A couple of comments recently, both here on the forum and at a watch event I attended, as well as my own evolving opinions have me wondering about what I think is a sometimes controversial topic among us.
Just how important is the ratio of the size of the movement to the overall size of the respective watch? Perhaps someone can rephrase this question and improve what I am trying to ask. But what do you all think about this when assessing any given watch? I know I have for some time held a strong opinion on this issue, but now I am not so sure...
I was at a watch event where there were representatives of Vacheron, and one of the VC reps told me that the new 4400 movement in the American 1921 was designed to fit larger watch cases that are more the standard today. She explained that there was no reason for the movement to be as big as it is is, but that it was made to be a larger size so that it would not look odd in the case of the 1921 and other models. It is meant to be a base movement for various not-small models going forward. Interestingly, our own Blomman commented that he still thinks the 4400 movement looks too small for the 1921. I am not sure if the VC rep was entirely correct. The cal. 4400 was also designed to be easily serviced and to have a 60-hour power reserve (which is quite useful for a manual wind), and those design decisions may have also had an impact on the final size of the watch, and indeed perhaps a more important impact than the the desire to make a larger diameter movement. Who knows for sure what VC was thinking?
Another forum member, very reasonably I think, raised the issue that the calibre 3126/3840 looks too small for the beefy 42mm AP Offshore cases. My point here is NOT to debate any specific brand's design decisions but rather the necessity of any brand to fit the movement, either closely or not, to the case size. As a side issue, I think it may be fair to say that some calibers will appear small in watches that are designed for sport (diving, for instasnce) and consequently will be encased in shock absorbant, antimagnetic, water resistant cases that will also tend to dwarf the movement inside. Although perhaps this argument is merely a red herring excuse for creating big cases that will sell watches...I don't know.
Of course, I also have in mind the IWC Portuguese Jubilee, as an example of a watch with a large movement that really fits the case diameter, but this is really an example of the watch and its case being built around a particular movement. Big as it is, the Jubilee's caliber is one of the most beautiful I have ever seen and it works so well with the overall design of the watch. But this was not a popular model when it was first introduced to an audience that was not yet ready to embrace the large watch movement.
Historically I think manufacturers have demonstrated their technical skills and prowess in creating the smallest and thinnest movements possible, but today with the consumers' expectations of watch sizes, a manufacture will have a much more limited audience for watch cases that snugly hug tiny and thin movements. So where does that leave these obviously skilled manufacturers that can clearly create and produce tiny, thin and wonderful movments? Should they continue to make these calibers sized "correctly" and hide them from view with a solid caseback, proudly display the smaller movements even if they are in relatively large cases, or should they create larger than necessary movements that "better fit" the larger cases popular today?
I guess I am moving away from my earlier conviction that calibers and cases should be relatively evenly matched in size. In general, I prefer smaller, thinner movements becasue I think that is one (although not the only one by any means) representation of the skill of the watchmaker, even while I prefer larger watches (well bigger than 38mm for me). So, I think I am going to have to either reconcile myself to sometimes accepting a less than perfect fit between caliber and case or I will have to limit myself to a smaller universe of desirable watches. In any case, my earlier conviction is shaken. And that is not a bad thing. ;-)
respo