Horological Meandering

Craig LA
888

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Most complications are entirely superfluous for most end users

IMHO, many popular complications (perhaps even the vast majority) are unnecessary, superfluous and never used by most owners. I believe that most watch owners do not purchase complications for their practical or intended purpose, but rather, for aesthetic reasons. Please note that I am not criticizing this practice. To the contrary, I am guilty of the same. My purpose in mentioning this is, rather, to point out that criticism of a complication as “useless” or “superfluous” is, often times, not particularly compelling – unless, of course, you are one of the few that purchases only time-only watches, or only watches with complications that you actually employ.

By way of example, many (perhaps most) watch collectors marvel at, and appreciate, minute repeaters. However, how many of us actually have a need to receive the time in audible form? How many minute repeater owners actually use a minute repeater for its intended purpose (and how often)? I suspect very few (and very rarely). Rather, I suspect the vast majority of minute repeater owners enjoy the melodic chimes almost exclusively in well lit surroundings – they listen to the watch to enjoy the music it produces, rather than to discern the time. Some of you may respond: I do not own a minute repeater, so this does not apply to me. However, I suspect the reason why many do not own a minute repeater is cost and, if the price of minute repeaters were substantially less, many more people would own a minute repeater, even though they have no need for the function.

Another prime example of a superfluous complication, which is considerably more common than a minute repeater, is the moon phase display. Many watch collectors love moon phase displays. Threads praising the beauty of moon phase displays are common place. However, the truth is that few, if any, of us have a practical need to know the daily position of the moon. Rather, we purchase watches with moon phase displays primarily, if not exclusively, for aesthetic reasons – we like the way they look.

Dive watches, particularly with rotating bezels, are another prime example of this phenomenon. Many popular sport watches incorporate rotating bezels. However, how many people actually use their rotating bezel for its intended purpose? I suspect very, very few. Likewise, many dive watches are marketed based upon the extraordinary depths they can sustain. How many people actually take their watches to depths of 1000 meters, and below, so as to derive the practical benefits of extreme dive watches? Again, I suspect very few. In fact, I suspect only a small percentage of dive watches, with rotating bezels, are ever actually used for scuba diving (no need to chime in if you are the exception that uses your dive watch and rotating bezel for actual diving purposes – I remain confident that you are in the small minority).

Many watch collectors love perpetual calendars (annual calendars as well). However, do you really need your watch to display the year. When was the last time you forgot what year it is? Nevertheless, the fact that a watch can accurately track the year for a hundred or more years is very cool and people like that their watch incorporates this cool feature, albeit wholly useless. The same is largely true for the month display – do you really forget what month it is, and need to refer to your watch as a reminder? Not me.

How about the coveted split-second/rattrapante or flyback chronograph, or chronographs that can measure time to a fraction of a second. I suspect very few chronograph users actually need, or employ, these special features for their intended purpose. When was the last time you needed to time two concurrent events?  Taking it a step further, I suspect many (perhaps the majority) of chronograph owners never use even the basic functionality of their chronograph (no need to chime in if you are the exception that uses your chronograph).

How about a slightly more esoteric complication . . . the Equation of Time . . . is there any better example of an entirely useless display?

In conclusion, I believe most complications are entirely superfluous for most end users (yes, there are exceptions, but my comments are intentionally general). Most of us purchase complications not for their intended use, but rather, for aesthetic reasons (or, in the case of a minute repeater, melodic purposes). Simply put, we like the way they look. We think a moon phase display looks cool, and adds to the beauty of the watch, even though we could care less where the moon is in the sky on any given day.  We like the sportsman look of a rotating bezel, even though we do not actually dive. We like the extra pizzazz, beyond a time only display, even though the time function is all we really need or use.

To be clear, I am not anti-complications. To the contrary, I LOVE the superfluous complications! For me, the complications are the beauty, wonder, and inspiration of a watch -- they are the art, heart and soul -- the diversity and uniqueness -- the technical achievement and engineering distinction. I am not advocating against the acquisition of superfluous complications (otherwise, I would have to sell the majority of my collection).

Regards,

Craig

Site Info.