Is now the time to make watches more simple rather than complicated?

Zach Blass

Last week, I had an absolute blast in Hong Kong for the 10th Horology Forum presented by Dubai Watch Week. Among other things, the three-day festival largely centred around panels with industry experts. Much of the discussion throughout these various panels centred around the innovations made in mechanical watchmaking and what innovations or complications we could see debut in the future. But, by the end of the week, I found myself wondering – rather than pushing complications further, is now the time to make watches simpler? Or as they already are, but better?

Let’s take a step back. I previously shared an interesting segment from the Is the Age of Mechanical Innovation Over? panel in which TAG Heuer Heritage Director Nicholas Biebuyck commented on the rise of consumer interest in quartz. The overall panel topic or prompt was: “For a quarter of a century, luxury watch companies have driven mechanical innovation, using advanced movement technologies to build cachet and lure in a new generation of buyers hungry for performance and dynamic movement design. But with costs soaring and an image-conscious consumer more concerned by brand and style, has the time for mechanical innovation passed, and if so, what should the watch industry focus on in its place?”

This would later be followed by a panel titled To Infinity & Beyond, moderated by London-based writer Ming Liu with Benoit Mintiens (founder of Ressence), Ming Thein (Founder/Chief Creative, Horologer Ming), and Professor Heiwei Tang (Associate Dean, HKU Business School), setting out to ask and answer what the next truly useful complication would be. Interestingly, the two watchmakers present are known for stripping things back. Ming, while having explored special projects with higher complication, is largely known for two-handed designs (albeit requiring complex engineering for its dials).

But it was what Benoit Mintiens of Ressence said that sent me down this rabbit hole. Firstly, he proclaimed: “The best way to conceive a watch is to start with the relationship. I believe if you conceive a watch from the relationship point of view, you will probably end up with a good product.” The relationship Benoit mentions is the relationship between a watch and its wearer. As he would later point out, if you buy a pair of shoes, and they hurt your feet, then the shoes’ owner will develop a bad relationship with them and wear them less. Second, he mentions the idea of “simplicate” rather than complicate, and that at Ressence, its designs have clear intentions on what they aim to deliver and only deliver what the product is meant to do.

Ming Thein agreed, and expanded on it by pointing out how high-end mechanical complications are not lauded for their usefulness or functionality, but rather their complexity and the interactivity you can have. Just think about the feeling of pulling the slide on a case to be rewarded with the chime of a minute repeater. He made an important point, explaining: “I think the challenge is if you want to develop something that is unique, never been done before, and has that level of interactivity, you start to get into pricing into the stratosphere, and that doesn’t really make sense [for us]. It goes against our philosophy of trying to make interesting things accessible.”

When you think about it, the last time there was tangible mechanical innovation for the entry to the mid-level watch buyer was brands raising power reserves to “weekend-proof” levels, and more commonly incorporating silicon into escapements to better resist magnetism in an increasingly electronic world. These improvements can be had in watches below US$5,000, and are therefore far more relevant than creating a moonphase accurate for a million years that few people could ever afford or experience. So now, years beyond making weekend-proof movements and silicon escapements more commonplace, what could be the next leap forward that would actually be accessible to the larger watch-buying marketplace?

It became clear that this discussion would not lead to a reveal of the next useful complication, because there is not really anything that can be introduced that would be useful  (or as useful as the various digital devices at our disposal). Therefore, watch brands can make the complicated even more complicated, and in turn create more expensive products that receive critical acclaim. But where does that leave the average watch buyer?

All of this build-up leads me to my conclusion that perhaps answers both the question of what the watch industry should focus on and developing new mechanical complications. The answer, in my opinion, is to innovate to “simplicate”. As consumers are placing a greater emphasis on design rather than specs, this is opening the door for the adoption of analogue watches in place of smartwatches. Yes, the niche has never been more educated about watches, but at the same time, we are also seeing a rise in casual collectors and enthusiasm for watchmaking. This is a generation of watch lovers, but not necessarily geeks, design-driven and eager to tap into the style of wearing an analogue watch.

This hypothetical and casual generation I mention may not be as committed to understanding every little quirk or nuance of a mechanical watch that, for whatever reason, we watch geeks enjoy or put up with. Getting more to the point, I propose that, rather than make a tourbillon spin on a greater number of axes, we take a closer look at the complication most people interact with – the date. I recently purchased a Tissot PRX 35mm for a family member, but they do not wear it too often. It’s not because they don’t like the watch – they love the design and idea of wearing it – but setting it causes stress and anxiety.

Why? Because I unintentionally put the fear of God into them when I mentioned the “danger zone” of a date complication, and that you cannot just set the date at any time. Typically, between the hours of 9:00 PM and 3:00 AM, changing the date risks damaging the movement. So, I explained that when picking the watch up after its 80-hour power reserve has expended, you should rotate the hands forward until the date clicks over, and then leave the hands at around 6:30 AM. Then, they could safely advance the date and set the correct time afterwards. For a watch geek with horological muscle memory, this is quick and harmless, but for a casual enjoyer of a watch, it is complicated enough to turn to a phone or smartwatch, and wonder why they would leave the comfort of their autonomous digital devices.

This begs the question: in a world with pocket watches with 27 complications packed into it, multi-axis tourbillons, and secular calendars, why has no watch manufacturer, at least at scale, created a calendar movement without the nuance of a danger zone? How come basic movements like the ETA 2824 or 2892 have not been advanced, being the movements many first-time watch owners experience? It may seem silly to watch geeks, but despite greater education and awareness around watchmaking, there are still plenty of watch owners walking into boutiques asking for their dead mechanical watch to get a new battery.

The incentive to complicate watches is clear. The more complicated, the more expensive. But if we have truly hit a saturation point in useful mechanical innovation, and experts at an esteemed horology forum can’t propose a new, useful mechanical innovation, the logical conclusion in my mind is to evolve what already exists to create a better relationship between watch and wearer. Make complications less complicated to interact with, or if nothing can evolve internally, we certainly know many people would love for brands to catch up externally with on-the-fly micro-adjustment bracelet clasps. With the Mintiens and Theins of this world emphasising relationship and usefulness, it seems to me what would be useful to improve brand/buyer relationships is to make things that exist even better, rather than making the useless more useless and more expensive.