Independents

Rosneathian
1471

• Show profile
• Show other posts

My two dogecoin on this matter below.

I don’t have the purchasing power of some on this forum. That doesn’t mean I forego historical significance or provenance when I rummage around for nice watches. On the contrary, I couple my interest in both qualities with a search for value. Lo and behold, I’ve found that all can be had in what I can only describe as ‘blind spots’ in the market.

Let me explain by way of describing a journey. Over the last year of so I’ve taken more than a passing interest in the work of Daniel Roth. Along the way I’ve picked up three of what I would call middle-tier offerings.

Just as meaningful as they buys is what I’ve learnt about the Anglo-French DNA that still courses through the more classically refined watches of the modern period. There is a golden thread that connects Abraham-Louis Breguet, George Daniels, Daniel Roth and Roger Smith. That’s 2-2, a score that the English would be happy with in a football game against France today.

Only it goes further. The above enquiry led me to the life and work of Urban Jürgensen: his apprenticeships with Breguet, Arnold and Berthoud. Through this I discovered for myself the latter day genius of Derek Pratt.

What did I learn? That he was a younger peer or George Daniels. They conversed every Sunday for years. They collaborated on the co-axial escapement. Pratt’s connections in Switzerland where he lived facilitated access to various brands, and eventually Omega. Daniels tended not to discuss this collaboration and Pratt never made anything of it.

There’s more. Pratt (and Peter Baumberger) prototyped on their own the breakthrough detent escapement in a wrist watch, work that was completed by Kari Voutilainen after both men passed away. Pratt employed century-old techniques making pocket and wrist watches in a manner that Abraham-Louis Breguet would have immediately recognized. That’s because he made the 19th century instruments with which to assemble watches in the 21st century.

Where am I going with this? We all know about Daniels because he had a public profile. He published. He was domicile in the United Kingdom which helped build his stature. Pratt, by contrast, worked behind the scenes and was an expat, but in terms of talent and achievement he was arguably as accomplished as his older compatriot.

His low profile is reflected in market valuations of his work. Daniels (and Rogers) watches are pricey, to say the least. Pratt watches are, in some cases, not so much. In terms of mastery however, in terms of historical significance, and - most importantly to mortals like me - in terms of value, there are few modern comparators. What is more, his watches are as stylistically restrained as today’s equivalents are aggressive.

Due to the above, I’ve found Pratt-era UJS watches to be of extraordinarily good value. When I consider mine (a 1999 Reference 8) I know I am in possession of a piece made with the same exactitude of a Rogers or a Smith or a Roth watch. All of this at a (relatively speaking) lower price.

Are Smith watches worth their tags and the wait? On balance I would say Yes. Are there watches of at least equal weight out there that the market hasn’t fully priced in? Absolutely.

Most replies in this thread have been refreshingly honest and I’ve enjoyed reading them. I don’t think anyone is being “jealous” when they say No to a Smith. On the contrary, it’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. For my part I feel that there are much better value propositions out there. At the same time I would cheer on anyone with the means and time to plump for a Smith if they can.

Site Info.