Water resistance in metres, power reserve in hours, precision in seconds per day, dimensions in millimetres with two decimal points. We, as watch lovers, love specifications, or 'specs'. The more elaborate and precise, the better. However, this is a fairly new phenomenon. The way we evaluate watches has changed and that might well get in the way of our enjoyment. A topic worth looking into.
Text: Thomas van Straaten
The internet has profoundly changed the watch world. Social media are now the meeting place of choice for watch lovers. You can find out about the smallest details here, without leaving the comfort of your armchair. At the same time, it is becoming more difficult for many people to see watches in real life. With many brands choosing to open their own boutiques, the corner jeweller is also disappearing. Just a few similar watches from Omega, Cartier and Jaeger-LeCoultre holding and fitting has suddenly become a lot harder. Then you will have to go to a big city and several brandstores have to visit. Of course, that is a particularly fun outing, but perhaps something you only do if you are concretely in the market.
Add to this the fact that many younger watch brands can be bought exclusively online or have, at most, one boutique somewhere abroad. Think, for example, of brands like Serica, Baltic, Christopher Ward, Traska and Farer. But also more traditional niche brands such as Sinn are by no means always on display at a dealership.
All this together makes us gather our knowledge more and more online. We form our opinions based on photos, videos and descriptions. As beautiful as images can be, they often give only a limited impression of what a watch is actually like. How does it feel, how does it play with the light, how does it fall on the wrist? It's all difficult to convey via a screen. Specifications, on the other hand, are perfect for the online world. They are easy to compare and are the source of endless analysis and discussion on forums and social media. In short, the shift to an online watch world also shifts our focus and makes technical specifications increasingly important.
But what do all these specifications really say?
The problem is that this shift can cause our opinions to be guided by things that don't actually matter that much. Take waterproofing, for example. Say you are in the market for a sports watch and you fall for vintage-inspired diving watches. Think of the Tudor Black Bay 58, Breitling Superocean and the Oris Divers Sixty-Five. Now put the specifications side by side, and you will see considerable differences in water resistance. Breitling reports a water resistance of 300 metres. The Tudor can go down to 200 metres. Oris, on the other hand, specifies 100 metres for its diving watch.
Easy enough! The Breitling is the best, then the Tudor and then the Oris. At least, that's what you would be inclined to believe if you place very high value on those specifications. But what exactly do those values say?
Watches keep water out by means of gaskets. The openings (crown, case cover, glass) are sealed with a rubber gasket. If this is done neatly, you can swim with your watch. But where do these huge depth specifications come from?
When you really start diving and pass the depth of an average pool, pressure starts to play a role. At hundreds of metres deep, that takes on extreme forms. A sapphire glass can crack and a steel case cover can deform under that pressure. In that case, of course, gaskets no longer offer protection. How do you prevent a glass from breaking or steel from deforming? By making it thicker. Make the case cover and the glass both a millimetre thicker, and you can go a hundred metres deeper just like that. However, most of us never get to those kinds of depths. Even a PADI-certified divemaster may not be deeper than 40 metres.
Of course, some over-specification is always nice; indeed, it is a crucial part of the romance of watches. But those extra-thick materials have no value under lower pressure. At most, it tells you something about the priorities set by the manufacturer. Oris, in this example, has apparently chosen to keep the materials slightly thinner. Perhaps the consideration of greater comfort through lower weight played a role in this. Thinner materials, by the way, do not necessarily mean that the watch is also flatter. In fact, sometimes a movement is thicker or plays more with height on the dial and hands.
Whatever the consideration of the various manufacturers, it is important to realise that it is not a question of better or worse. Indeed, in daily use-and also in recreational diving-the three watches mentioned above perform identically.
Okay, but precision is important, right?
Watchmakers have been on the hunt for ultimate precision for centuries. Every second that can be shaved off the daily deviation brings us closer to perfection. If precision is what we strive for, then it's simple: a more accurate watch is better. So if the specifications describe a deviation of -4/+6 seconds per day, that's a better watch than a counterpart that specifies -10/+15. Right?
Not quite. In fact, the accuracy of a watch is largely a matter of adjustment. This is why you can find the exact same movement in the COSC chronometer-spec (-4/+6), as in less accurate versions. What's the difference? The former is more precisely tuned. Otherwise, they are identical.
On top of that, accuracy is dynamic. External variables such as temperature and orientation affect the accuracy of a timepiece. In addition, a timepiece becomes less accurate over time, under the influence of drying oil and wear. In short, if a simple automatic watch has just been serviced and adjusted by a watchmaker, it may just run more accurately than a Master Chronometer of three years old.
Still, of course, precision says something. As Rolex promises that its watches run -2/+2 seconds a day, then that speaks confidence and ambition. It also says that the timepieces are designed and built to achieve that deliver on promise. In this sense, the potential for precision is perhaps more important than precision itself.
So... how should we interpret specifications?
The above two examples illustrate that specifications should be taken with a grain of salt. While you can glean valuable information about a watch from them, they are harder to compare than you might be inclined to think. Often, they reflect a manufacturer's priorities and choices, not absolute quality.
There are also many quality-defining issues in this regard that cannot be captured in specifications at all. Think about finishing, for example. Perhaps watch A has a simple stamped and polished set of hands. Watch B, on the other hand, has faceted hands with two different finishes. These are things that determine the value and quality of a watch, but which you won't find directly in the specifications.
In short, on to the boutiques! Because no matter how much online research we do, ultimately the watch has to capture the imagination in real life. A second in the hand can tell you more than three hours of online study. A look through a magnifying glass will tell you more about quality than a glance at the specs list. If you can't, at least be aware of the limitations of specs in describing a watch. Ultimately, with a luxury good like a mechanical watch, it's about the feeling it gives you. Not about the cold data.
English 
Dutch 
German