Outlier Watches and Outdated Features From The Watch Snob

The Watch Snob Talks Old Styles and Older Complications

The AskMen editorial team thoroughly researches & reviews the best gear, services and staples for life. AskMen may get paid if you click a link in this article and buy a product or service.

Old Lange, Sigh

My question is about the difference in level of watch servicing offered by the brands today. I am someone who collects pre-owned watches, and then has them polished, serviced and take replace any part (if it's condition isn't mint). This leaves me with watches which are in pretty mint condition. I have found from my limited experience that A. Lange & Sohne is the best when it comes to returning the watch in near-mint condition, from the case and dial to the movement itself. Are there other watch brands who are equally particular about servicing holistically? Reason I am asking is because I worry about spending a lot of money on say a JLC or Patek, and then not be able to get them thoroughly restored. So, is ALS an outlier, or do other mainstream brands also work at this level?

Lange & Söhne is an outlier, as you put it, in quite a lot of respects and service is one of them – it has been my experience that the watchmakers who work on Lange watches are not only highly experienced but also have a genuine love of and respect for the company and for the quality in their watches, which is what we all hope from the hands that work on our watches (it’s not always the case, of course) Patek Philippe takes service very, very seriously and has a very demanding internal training program for its watchmakers, which far exceeds the normal industry standard and Jaeger-LeCoultre likewise has a very strong internal culture, which extends to its service centers, of technical excellence.

Where the industry in general falters is in ensuring that there are enough watchmakers to go around. The boom in fine watchmaking over the last fifteen or so years has put a great many more watches into circulation than there are watchmakers to service them and the waiting time for service on a watch can seem unconscionable to consumers. To some extent frustration is reasonable – waiting months to get a service done on a simple time-and-date wristwatch is inexcusable; but on the other hand many owners don’t really understand what servicing a watch entails. My own experience has been that while Lange is not exactly an outlier, they do generally exceed expectations in quality and also timeliness of service relative to the rest of the industry. The deficiency we have now in qualified watchmakers, however, is not a problem that will go away quickly and many brands persist in being more interested in flogging new watches, than in making sure the ones people have already invested in do not become a source of frustration.

The Dark Side Of The Moonphase

Of late, I’ve had a hankering to acquire again a Watch with a moon phase complication to add back to the collection. I have had a thing for them for a while, and I do like being connected to some vestige of a celestial relationship during the day when say, the Earthly mundane exchanges and interminable meetings and goings on - that seem so important in the moment - in the end are relatively meaningless (probably like the moon phase itself). But, nonetheless, I like them and their whimsical personalities, and I am really drawn to one with a little character and panache. In addition, I seem to favor one set in a rose gold case with a guilloche dial and blued hands, if possible. What would you recommend? If seems the Saxonia Moon (I do own an 1815 and a Datograph) doesn’t seem to satisfy me on my previous short tenure with it, and while I do like FP Journe, I seem to be put off some by the arrogance and condescension of he and his brand - maybe I’m overreacting. Blancpain seems to have missed with their movements and JLC could get boring quickly, but I have always admired the MUT moon.

The moonphase complication is without question the least practical of all complications – it may have had some utility in the days before electric lights, when traveling by road at night could be exceedingly dangerous by the dark of the moon; nowadays of course it does nothing other than give us a sense of connection to the universe around us (especially those of us who live in light-polluted cities). That does serve the heart, if not the head, which is no small thing.

My own favourite modern moonphase watches include the Lange 1 Moonphase, which I find more engaging than the Saxonia Moon (the latter feels a bit sterile by comparison; perhaps the lyricism of the moonphase is somewhat alien to the Saxonia’s austerity). Francois-Paul Journe makes interesting watches but yes, his character can be, as the kids used to put it, a turn-off. (Certainly it cannot be doubted, that he has a very high opinion of his own work; many artists and self-styled artists do). I would also suggest looking at the new-ish Historiques Calendrier 1948 watches from Vacheron Constantin – marvelous watches in general and this implementation of the moonphase is just delicious.

(Don’t) Push It Real Good

My question is about chronographs. Are monopushers always more reliable and tougher than the standard 2 pushers? I read that it's quite easy to break the 2-pusher. For e.g. if you press the top pusher, and without stopping the counter if you press the bottom (reset) pusher then, that will damage the movement greatly. In the case of monopusher, that opportunity to break the movement doesn't exist. What do you feel?

I feel, my dear fellow, that this is utter bosh. Of course you can break a two pusher chronograph if you mishandle it so badly. You can also break a porcelain vase if you pick it up and hurl it out a window; you can greatly damage your 911 if you aim it at a brick wall and stand on the accelerator and you can greatly damage your eyeball by sticking a metal skewer into it.

The real question is, why on earth would you do something that dumb? If your chronograph is running it is easy to see that it is running and to push the bottom pusher home whilst the chronograph is in operation, thus damaging the movement, would require such excessive force as to be implausible in any scenario other than a desire to deliberately hurt the watch, or some combination of strong fingers and monumental stupidity. I wouldn’t give it another thought. Monopusher chronographs can be very charming but technically they have been obsolete since Willy Breitling patented the two pusher design in 1923, for heaven’s sake.

Send the Watch Snob your questions at [email protected] or ask a question on Instagram with the #watchsnob hashtag.