



|
In Opus 9, diamonds are not a decorative elements, but the functional!. Teamed up watchmaker Jean-Marc Wiederecht and haute designer Eric Giroud . I won't be surprised if all expect me to say really bad stuff about Opus 9.
I won't pretend that it is not going to be important that I say something, after all, this forum HWRT was created more with the birth of the spirit of the Opus projects back in 2002, after Opus 2 and 1.
I have to be responsible in that way.
Hell, I was around for Opus 1, and I bought the version of it made by Journe.(cheaper).
The Opus project 9 is going to be not well recieved by most serious academic onlookers, but will be sold out.
That is my prediction.
It is the first time in hsitory that a later project makes an earlier one look and present itself better...and that is Opus 8.
My remarks on Opus 8 were honest, but I could understand why the executives at HWRT did not like me for saying it. BUT..on looking at Opus 9....I am thinking these things:
(1) I made a mistake about Opus 8, and this is NOT because Opus 9 is not good, or that Opus 9 is better. But that I had misjudged the direction of the Opus project. I think that the Opus 9 is correct in its direction, its statements. and its intent.
(2) The direction appears to be new boundaries in size, and new boundaries in the use of diamond decorations. I personally like these changes, I like the size, although it is way too large for me or most others. BUT wait...I am saying that the Opus 9 is large, but probably not with the intent to BE LARGE, but that this is as small as they could do it. This is VERY important, it means that the company has not backed out of having the courage to make new things....the spirit of Opus is alive. It is just that it has infected almost EVERYBODY. There are so many other companies making things like Opus today.
(3) Although many companies make "far out" designs...Opus 3, 5, 8 and 9 seem to be special.
The intent of these 4 designs are now more cohesive in retrospect. Although there is no link wiht each other except by executive decisions, an dthat 3 and 5 are Max Busser's children, I would seriously relook at Opus 8 and 9 today, if I were collaborating on setting up a book of seriously important watches. Opus 3 and 5 are without any doubt historical.
Now..Opus 9.
Way too big.
It looks as if it were a streamlined Cabestan. Minus a few things, yet bigger...possibly because of the desire to use diamonds internally on the chain.
The advertisorial spin can say what it wants, but when boiled down...it looks BIG. The statement is that this is a BIG watch. This is an over riding aesthetic..that it is BIG.
However, here is my personal take. I actually LIKE IT. And "if I had the money", I would buy it.
And more...because of it...I would also now want to buy the Opus 8.
The 8 and the 9 seem to be part of a hand of watches.
The Opus 3, cabestan and the MBF 3 are the other "cards".
That would make a beautiful set.
However, on its own..the Opus 9 may be found "wanting" or "lacking".
On a historical note...the maker is one of HWRT's original old hands....and the designer Eric is someone I am getting to admire for brave works.
The DeGrisogono's diital monster fails where Opus 9 suceeds...it is about finesse in execution. To make a BIG watch elegant is VERY difficult...I mean big parts. But this Opus 9, has many tiny parts put together tightly...and Eric has made the big casing full of small details, typical of a few of his designs. I really like it.
Now...I must see if it is possible to actually wear it.
Thru experience. I would not dare say something large like this cannot be worn...when my wife wore MBF1, it probably feels like this Opus 9!!!
Surely, after these few hours...I have decided to write a # of coming up for air on Harry Winston's Opus series.
Thanks for reading.
|