Horological Meandering

The lugs are too stubby and don't gel with the rest of the design. The watches except for the time-only are way too thick and ridiculous. The overall design is OK but nothing very special. The movement finish is good and the dials nive, but the price these command is just nuts. I'd wait for the secondary market/used. The guillochage on the caseback is pretty to look at but will accumulate a lot of wrist cheese. This is a pretty poor release, in my opinion—despite the well-done Derek Pratt homage. I'm not saying the brand ought to have continued in the footsteps of Baumberger and Pratt, but this new look does a disservice to them—and that's not a knee-jerk reaction to something being new. Instead, my argument is that this new aesthetic isn't right for these pieces—it just seems rushed instead of considered. For further evidence of this, look at the crowns: they're very basically shaped and are these big, lumbering things. I know manual winds need crowns that aid their winding, but this doesn't look very thought out. It's a shame because I loved UJ's reincarnation with Pratt and Baumberger and then under Petersen and Mojon, until about 2021, I suppose.

Anyway, hopefully they improve their future outputs. In all seriousness, I'll be looking back to the Big 8, Ref. 8, 1140L, and 2240 Jules pieces as the ones to own.

A broader, newer comment: I'm glad this has brought out the criticizing spirit out. But the reality is that when releases glazed in the manner described above happens to other brands (e.g., Patek, Fleming, some LVMH stuff, etc.) the critical chorus is much more restrained. I think what's interesting is that people aren't too afraid of being honest now (I never was) which makes me optimistic. I'm not a relentless critic, but I do think that we often tread far too lightly and in the steps of this GQ article way too often. Some watches and brands are fantastic and worth celebrating. Many are not. It therefore stands to reason that criticism should be more a part of the watch space than not, since it seems people are allergic to it under the thin veil of civility. You can be kind but critical, and if nothing else, that's what produces good work. When I do research, if my arguments are bad and my paper is poorly written, I don't expect praise for doing something passable. Instead, I expect my colleagues to argue with me and tell me what they think needs improvement so that the next piece is better, especially before publication. Same goes here. If brands are to produce well, they need to be celebrated when they do well, and reminded of what they can do when they do poorly. No brand is immune from criticism and no brand should be reflexively celebrated. They all have certain fantastic products and practices, whether they're in the current or historical catalogues. However, they also are businesses from whom we have no obligation to buy, and by the supposed laws of the market should vie to have us by from them for their actual excellence rather than a mere projection of it.

  login to reply