Horological Meandering

First, allow me to agree with those of greater experience who have answered thus far: the Vacheron is marvelously detailed and perfectly (most thoughtfully) balanced; the Lang's exquisite boldness cannot be denied, and the Patek's understated perfection is, by far, the simplest offering of the three. But what has not been mentioned is their relation to each other—to the stop watch, per se. For all three are stop watches of one sort or another. Enter, the basis for my answer: choose the watch that does the one thing it was conceived to do without elaboration—no fuss, no muss.

A chronograph's enviable mechanical complexity—still, we are told, a complication that takes especial skill to do well—resulting in very fine increments of a second is one thing. The practical application of its results, however, in most cases is limited by "extra-horological" factors: average human reaction time, 0.25 sec. (according to one study, at least, and that time increasing with age); the depth of a specific pusher's range and the particular resistance it offers the hand; the strength of one's thumb, and so forth… Well, we are left with an approximation, only. Inevitably we'll be rounding up or down. (Journe's Centigraphe is surely a marvel, but of no practical use whatsoever!) Now… mind you, with cal. 321 the crew of Apollo XIII was able to gauge that 14 sec. burn well enough to get them back to earth safely—so perhaps my complaint amounts to more than splitting hairs. Still… each of your choices features the ability to track time in rather small increments. So which of these is most enviable?

The Vacheron… What a watch! No wonder you miss it! One of the most beautiful, and again I say, thoughtfully conceived perpetuals out there. No question, a marvel. Fabulous. And I suppose one could look on the addition of a chronograph as a completion of time-keeping from the passage of a single second to the passage of decades. But wIll you ever time an egg with this watch? I think not. For me, absent the chronograph this watch would be perfect.

The Lang… Ohboy… Who wouldn't notice this on your wrist with a "Wow!" And in the case of this watch, the tachometer actually means something. But again… "Somewhere between 190 and 180" might be the answer you'd give at the racetrack. (Not due to the watch, but do to the limitations of consciousness!) I'd be purchasing this watch for the grand date, as my eyes aren't what they used to be. That's what I'd say this watch boils down to practically. (Admittedly, at this price point practicality may not figure in! Still and all….) Bold, beautiful, indeed. But we're looking for a reason that might make the choice clear cut. So...

The Patek, in my view—plain Jane of the bunch that she is—is really the perfect watch here. For this use of the stopwatch—especially over 15 pulsations, as opposed to the more usual 30—is one with real, practical applications. OK, so you're not an MD—or are you??? In any case, were you to need this for the purpose it was conceived to perform, it would get you close enough. (Nobody is looking for a pulse rate of 95.75, in this matter we're expecting to round up or down.) That's all it purports to do, and it does it with admirable understatement. (The size of the date on the Lang easily overwhelms every other aspect of the watch; the Vacheron tries to do—too much.) Here we have flawless execution, perfect balance, disarming (perfect!) size.

Less is more? In this case that's what strikes me. Every day, in every situation, that Patek would look stunning. Best of luck with your choosing. I'm honored to be able to weigh-in with my two cents. Stay safe, wherever this finds you!    FH  PS And I second the wish for pics of the lucky lady!

More posts: Centigraphe

  login to reply