I don’t think Junghans makes a see-thought watch though.
I’m saving up for an Oris. Not enough money (or enough wrists…) for everything!
the view of the movement that is showcased on this watch is usually visible on the underside of a normal watch i.e. the back that is resting on your skin. putting it on the top i.e. mirror imaged necessitates reversing the drive so the hands run clockwise.
the same reversal could produce a counter-clockwise dial with the movement faced normally, and I’m pretty sure there are some novelty watches out there that do it.
so it is running backwards but only to correct flipping the movement, so it looks like forwards, if that makes sense.
5 Likes
And it doesn’t look like a kludge. I like the visibility of movement of the the watch in the OP, and the small case size, but overall it looks like a hack to me - which for some could be a plus.
1 Like
I agree.
the cooler way to make this watch would be for a brand that does in-house movements to just make one that runs in what would be anti-clockwise in a regular watch and go from there, rather than kludging a reverse drive onto a regular Miyota or whatever.
this would hopefully allow the winding post to be hidden, and you could probably put the hands back on top, too.
2 Likes
You’ve clearly never seen the majesty of a Seiko 5. You’d be chuffed to bits if you had!
If your watch is under 38 mm it had better be a Datejust.
Contemporary standards look classic on me because I am not a small person. 6’6", 250 lbs, with 8 1/2" wrists means that even a 42 mm diver looks diminutive. My daily beater is an SRP775 (45 mm) and at that size it’s starting to look like a reasonably sized watch. I tried on an Explorer a few months back and it looked like a ladies watch. If the trends go back down I’m going to have to keep wearing watches from this era as anything smaller looks silly, which isn’t much of a problem I guess as I don’t have the money to appreciably grow the collection and I tend to buy used. But anyway.
1 Like
I would agree that the watch you posted is more elegant than the one that inspired this article, and my original response. But I still think there’s really no reason to spend large sums of money on timepieces. My fitness band is accurate, because it gets the network time every day. I don’t need a chronometer with a tourbillon. But if the endtimes come, and I can no longer charge my gadget, I guess the self-winding watch owners win.
I’d like to hear @RandomDude 's take on this.
Specifically, is this basically “just putting in an extra cog” or does this count as an additional complication.
1 Like
That was my thought too : wouldn’t an extra gear mean that the movement runs the other way ?
Since adding more would probably increase the friction, better add as few as possible ?
2 Likes
I love skeleton watches, but for some reason this one isn’t doing it for me.
2 Likes
Skeletor:
checks out.
3 Likes
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
