Distillation Series (Part 2): Time-Only Watches - With or Without Seconds Hand?
One of my latest posts, I asked about "Date or No Date". That post generated a fantastic response and I appreciate every single comment. The question this time around is basically about "Time-Only" watches. So, here is the question: On your Time-Only watc...
Running, walking, crawling or whatever one calls it, it’s pleasing to see the passage of time, and also somewhat calming in this fast moving world we live in...
I’m also not opposed to the tourbillon on the front being visible, specially the slow beat ones... it’s just a calming rhythm for the eyes. In not in danger of ever getting one, but I’m not sure I would want it hidden in the back, specially if I pay that ...
Spot-on. Every watch must have some way to demonstrate it is running when viewed with a quick glance.
This is my only watch without an explicit second hand, but like you said, the tourbillon serves as an adequate stand-in for that. Too bad it doesn't have a date window, though! ...
That is a clear opinion
Albeit i have no watch without a secondhand. My mother owns a watch without a second hand. And it tell the time in a good and accurate way. She have a Raymond Weil Othello. She is no WIS, so it is her only watch.
Another thought provoking question… let’s see here
For me it can go either way, and actually the 4 main watches I rotate through are equally split two with seconds and two without. I never really thought of the seconds hand when deciding on a watch it was more about the look as a whole along with other fa...
Thank you. I have watches from the same manufacturer that have both Seconds Hand and No Seconds Hand.
Though I find a single-hand MeisterSinger intriguing, I find it too minimalist. Maybe, someday I'll wrap my brain and heart around the design. -John
Yes that was the one I had in mind
If I were running a museum or public display of watches I’d want to show a single handed piece but I have to be more selective with my own collection.
Second hand. But…
…small seconds. Best of both worlds: elegance of just the time, with animation and life. BUT the small seconds has to be the right location on the dial (not too far in, not too far out) and the right size. Too many get it wrong. Not just the ‘too small mo...
Depends
For dress watch I like small seconds, for others center seconds. I don't like any without running seconds. I like seeing movement on the dial.
It depends on the art of the watch.
I accept a two hander. Better said, i want to enrich my watch collection with a two hands watch without a date. Today i’d inspects some Vacheron Constantin two hands Patrimony. I am considering a Fifty Six or a Quai de L’ille. But if i discover a dealer w...
My wish is to own a beautiful Vacheron Constantin
I like the maison in all my veins. My grail watch is made by Vacheron Constantin. I think the twin beat is worlds. I see the Maltezer cross just everywhere. ...
Not just running seconds, but one that hacks, too!
The absence of a second hand makes the watch look too static (making watches from brands like Ming tough for me) In addition, I seem to have some kind of insecurity; am in need of regular, quick reassurance the watch is still running 😅
Variety
For preference without seconds, then central seconds finally small seconds. For small seconds it's all about location and how I find the 'looks'. I like the location with the chopped up 6 on a L & S 1815 and prefer that to no number. Prefer it's locat...
I’m probably going to echo my own response to your earlier and equally interesting question (date vs. no date), but again I don’t feel a strong preference either way, unless it is dictated by aesthetic/visual reasons…
Hence, especially for the more artistic watches (e.g., Rare Handcrafts) where I’m not even a fan of the first two hands (joking!), I certainly don’t need a third one to further jam the dial…😄 But again, for most watches, I’ll remain neutral on the issue😉 ...
As others have stated before me, I like to see the watch being „alive“
However, there is one watch I own that doesn’t do it by way of a seconds hand, and I love it: So take this as a tie. ...
I prefer a second hand…
Like a number of those who responded I also like to see the passage of time. However, there is another reason why I like a second hand. This is because I like to be able to set the “exact” time on my watch. I’m not anal retentive about having a watch that...
A fairly simple take for me...
....for a dress watch function,i'm happy without the centre second hand,unless a well positioned subsecond enhances the aaesthetics of the dial For normal daily use,a second hand would be useful for enjoying its movement and knowing the watch is functioni...
With, but . . .
. . . with two exceptions. Perpetual calendars are personally preferable without. With . . . . . . vs without. The raison d'être for the perpetual complication is to portray the calendar on the dial; a seconds hand seems unnecessarily intrusive here. And ...
Wow! The PC examples show the difference of with and without. The cleanliness of the tonneau PC can’t be argued.
Understood about a preference of a chronograph needing a seconds sub-dial. Again, those babies are so sweet! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! -John
When it comes to Flightmasters, John, my preference is for the 910 . . .
. . . without a constantly running seconds hand. The architecture of a pilot's watch not only lends a 24 hour sub-dial greater utility, the absence of constantly running seconds improves sensibility, if that's the right term, by reducing visual and mental...
Both Flightmaster types have manually wound movements based on Omega's cal 861 . . .
. . . seen in Speedmasters from 1968 and several Seamaster variants. Best, Art
Another interesting thread.
I do prefer a seconds hand, sharing many reasons already highlighted. Having said that, if there was no seconds hand I will have to listen to the watch’s heart beat to make sure it was still ticking. Now that is enjoyable whether with or without a seconds...