The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre,

[officine]

Not nearly as much. Some date windows are great, and to me are much more subjective as elements; it really depends on the watch.

I like my Damasko DA36 d/d window quite a lot, especially with the logo above it. It makes so much sense, forming that implied oval with the guards and crown, and the cross-hairs balance the dial fine. Plus, no cut-off or occluded numbers!

That said the Damasko DS30 "Windup Edition", with the round date only at the 6, is superb as well, even better than Damasko's own original DS30 version with rectangular date window at 3 interrupting the horizontal crosshair, imo.

Windup Damasko DS30

Damasko original DS30

Many others' windows are fine. I adore the IWC Mark VII and XV (every Mark after the XV is a complete disaster afaI'mc) dial/date window for example.


Otoh, I have a 1958 Omega Seamaster my father gave me, so it is very special, but in my loving dream/memories of him he buys instead a no-date (if it existed at the time, but I think it must have?) dial. The date window is very bothersome on that watch, given the very fine scale (all sticks, very thin) of the rest of the markers and hands.

The Omega looks like this; I love the dial but the really window bugs me and always will:

The Damaskos look great. Their tool like nature makes asymmetry acceptable to me.

However, like you, the date on Seamaster 600 would bother me. Only because I view it as a dress watch, and for me dress watches, in addition to being worn on leather, need to be symmetrical when slicing them down the middle from the 12 to 6 hour markers/numbers. The 1825 u/d is symmetrical to my eye.

Contrast it with this JLC RDM that I owned and eventually sold :

Had the RDM gauge been circular in the same manner as the date indicator, the left and right sides would have been symmetrical (ignore the fact that they would likely have had to resize each of the RDM, Date and Seconds indicators to fit legibly on the dial). For a long time I couldn't figure out why the watch wasn't 100% satisfying to my eye, but when I realized it was the asymmetry I let it go. It bummed me out a bit because it was the perfect size at around 37.5mm.

With pieces like the DateJust or the Omega AquaTerra, most often worn on metal bracelets, the date window does not bother me because I view them as hybrid dress/sports watches.

 

[radicaldog]

Some date windows are great

I usually dislike Genta's designs but he made this date window really work:

In general I don't know why dates at 6 (and crowns at 12, for that matter) aren't more common, given that most watch designs are symmetry-driven.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]

Bezel too thick?

 

[venessian]

Ooops, time for me to leave now, fellas, before, well, you know....

Anyway, here's the answer. Take as many free StyFo thumbs-ups as you want.

A) Original D.Dornblüth & Sohn 99.5, with the really bothersome (to my eye) part. It makes no sense at all, and is very awkward visually.

B) Very crude quick PS, but...why could they not just balance the engraving of the two windows, expand the PR sub-dial track outward, move the "AUF" and "AB" in?

 

[venessian]

I usually dislike Genta's designs but he made this date window really work:

View attachment 1594132

In general I don't know why dates at 6 (and crowns at 12, for that matter) aren't more common, given that most watch designs are symmetry-driven.

I agree: that is a very nice date window, very "Genta-dynamic" in a good way.

I don't understand though what you mean by the "crowns at 12", on a wristwatch, with the issues of lugs, strap, and awkward motion to wind?

 

[bdavro23]

I usually dislike Genta's designs but he made this date window really work:

View attachment 1594132

In general I don't know why dates at 6 (and crowns at 12, for that matter) aren't more common, given that most watch designs are symmetry-driven.

Mine says 'Hello":

 

[venessian]

I hate number occlusion. Pet peeve, actually. But I’m totally fine with dial occlusion (I guess on the Lange 1 it’s really dial ‘overlap’)

+1.
Dial 'overlap' is often fantastic, whether Lange 1 asymmetric or Lambda symmetric, both elegant, fun, fabulous.

 

[radicaldog]

I don't understand though what you mean by the "crowns at 12", on a wristwatch, with the issues of lugs, strap, and awkward motion to wind?

It has pros and cons in terms of ergonomics, but it certainly helps with symmetry. A few example in various categories:

 

[venessian]

The Damaskos look great. Their tool like nature makes asymmetry acceptable to me.

However, like you, the date on Seamaster 600 would bother me. Only because I view it as a dress watch, and for me dress watches, in addition to being worn on leather, need to be symmetrical when slicing them down the middle from the 12 to 6 hour markers/numbers. The 1815 u/d is symmetrical to my eye.

Exactly.

And, since I can wear that Seamaster only for dress, the love/hate with the dial/date window is an issue.

 

[montecristo#2]

Ooops, time for me to leave now, fellas, before, well, you know....

Anyway, here's the answer. Take as many free StyFo thumbs-ups as you want.

A) Original D.Dornblüth & Sohn 99.5, with the really bothersome (to my eye) part. It makes no sense at all, and is very awkward visually.
View attachment 1594134
B) Very crude quick PS, but...why could they not just balance the engraving of the two windows, expand the PR sub-dial track outward, move the "AUF" and "AB" in?
View attachment 1594135

this is hilarious, but I didn’t go for this one for the EXACT SAME reason. Ended up with a 99.1 instead.

 

[venessian]

It has pros and cons in terms of ergonomics, but it certainly helps with symmetry. A few example in various categories:

View attachment 1594151

View attachment 1594152

View attachment 1594153

View attachment 1594157

I see, thanks.

Are those not hard to wind, while being worn? Or more vulnerable to damage than even at 3? Perhaps not, and I suppose one winds off-wrist mainly anyway. I have never handled a crown at 12 wristwatch, but in a sense I guess I feel it might look a bit bland much of the time, maybe just too much symmetry, or I'm just used the crown at 3 and like the challenges it presents to designers.

 

[Nickd]

Not nearly as much. Some date windows are great, and to me are much more subjective as elements; it really depends on the watch.

I like my Damasko DA36 d/d window quite a lot, especially with the logo above it. It makes so much sense, forming that implied oval with the guards and crown, and the cross-hairs balance the dial fine. Plus, no cut-off or occluded numbers!

That said the Damasko DS30 "Windup Edition", with the round date only at the 6, is superb as well, even better than Damasko's own original DS30 version with rectangular date window at 3 interrupting the horizontal crosshair, imo.

Windup Damasko DS30

Damasko original DS30

Many others' windows are fine. I adore the IWC Mark VII and XV (every Mark after the XV is a complete disaster afaI'mc) dial/date window for example.


Otoh, I have a 1958 Omega Seamaster my father gave me, so it is very special, but in my loving dream/memories of him he buys instead a no-date (if it existed at the time, but I think it must have?) dial. The date window is very bothersome on that watch, given the very fine scale (all sticks, very thin) of the rest of the markers and hands.

The Omega looks like this; I love the dial but the really window bugs me and always will:

A similar era to yours, no date. The seconds sub dial may bother some people though.

 

[venessian]

this is hilarious, but I didn’t go for this one for the EXACT SAME reason. Ended up with a 99.1 instead.

That bizarre decision is seriously bizarre, completely irrational, and more mind-boggling if one followed the entire design 18-24 month process (plenty of time to correct) as it was unveiled slowly by Dornbluth and the owner. It is a really bad oversight imo, no question.

99.1 is sublime.

 

[venessian]

A similar era to yours, no date. The seconds sub dial may bother some people though.

View attachment 1594164

Indeed. Beautiful. Mine in fact has that same "linen" dial finish. The small seconds wouldn't bother me at all.

 

[radicaldog]

Are those not hard to wind, while being worn? Or more vulnerable to damage than even at 3? Perhaps not, and I suppose one winds off-wrist mainly anyway. I have never handled a crown at 12 wristwatch, but in a sense I guess I feel it might look a bit bland much of the time, maybe just too much symmetry, or I'm just used the crown at 3 and like the challenges it presents to designers.

Tbh I just wish I knew more of the history of this, i.e. why the crown at 3 became the norm (maybe to differentiate early wristwatches from repurposed pocket watches?).

12 is now so uncommon that it hardly looks bland to me, though maybe you're right that it's a cheap solution symmetry-wise.

As a rough rule it seems to me that crowns at 12 and 3 can be made to work with any kind of watch, whereas a crown at 4 only works on sports models. I suppose 4 is the most practical and most asymmetrical location, so it just says "tool watch" (think Seiko divers).