference point.
How does one weigh design, history, movement, finish, and price? Is it simply a question of value for money?
Personally, I have a rather agnostic point of view. In short, while certain aspects of the watch may be objectively better, overall there are too many variables to consider the watch overall better.
I welcome your thoughts!