Nicolas, as ever, your reporting and photos amount to the platinum standard for content on this site. Even though I spent several hours with all of these watches in the metal on Saturday night, I awaited your review and original insights with baited breath, and the wait was worth it!
Of these models, my preference is the steel UT for its juxtaposition of cold silver, steel, and white elements alongside the rich blue hues of the lacquer. The color, gradients, contrast, and texture of this world time display sets the standard for this class of complication, and it surrenders nothing in impact or inspiration to the cloisonne or sapphire-enhanced efforts from Patek and Vacheron, respectively. Add a charming dead seconds hand and an excellent evolution of the EL1 balance, and it's clear that a great deal of time was invested in the UT.
That said, I feel as though I've seen these watches before in many iterations from many other sources (and no, not my samples from this weekend). Remove the manufacture's logo, and I'm not certain I could instinctively identify these as JLC watches. In detail, there's a degree of evolution from past Master world time references and last year's Geophysic tribute (itself a replica effort), but there's nothing gripping, indisputably evocative of this company, or clearly at variance with similar products from others - including others within Richemont.
There are too many details that frustrate; strange use of "faux patina" lume on the hands of the steel UT model (why?); an illegible local time readout on both UT metal variants which I've confirmed in person; anodyne style on the True Second model; 5 bar water resistance on a "sports watch"; continued preoccupation with tribute styles rather than the courage to offer an original proposition.
In particular, the last drawback disturbs me the most. JLC, as of this moment, seems to be a firm in transition; it's a wellspring of impressive capability searching for an identity. Even today, it seems like many of the most original and distinctive (to
me, at least) models in the JLC line are holdovers or derivatives of
models released in the 2000s. The Duometres, the Compressors, the Lab 2,
the complicated Reversos, all chronographs, all dive models, the Gyros,
and the last of the Amvox series.
The Lambert years witnessed an incredible buildup of engineering, design, metiers d'art, and manufacturing depth, and the current management has inherited a stronger JLC than has existed at any time since the founding family still ran the maison. But this potential lacks the direction of the Lambert years which witnessed prolific developments in style and substance at both the low and high ends of the model range.
The 2000s Gyro and the Master Compressor models were equally ambitious and equally memorable; I have no doubt that each will enter the canon of classics alongside the Polaris, Deepsea, and original Geophysic. But the last five years have seen the emergence of a stifling strain of conservatism in design of new models. Maybe it's the creeping corporate mandate from the luxury parent firms that each brand ensure immediate returns on all investments, because the institutional march toward nostalgia design seems to be universal across many brands.
It seems that derivative historic (i.e., safe, uncontroversial) design has replaced real imagination. If this same mentality had prevailed in the 1950s and 1960s, the Geophysic, Deepsea, and Polaris would have been pocket watches. For all of these reasons, I cannot fall in love with these new offerings. I respect them, but love doesn't strike me.
Best,
Tim
This message has been edited by Tim_M on 2015-09-30 05:16:38 This message has been edited by Tim_M on 2015-09-30 05:17:18 This message has been edited by Tim_M on 2015-09-30 05:17:55