Horological Meandering

a lot of display backs just for the sake of it when the finish isnt particularly good. to be honest i dont think i own many watches without display backs(vintage pieces excepted).

i do like the idea of Omega putting display backs on speedmasters even making aftermarket backs for the early pieces.

so yeah, if its worth looking at then put glass in it. if it is a bog standard unmodified movement stick metal on the back.

just me humble opinion

Graham

thanks for your answer.

i think you're right, there is a strong direction indeed as high-end and average movements alike seem to enjoy being put on display...

as for myself, i would appreciate having the choice to ask for a solid case back when the regular production provides only display ones (such as with the jlc master control, where, due to a 'by default' display back, i decided to pursue the search of a master grande taille). a beautiful calibre might look for some intimacy... LOL

Wooster

even if the movement is a basic movement and unfinished.  Of course my preference would be to have a beautifully finished movement to look at, but either way, I don't discriminate against good or ugly looking movements

Cheers,
Anthony

No message body

. . . until recently; I've come around to preferring solid backs for most standard production movements, as the view into an unexceptional movement strikes me as akin to a negligee on an unattractive woman . . . yes, it heightens the interest, but to what end? There are a few modern watches on my wish list, like the GS SBGW001, that I feel have a more compelling appearance without a display back; the GS is reminiscent of classic three-handed Swiss watches from the 50's and 60's, none of which had display backs. I'm all for adding a display back to a vintage watch that has a movement worth enjoying, like a UG micro-rotor or Omega 30T2, so long as the original back is undisturbed.

This issue has come up recently with Glashütte Original when they decided to offer a display back for owners of cal 100 Senator Navigators which were originally issued with solid casebacks in deference to the original designs. I suspect many owners will take advantage of the offer to switch to a display back, but I wouldn't be one of them . . . the gestalt of the watch would be compromised, in my opinion. G O has also, like a few other manufacturers, introduced a watch - the 1878 Moritz Großman - that comes with both a solid engraved back and a display back, so the owner can switch back and forth as suits his fancy. I'm not sure that's an approach that many others will take, but as far as I'm concerned, options are good to have . . . . cordially, Art

No doubt whatsoever - in what matters display back choices, I'm in a clear minority

To defend my case, Art's term is highly welcome - my Gestalt of a watch, as a highly subjective archetype of 'what a watch should look like', does not include the display back; it is for me as if the 'deus within machina' is put on display...

Maybe I'm just change resistant, but in some cases, such as the new old Ingenieur, I think it was a bit absurd to go for the display back, as this meant that the magnetic field protection (relevant apparently also for those working in the neighborhood of servers, etc) was not there any further.

I like watches with solid backs, both because in the case of sporty watches it doesn't make sense for them to be weakened by display backs and because most movements benefit aesthetically from being covered up. Also, a display back adds thickness, which is at best neutral and sometimes undesirable. Even in the case of very finely-finished movements, I also very much enjoy the idea of the work being done for its own sake rather than for display.

Indeed, I am not alone on the solid front any further

I support your opinion - both in  what matters the sturdiness granted by a solid case back and, even more so, on having an exceptional movement per se.

I am with you there.

On a dress watch with an interesting movement...perhaps.

On a supposed "tool" (oh how that name is annoying) it is a joke. Speedmasters with display backs? A "Moonwatch"?? A Panerai (or any other big tough 'dive' watch) with a display back? oh dear.

 

... but it happens more and more often to have 'tool' watches with a display back

another tragic result of the eternal fight between sense and sensibility

the caliber is interesting, with great finishings and if it's not too small for the case.



Fr.Xavier

That's why I like more the Pannies with a solid case back, without forgetting the historical thing, of course!

Best.

Nicolas

I may presume that these watches (with 1. an interesting caliber, 2. great finishing, and especially 3. a movement not too small for the case) cover a rather tight selection of the current offers on the market... Whereby the trend  is greatly encompassing

I could live with it...

~Mike

No message body

If the movement is nicely finished, it may be nice to have a display back ... but it prob'ly wouldn't work for certain watches, e.g. anti-magnetic ones like IWC Ingy, etc.

... it appears that it is a 'form over function' approach, as the new Ingy has a display back

Yes for me.  For me it makes more of a connection to the fact it is a mechnical watch.  I have only one modern watch that does not have one, and I wish it did!

Cheers, Al

Spending so much and not able to see much is hard to accept. ;-)

No message body