Horological Meandering

T

that the Omega Railmaster is my perfect time only watch. it looks good on a bracelet, on croc and on a nato. its very easy to read in all lighting conditions. what more can you ask for?? 

there a vast number of vintage pieces that are possibly even better suited.

Graham

No message body

Nomos Tangomat...

This... (mine)

Or


This...  (not mine...the wrist is mine, though)

If I have these two and two hands AP 5402ST, that would make my simple watches department perfect....

Ken

PP 5196.....

Simple, elegant and perfect...

Cheers

is in my eyes the ultimate time only watch. wish had one

Christian

It may be paradoxical but I do believe that the time-only watch is a difficult timepiece to design: it has to be balanced and its simplicity doesn't have to mean "boring". So there is a sort of chemistry to find in order to get it perfect or close to perfection.

For me, these watches can be considered, for my taste, as beautiful examples of time only watches:





The most impressive one is this one for me:



I'm a great fan of the new Patrimony:



I also like this new Jules Audemars:



And what about the independant watchmakers ?








For me, there are many ways to design the right time-only watches... but only a few manage to do it properly...

Fr.Xavier


This message has been edited by foversta on 2011-02-21 12:36:26

my favourites. Thanks!

The perfect time only watch is probably the most difficult one to create.

One day I will find mine - hopefully

Oliver

ps: Some have been or are close, but none is THE one - so far ...

... I wanted to bring out. Thanks FX and Oliver! On the surface you would think that anyone could come up with a simple two- or three-hand dress watch. It seems like it should be the first class in a Design 101 course. But in reality it is very difficult to get it just right.

Like you, Oliver, I am not sure I have seen my perfect one. I am hoping I will know it when it comes along (I expect I will, but who knows?) although some of the Observatoire iterations have done it for me.

I'll keep looking.

Andrew

T

With due respect to and admiration of those masters such as Dufour and Voutilainen, I do appreciate the classic simplicity of D.Dornblüth & Sohn:

. . . in steel. 

The tourbillon does not add complexity, in my humble opinion.  It defines the design, which to my eyes is as universal as they come.

Admittedly prejudiced, Art

This one comes pretty close, both in the elegant simplicity of both the dial and the movement.

This message has been edited by mrsnak on 2011-02-21 13:54:17

Beyond that, I can't decide.

Depending upon whether one craves minimalism, or readability, or elegance, and perhaps also the relative importance of the movement.

my selection:

No message body This message has been edited by amanico on 2011-02-21 22:51:11

1. Hour and Minute hands only.

or

2. Centre seconds.

or

3. Seconds subdial

So choosing a perfect watch is close to impossible for me.

Regards,
Richard.

No message body

.. over different periods of my watch buying journey. 

My contribution to this tread on "Time Only" watch ... maybe with an exception with a little date window in one of them.

A Glashutte Original - Meissen

 

Vacheron Constatin - Heure Sautante

 

JLCs and PPs. 

 

..... These are many favourite things....

/W72

I agree with the folks who have nominated the JLC MUT -- it's one of my very favorites, and I love wearing it -- very pure expression of simple and clean design, and tough to pull off a movement that thin!

At the end of the day, though, for me it's this one:

And I do mean _this_ one -- RG, silver/white face, anthracite Romans, flipped, dots, 12-sector soleil, rhodiated hands with blue rings...

Best,

Gary G

You are a lucky man sir!

There are some superb pieces here.

And my favourite would have to be for the Philippe Dufour.  

Didn't we forget about this?
(photo not mine...I can't possibly afford this piece of absolute perfection....)

is without Tourbillon or something like this, isn´t it?

If not, I could imagine a Minute Repeater as well ...



My point of view: No additional complications, when "time-only".

Then the perfect answer....



Cheers

Now, if can can speak about modern or Vintage watches, I'm surprsied nobody mentionned this beauty ...



Best,

Nicolas.

Ahh...so little time to post and so far behind on interesting threads!  Nonetheless:

My simple (boring) answer is that the Milgauss is a wonderful time only watch.  But so are the various ranges of Calatravas and the various time only watches shown on this thread.

The more complex answer is that it is difficult to say what is the right design of the time only watch in the particularly excellent framework of Antoine de Saing-Exupery where there is nothing left to take away.  In fact there is much that can be taken away or changed from the various time-only watches on display and that is perhaps the issue.  I feel like many of the watches we are looking at (in this thread but in the industry as a whole) are variations on a theme by "Walkman" but what we are striving for is "iPod"-like simplicity and I'm not sure the watch industry has achieved this.  Or perhaps more accurately, the simple time-only movement is largely unchanged.  I don't know what is the answer, but I wish there was a watch out there that made me feel more "iPod" than "simple-Walkman".  Alas.

So, as a start I would, in addition to the simple time-only face and dial, seek to achieve a skeleton movement where the bridges were made of a type of material where the bridge itself was except for the jeweled sections extremely thin (and therefore NOT decorated - this is simplicity we are seeking after all).  What would remain when gazing through the sapphire case-back would be only the absolute key moving gears and pinions with any extra metal removed.  Picture string-thin bridges of sufficiently-hard material.

Regarding the dial - have you ever been in a hotel where the window to the bathroom (say) is clear but if you flick a switch, the window becomes opaque?  I believe this is called "Smart Glass".  Well my friends, this is how the dial would look - completely transparent front to back but with a simple twist of the crown - poof; an opaque dial with numerals appears.

But is it beautiful?  I'm not sure - the closest I've seen to this type of utterly simple watch is the Corum Bridge series (sadly no Smart Glass) which I admit to admiring given its utter simplicity.

Of course, the utterly simple watch would require minimal if any lubrication - the holiest of the holy!

May the simplicity and innovation of the "iPod" eventually reach our watches and their movement; in the meantime- all the best.