Ornatus-Mundi[Zenith]
7136
Its still wrong in my book...
Apr 15, 2012,10:10 AM
ok, I mixed up the hour and the minute counter of the chronograph (thanks Marcus for pointing this out), but that does not change anything substantially regarding the point we wanted to make. The criticism is more conceptual, because the function and design do not correspond; the current dial gives one permanent and one chronograph subdial the same layout wheres the residual chronograph subdial gets another.
The current design makes sense, as we said, for the Piguet 1185 chronograph, where the chronograph subdials are 3 and 9 o'clock, respectively, and the permanent seconds at 6 o'clock. Note also how Blancpain made a (albeit subtle) difference consistent with the functional difference. They made another inexcusable mistake but that's not the point here (does anybody recognise it?):
But with Zenith design won over function. This should not happen to a watchmaker rightfully proud of its history in chronographs! I also do not (fully) buy the argument put forward by Marcus that "(g)iving the hour counter at 6 the same layout would mean colliding subdial outlines, which are prevented by the different look of the hour counter." There are solutions, for sure, one just has to look for them!
So, you either refrain from different design or, if you treat your movement seriously, do it correct.
And example that illustrates a correct design/function relationship:
Of course, you can do it functionally correct while totally neglecting the practical readability of your dial:
And, finally, Zenith
knows how to do it, just take a look at this:
So, its either negligence or ignorance or - in my book 'wrong' priorities that are to be criticised.
I hope our point is clearer now!
Cheers,
Magnus