This refers to the concept behind the watch, to the different steps taken prior to the birth of a new watch. A brand, whether new or old, defines itself with values and objectives. Therefore, it also defines the watches it brings to market, normally in line with its values and often with its technical knowhow and production modalities. This applies to both the design and the movement. Accordingly, we have defined 3 sub-criteria:
Development
We analyze the watch in terms of the brand’s attitude when taking the decision to launch this model: copier/imitator, follower, challenger or leader.
Innovation
We analyze the watch in terms of its contribution to watch culture and history: is it bringing something new (in terms of design, materials, movement, complexity, price…)?
Personality
We analyze the watch to determine if it is in line with the brand’s DNA, those aspects which are best associated with the brand.
Example: everyone has observed that Zenith collections did change in the last decade (we refer to Defy and Defy Xtreme collections). These collections were significantly different (in design, price and communication) with what the brand had been doing so far. They were not really coherent with Zenith long history, nor were they bringing anything new to the watch historical patrimony (they were rather a me too statement) neither were they easily associated with Zenith; they were also priced artificially high. The fact that these collections were discontinued recently shows that when there is a poor concept lying behind a watch or a collection, its survival is greatly at risk.
This criterion obviously refers to the movement or caliber inside the watch. We analyze this criterion in the light of the following 3 sub-criteria:
Architecture
This sub-criterion refers to the technical decisions taken when building the movement, referred to as the architecture of the movement. This architecture can be more or less sophisticated and has nothing to do with the number of functions (or complications) presented by the watch. It means that a “simple” movement (also known as only time) with a very sophisticated architecture is definitely more complex (hence difficult to assemble) than a mass-produced movement with a complication module* on it. The real challenge for a brand is to get to the same results with the least components possible. In a way, when not enough time or research is spent developing a movement, the only solution consists of adding parts and components and/or modules. And the result is going to be a thick movement. In brief, there are just two things to remember here: the real difficulties lie in miniaturization and simplicity.
Finish
We analyze here the level of finish of the movement. Haute horlogerie (high-end watches and watch-making) implies a certain number of technical benchmarks in terms of finish, whether the movement can be seen or not. Finish is important for two reasons. Firstly, from a technical viewpoint: in a haute horlogerie movement, the space between two wheels is so small that there is no room for any imperfection. To illustrate this, a simple hair or speck of dust can block the movement. Therefore, the only way to be sure that a component has been checked and is ready to be assembled is to terminate it with different finishing. So in this respect, the finish allows the movement to work seamlessly. The other reason is purely esthetical: it is far nicer to watch a movement with a finish. A finish can be achieved by hand or by machine; in the case hand-finishes, this can represent one third of the cost of production of the watch. In some workshops, it is the watchmaker who does the finish; in others, it will be done in a different workshop. Important: the finish has nothing to do with engraving (aka decoration). This is another, different aesthetic consideration.
Flaws
this sub-criterion is self-explanatory. We rate here the flaw(s) presented by the movement, which can be youth issue or structural problems.
This criterion will deal with all the external aspects of the watch: time reading, ergonomics, case and bracelet finishing and one very funny sub-criterion, the bugs. 4 sub-criteria:
Readability
Is the information displayed in an easily readable manner? Is the watch’s readability in line with its intended use? Of course, here several parameters need to be taken into account: it is impossible to analyze a diver the same way as a skeleton* perpetual calendar*. The first has to have perfect readability under low visibility conditions and the second will always be difficult to read, as it is designed as a masterpiece, a work of art rather than just a watch. If for instance the lack of luminova* is unforgivable on a diver, it is much less so on a minute-repeater or a skeleton watch.
Ergonomics
This sub-criterion refers to handling the watch, its bracelet or strap, the buckle (whether simple or with deployment*), the action of pushers, crowns and correctors, all the things that the owner will have to live with.
Case & Bracelet
Here again, we shall analyze the architecture and finish of the watch excluding the movement: case, bracelet or strap and presentation box.
Flaws
The funniest, but also the most disappointing aspect. Flaws or bugs exist because of a lack of criticism. Here, we shall analyze all the flaws a watch can have: contradictions, errors, mistakes, bad decisions or misleading communication, meaningless solutions... Some examples: 8, 10 or 12 days power reserve manual winding watch without power reserve indicator (“Honey, what day did I wind up my watch last week?”), screwed-down crown on a manual-winding watch with “normal” power reserve (after 10 times, you can be sure your watch will stay at home), luminova on the dial but not on the hands (use your imagination at night!), diver’s watch with index or bezel partly in red (the red disappears at 10/15 feet deep), diver’s watch graduated bezel… that does not rotate, wrong information shown on the watch, limited edition that is produced in more units than the regular normal collection piece…
This criterion obviously refers to the movement or caliber inside the watch. We analyze this criterion in the light of the following 3 sub-criteria:
Maintenance
Yes, your watch will need to be serviced one of these days, independently of the price you paid. We analyze this point in three directions: first, the ability of the brands to guarantee the servicing of the watch in the next 25 years (know-how, parts, workforce); second, the quality of the service (speed, quality of the work done); and third, the price of the service (in itself and when compared to other brands).
Value
…Well, well, well, this is a sensitive issue. This is rated according to the average resale value for this watch in the secondary market* (or gray market).
Robustness
This is the continuity of the sub-criterion “Performance” (see “Movement” above). If performance relates to the pure functioning of the movement at any one time, robustness refers to the watch as a whole and how this changes or not over time (it also relates to more aspects than just the movement: case, strap, bracelet…). This means that your watch can work perfectly in the store and stop working three months later. Obviously, you cannot give the same rating to an ETA 2892 as to a Grande Sonnerie Carrillon*, as both movements are not supposed to withstand the same constraints (and the second one should be handled with great care).
This criterion is self-explanatory. We take into account all the criteria mentioned in our analysis and review them with respect to the public price. We also compare this price with the competition. The mark follows naturally.
Just like the 3 musketeers who were really four, our five criteria are really six. The sixth criterion is a special bonus: it is called “Merit”. It refers to any special merit of a watch, whether in terms of the movement, dial, function, design, material, etc..
