Independents

I am looking for some understanding of the appeal of this watch. I have read several posts and articles about the watch. I just do not understand the great appeal or attract. Perhaps someone can explain some detail or viewpoint that I am missing.

1) No watch appeals to everybody, and it is quite possible that you have read and absorbed every speck of enthusiasm available for this watch, and it simply leaves you, personally, cold.

2) If you have not had a personal encounter with a watch, it is possible that one would change your opinion (for better or for worse...)

3) Sometimes even an encounter is not sufficient to establish a depth of feeling, but extended contact is required.

4) It certainly seems that a considerable component of the attraction of the Simplicity is that it is designed and made by Mr. Dufour, who is not only an acknowledged master at his art/craft, but also by all accounts a splendid fellow in general. This situation is obviously not common amongst series-production watches, and is perhaps equally difficult to absorb if one is not already inclined to become enamored.

5) Perhaps a more specific question would aid presenting an explanation which is at least understandable (not to say convincing).

Every aspect of it is done to the limits of human skill, it is the brainchild of one designer in its entirety, and it suffers no compromises for marketing or price considerations. The mechanism it uses is designed specifically for ultimate accuracy, stability and reliability for at least 100 years. This is an heirloom which knows no equal in horology.

Does that help?

I totally agree with Chris. If you examine the Simplicity carefully, I mean very carefully under a microscope, you'll see all kinds of details that you'll never found in any other production models. To be frank, I don't think there's anything in the watch that can be improved on, everything is produced in the highest possible standard.

I recently purchased a WG 37mm Simplicity, and strangely enough, I didn't even wear it once. I have a number of very good watches (some Lange, Journe's resonnance, GP's tourbillon, etc) and I wear them all the time, but the Simplicity... I don't know, it feels magical, it's like a piece of art, and I just don't want to scratch it or anything. The watch rest comfortably in the box, and taking it out to careress it becomes my daily routine.

Steve

If this was meant for ultimate accuracy, why is it that a specimen i saw and handled personally was clocking in +12 secs/24 hours in JUST under 2 years?

Stability; i have to admit my because i am unfortunate to own one up till now i cannot comment accurately on this

And reliability; refer to point one, i am not so sure, you mentioned 100 years, what does 2 years give you?

Not trying to go against PD, but just stating what i see in reality

STephen

At the risk of attracting the ire of some of the commentators here, I wonder about some of the statements in this thread.  

In particular I feel compelled to question the accuracy of the above statement that the Simplicity is "entirely hand-made".  Is the dial hand-made?  How about the case?  Were the plates hand-made, or were they pre-fabricated and then finished by Mr. Dufour?  Was the balance hand-made, or purchased from a balance manufacturer?  What does hand-made mean anyway when used to describe a watch?  Once we agree on a definition of "hand-made" for a watch, what is a watch that is 70% hand-made, or 49% hand-made?

Please don't take those questions as being intentionally provocative; I just wonder about whether or not we suffer from misconceptions due to a lack of real information about how Mr. Dufour, or indeed other watchmakers, actually make these watches.  I hope that someone can provide some transparency about the reality of the making of the Simplicity.

TIA

This has been discussed here before.  It's not 100% hand made.  If I remember: case, dial, crystal etc are bought in: wheels and plates are sub-contracted and finished in house.  Someone else can probably fill in the gaps or you can search this forum.  Probably only Daniels made every single part of a watch.  As far as I'm concerned, this is irrelevant.  The Simplicity is more "The Watch as Art".

It's probably the subject of confidentiality obligations, but I can imagine what good copy it would be to be able to say, "we make the movement for the SImplicity".  

Dufour makes the movement from unfinished components that are manufactured to order by different suppliers. 

... though I think if there is a single company or group that does the majority of the work (however and in however many ways that might be defined) then I wonder if they could make such a statement in the same way (though not to the same degree or in exactly the same sense, but nevertheless still within the acceptable common understanding of the phrase) that Lemania could say, if it were minded, that they "made the movement" for the PP5070.  I think I've seen PP catalogues in which they state that the movement is executed for PP by Nouvelle Lemania, despite PP doing the finishing and doing major changes to the escapement etc.  Even so, I suspect that Lemania does more for PP in relation to the 5070 than the movement plate maker does for Dufour.  

Hello Ronald,
Sorry if I sound a bit philosophical, but I'd like to make a parallel to great music or art (I originally come from the classical music world).
The Simplicity is a kind or hermetic piece, that is to say that it does not expose the inner depths of its beauty from the outside. On the outside it has a clean, very classical look, and there is nothing 'spectacular' in terms of style statements or such to be seen. But on the inside, virtually every piece in it has been given the breath of life by human hands on a level of perfection that is slowly disappearing from the Swiss watch industry. And it has all been made in a room of about 8 x 8 meters, by two people, Philippe Dufour and his assistant Bernhard Zwinz.

A lot of great art does not divulge its intensity at the first look or listen.....The more you learn about a particular piece of J.S. Bach's for instance, by reading about it, perhaps trying to play it on a keyboard or place it in a historical context- the more things you will hear, the more levels you will reach. That's part of classical music....the music isn't the same each time, beacuse it is so complex that you can hear something new each time you listen...

But that requires 'active' knowledge gathering rather than only passive listening/absoprtion.

No one has to like the Simplicity, of course, and all tastes differ.

But if you think you might enjoy deepening your interest in horology, go out and buy Daniel's book on watchmaking and just read one or two chapters on how a watch is made by hand, using few machines, then go back and look at the Simplicity again.
You might have a different emotional response then!
I guess what I'm trying to say simply is that the Simplicity is really a watch for watch lovers, because you are paying quite a large fee for workmanship and quality that is only partially manifest in the dial side; the crux of the beauty is on the inside..
Sorry if this is too much said!
TheodoerD

nt

Continuing in a serious vein, is the finish and attention to detail so much better than any other watch? Is the movement that much superior to others? Thanks for indulging me on this topic.

the finish as doese Dufour.

Just imagine the slots of the screws are beveled. The part of the plate where the brand name and watch n? are screwed on have perlage..I can go on and on...

s

Hello Ronald,
There are a few other watch makers capable of such workmanship, but they do not produce such watches regularly, since they become just too expensive and therefore almost unsellable. But Dufour's work is as perfect as it gets- although absolute perfection is unattainable in any case!

The Simplicity movement is not better than others; I state that very unequivocally, from the simple standpoint that this is a simple watch! There are literally hundreds of variants possible in creating a basic movement- and many of them work quite well. It would be foolhardy to say that Dufour's is the only perfect one- and I assure you he himself would never say that about the Simplicity movement.

His Grand Sonnerie wristwatch is another story altogether. Repeaters are extraordinarily difficult to make and design. I have never seen Dufour's version in pieces, and I am not a watchmaker. But it could very well be that Dufour's repeaters are the best design of their kind, since I know he has integrated all the best designs produced in the Vallee du Joux tradition during the last 150 years when he designed his own. So that is a different story.

To balance the discussion, and with the risk of opening up a giga discussion, which is not my purpose, it is perhaps important to realize that despite all the beauty of Dufour's work in finishing and details, his watches are not more accurate than those that are not finished to his level. (Yikes, I can hear the screams echoing on the Internet already) but it is true. There is a kind of legendary fallacy about watchmaking that finish and timekeeping properties are always synonymous. They CAN be, but the presence of one is not evidence of the other.

Still, I would always choose a Simplicity over a Rolex anytime, if I were only allowed to choose one or the other. With all respect to Rolex of course (I still love my Daytona
Just my 2 cents worth!
TheodoreD

If you can put a Lange or a Patek next to a Simplicity, you will be able to see the differences in the finishing of the respective movements. Please, don't get me wrong: I am in no way trying to put down PP or Lange's finish, which are both outstanding in their own right in the industry, but the Simplicity shows what is possible when the finishing of the parts is done entriely by hand, by an experienced watchmaker using tried and true techniques from the past.

Unfortunately, most of the hand finishing which is done by major brands today, even when it is done by hand, is done by young technicians who have been trained to finish that particular part in that particular way. These lack the perspective of an old watchmaker, who has restored/repaired many old watches, and has been able to see/learn how certain things were traditionally done, or to compare them in their various executions.

The Simplicity plates, for exemple, contain sharp corners and inwards or outwards angles on which it is very very difficult to do a proper "anglage". Philippe Dufours' c?tes de Gen?ve are also legendary in their own right, and are perfectly executed from an old perspective of both technique and aesthetics.

Yes Alberto, you're 100% right on about that!!!!

What does really bother me these days is the look of machine made anglage.....after seeing Dufour's work, such workmanship is just so...well, unacceptable.

Interestingly, the exact same problem arises in violin building. The way in which a true master can lay down purfling in the 'C' curves of the violin where they meet the other body curves are a key area where experts can tell even which family member of a violin building dynasty put their hand. To follow such curves exactly is really quite difficult.

Or actually, better said, NOT following the curves exactly...as a true master always departs from the exactness in an additional swing, giving the curve visual movement through the slight departure from exactness.

Geoge Daniels once said "I hate it when watchmakers put the hands of the watch exactly in the middle of the dial". He wasn't joking. He actually always places the hands just a bit uncentered, in order to create a slight sensation of tension, of interest in the dial face. This is again a trick taken from the visual arts.

Of course this is super subtle stuff here, verging on the esoteric. But I believe that high perfection in handwork IS exact, but also more flowing, more poetic (therefore LESS exact) than series made finishing is. And this strange combination of perfection and departure from the line is maybe where the real genius lays?

This is one of my favorite topics, so apologies if it is getting boring, but I could spend hours on this topic it is so much fun- music art, watches, architecture- for me they share many common components!
TheodoreD

In an interview with Mr.Dufour, someone carefully examined a failed and unused part, and asked him " What is wrong with this part? It looks fine." Mr.Dufour answered " It is ok now, but it will make a difference in seventy years." That's Simplicity.

Congraturation on your Simplicity, but somehow I also have just received mine!

Thanks for all of the clarification. I do see this watch as worth having, but not at this time given other watches in that price range. Perhpas I will be able to own one or see one, someday.

But just in case:

ahci.watchprosite.com

I was a skeptic about the Simplicity myself for quite a while, but visiting with Mr. Dufour gave me a much greater appreciation and I began spending the time to understand this piece better. Even upon first owning it I was a bit prone to dismissing it as slightly bland -- but in the process of doing the above review, I found instance after instance of extraordinarily thoughtful design coupled with brilliant execution with coherence and integrity.

Not too many higher words of praise that I could bestow on a mechanical object...

Best,

Gary

nt

nt

my friend

 

 

Steve Jobs goes on to expand.

It takes a lot of hard work to make something simple, to truly understand the underlying challenges and come up with elegant solutions. Simplicity isn’t a …style. It’s not just minimalism or absence of clutter.  It involves digging through the depth of complexity.  To be truly simple, you have to go really deep.

You have to deeply understand the essence …. in order to get rid of the parts that are not essential. 

fnk

And so misunderstood.

It does nothing to me, it doesnt leave me cold just does not call out to me!

I have held an studied one close up and can appreciate it but was the finishing any better than other watches I have also held? I am not so sure on this question... Maybe the answer is yes it is better than other watches in this price range but without side to side magnification who knows! So do I want one... Hmm not really...

Cheers
Andrew

Somehow, after years of looking at various watch designs, the 3 hand one (small secs) seems close to perfection. Any thing else seems added on, & actually takes away from the overall beauty, IMHO. 

... which I assume to be that in which you mostly wear your watch.  For me, I would tend to agree (three hands), given the same terms (ie the context in which I mostly wear my watch, though that might be a different context ;p), although I haven't decided whether I prefer sweep or sub-seconds.  Occasionally, I feel like the context demands something a little more complicated (since the context in which I mostly wear my watch can also change), in which case I think a perpetual, if executed well, is more beautiful.