Finishing has become an obsession for some, but I ask is it the Emperors new clothes?











What makes for a great watch, the qualities that transcend it from being a good watch to classic, maybe even iconic, the height of desirability? I thought about this a lot, recently in the Patek forum; Nico raised a question in the debate of the finishing of the 5370p vs 5170p. Also I heard the 5070 Patek chronograph pretty much described as boring from the owner of a Dufour Simplicity. This made me think, what are the qualities in a watch that I desire, that make it sing to me, make me want it. So before I list them, pause for a moment and think (maybe even write down what it is you desire). So here are some pictures (Credit SteveG) of perhaps the most beautifully finished watch ever made, the aforementioned Simplicity.







So for me here are the most important characteristics of a high-end watch (we are talking at least 20K Euro). 1. Aesthetics: it has to look beautiful to my eyes. I will be looking at the dial all day, so that in particular has to appeal to me. 2. Timekeeping: It has to be reliable and accurate- that also means serviceable now and in the future 3. Finishing: this is certainly a very good plus point 4. Value: Some degree of value retention (I can not afford a watch that may loose 75-90% of its value) Then there are complications, the value and desirability is inextricably linked to what the watch can offer, world time, chronograph, minute repeater etc. All of these values/criteria are blended together mentally when I look at a watch- even if it is now a very sub conscious action. So in this fusion of parameters, just how important is finishing? Thinking hard about this issue, I decided for my benefit to classify finishing into tiers of perfection. You may or may not agree with me, that’s your right, this is my view. I have only gone with a few brands just to give an idea and only from the classical school (Richard Mille for instance fails on aesthetics for me so I am not really bothered how well or not it is made). Tier 1: this is the best of the best for me: from what I have seen. Even in a tier there will be hierarchy, so here I say if the maximum achievable out of 10 is doable, then it is Dufour’s Simplicity. It gets 10. But then he is no longer alone in this rarefied world Rexhepi, Voutilainen, etc. easily fall into this world. They are all heavy 9’s atleast. Then I feel some anxiety, I believe on the verge of Tier 1 but certainly above tier 2 are some Laurent Ferrier, maybe even some Journe.







Tier 2: This is Lange, Journe and high end Patek Philippe, Vacheron maybe some Audemars Piguet. JLC Duometre may be at this level.

Early LUC perhaps. The trouble is not all the collection fits in this level because I would say for all the brands listed here except perhaps Lange all fit in tier 3 also.









Tier 3: AP, VC, Patek, some higher end JLC etc. Why do I need to make this distinction? For me this was an important exercise to frame the concept of value and desirability.





I now put this into context. Take the Simplicity. I do not believe that’s in terms of finish it can be surpassed. It is the benchmark to world for standard setting. At the list price of 30-60CHF, I see this is as good piece to be bought. The watch itself offers nothing additional other than the finish. It is aesthetically classical not what I would call extraordinary (but that was not its reason for being). The movement itself is very classical in design. Put simply you buy it for the hand finishing. Today I ask, would I pay $200+ at auction? No. There are many factors; I would be worried that after Msr Dufour retires who will service them? One of the reasons Msr Dufour still works pretty much alone, is his exacting standards, no cutting corners: will a future watch repairer uphold to this standard? The other issue is that today, for pretty much the same level of finish (9.5/10), you can get Rexhepi. But this comes with the added bonus of a more beautiful visual movement and a good certainty that the company, young company, is laying the foundations for the future, so servicing can be maintained from its creator. The same of course applies to Kari Voutilainen. Are you happy to pay $150K plus for a signature? (The same is often said for high-end brands e.g. Patek Philippe– you are paying for a signature, so perhaps some will pay a quarter of a million for a time only watch- their money I guess). The added bonus with the newer masters is the addition of complications e.g. from the likes of Rexhepi and Voutilainen. Now I see value in the equation.



Then there is the ground between tier 1 and 2. FPJ and Laurent Ferrier especially produce highly accomplished finishing and add complications to the reckoning.









The question, the dilemma, is the totality of the watch outweigh the singularity of the finishing? Nowhere is this better exemplified than tier 2. Here we see some of the biggest names in the business. The higher end Patek Philippe, Vacheron and Lange. They offer finishing of what I believe to of a superb standard (at least 8+/10) and the added bonus of servicing, future proofing them from death by neglect (depending on the owner of course). So does a tier 2 watch, usually with complication and very good standard of finishing make it less equal to a simple time only piece with exemplary finish? Well you decide what are your priorities, but for me depending on the price of acquisition, usually the tier 2 will be champion. I just demand more from my watch. I need it to keep me interested. I throw a curveball here too. What about vintage Patek Philippe time only? In the days when Patek Philippe was probably making a few thousand (if that) pieces, the finishing was incredible (I hate to say it, but superior to modern Patek tier 3 watches). Just look at the cal, 12 ‘ 120” and look at the finishing, you can see the modern inspiration in finishing standards from these movements.





At the end of the day, just how much you want to deliberate over finishing is an individual decision. But for me the desirability, qualities that make a watch truly desirable are far from just anglage, or Geneva wave. I finish by demsonstarting this by comparing two watches. From the two greatest watchmakers of our era, Msr Dufour and Dr Daniels. The Millennium watch and the simplicity. Both time only. The Millennium movement was from Omega, the cal.2500: the first to embrace the co-axial escapement and the Simplicity a lesson in finishing that can never be emulated. But of the two, give me the Millennium every day because it house a true horological innovation from the man who invented it. And Roger Smith and company will be there to service it long into the future.





Bottom line, finishing is very important in a high-end watch, but there is so much more, much more to savour in fine timepiece. Maybe not Emperor’s new clothes, but a touch of reality in a world where we are brainwashed by media into “finishing, finishing, superbly finished, in house, finishing etc etc etc”. So back to the 5370p v 5170p, the finish maybe a tad better, but that’s not what makes the 5370p possibly the greatest post 2000 Patek watch ever, it’s the complication, the dial, the case, its vintage DNA and yes it is well finished to boot. These are my thoughts only; each of us will decide what we want based on our own list of values and tenants (which will be different to mine). That’s the beauty of collecting.



Pic credits: WatchesSJX,Monochrome watches, Deployant pictures used for illustration and educational purposes only.





