Are We Being Overly Critical and Unreasonably Expectant of Our Wrist Watches?

It began with an objection to the thickness of a new Vacheron Consantin 222 - a seemingly minor quibble that sparked a wider debate. Is the watch culture becoming obsessed with unreasonable standards? The dissatisfaction over a 7.95mm case thickness in a luxury automatic watch serves as just an example. There were qualms about dimensions, crystal types, depth ratings, and movements; the list was endless.

While personal preference is part of horology’s beauty, a rising trend sees enthusiasts wielding their individual tastes as weapons of critique. What they may dislike, they label as subpar or unworthy. Stricter than ever, the benchmarks for even the most minute watch features have climbed. But is everyone aware that expectations can’t be universally applied across all timepieces? Perhaps the watch failing to meet one’s standards, simply signifies its incompatibility rather than its inferiority.

Are we reflecting the innate complexity of horology, or are we creating an overinflated demand for innovation and refinement? The quintessential appreciation for a watch’s sheer existence and function may be eroding under a shadow of over-ambitious expectations. The quest for novel and niche demands aren’t wrong, but recognizing the line between constructive critique and nitpicking is vital for an unbiased appreciation of watches.