The 6 things we wish all watch brands told us

Zach Blass

A picture might say a thousand words, but there’s still no substitute for trying a watch on in the metal. That’s not always possible (and is something the T+T Discovery Studios have tried hard to change), and many of us buy watches online, sight unseen. As a community, watch lovers have never been more educated and curious to learn the deep cuts of the horological world. And while things have improved, some brands are just better than others when it comes to communicating particular details that are crucial for evaluating a purchase. Here are six things all watch brands should be telling us.

Thickness

Believe it or not, some press releases and brand e-commerce sites don’t always disclose this pillar measurement. It’s really quite astounding, because the dominant duo of measurements everyone expects is diameter and thickness, and many of us are even looking to see the full Holy Trinity of measurements: diameter, thickness, and lug-to-lug. The thickness of a watch is a highly desirable measurement for buyers to know, as it not only determines whether or not the watch will slide under the cuff, but also how the watch presents on the wrist. Thinner watches also have an added elegance to their aesthetic, and while the sports category is the polar opposite of the dress category, many buyers are looking to make their sportier pieces their watch of choice even in formal situations.

We’ve seen how crucial thickness is to customers, the perfect example being Tudor. Some expressed dismay when the Tudor Black Bay Heritage pivoted to a manufacture movement. It wasn’t because the new movement was less desirable – in fact, the technical upgrade was highly appreciated. But it came at the cost of precious millimetres in added thickness – jumping from 12.7mm for the ETA Smiley to 14.8mm for the Kenissi. Then, Tudor revealed a new generation of Kenissi-driven Black Bay watches in 2023 that had slimmed the profile down to 13.6mm. But the only reason this was communicated to the public was because watch publications did our homework and had access on the ground at the Palexpo.

Rolex has yet to include thickness measurements on its product pages, but Tudor has since made them readily accessible on its product pages – big bro stands to learn something from little bro. That being said, neither includes lug-to-lug on their pages.

Lug-to-lug

After expressing my feelings about the importance of lug-to-lug measurements, many of you reached out and expressed just how much you were aligned with the sentiment. We see newer buyers get caught up in the well-established sizing benchmark of diameter, but the truth is, a watch will never be too wide for your arm, but it can be too long for your wrist. For those still unfamiliar, the lug-to-lug length is the distance from lug tip to lug tip. Sadly, many brands omit this crucial information.

Specs can be deceiving as a result, and combined with a taught focus on diameter as the KPI for a perfect fit, many will go bananas when they find out the Submariner is jumping up to 41mm. Sure, I often prefer smaller diameters, but like many of you who are digging deeper into the horological rabbit hole, the measurements we all really want to know are thickness and lug-to-lug.

A great example of this would be a comparison of the Doxa SUB 300 and the Nomos Ahoi Atlantik. The Ahoi comes in both a 40mm and 36mm configuration, so on paper, you might assume both are smaller watches than the 42mm Doxa Sub 300 – but this is not really the case. The Nomos Ahoi 36mm actually spans 46mm lug-to-lug, and the 40mm a whopping 50mm across. Each are precious millimetres longer than the 45mm lug-to-lug measurement of the SUB 300.

To give credit where it’s due: since we first asked brands to start providing lug-to-lug measurements on their product pages and press releases, there has been improvement in this area. Interestingly, it’s largely the microbrands and independents that have made such disclosures standard, and the big box brands that have yet to catch on. That being said, Omega and Grand Seiko – we appreciate you because each and every watch on your website has its lug-to-lug and thickness readily available.

Weight

No, we don’t want to know the weight of a watch to know its scrap metal value in advance. The weight of any watch is important from a fit and feel standpoint. For example, a modern steel Rolex GMT-Master II weighs around 150 grams. The Grand Seiko Tentagraph, on the other hand, is made of lightweight titanium. Yet, likely due to the sizeable modular calibre within, it weighs 154 grams. As you may know, steel Rolex is known for having a precious metal-like heft on the wrist. As a result, trying on a titanium Tentagraph might come as a surprise, as it by no means feels like a Snowflake on the wrist (which weighs in at 100 grams).

Watches worn during physical activity benefit from being lightweight – after all, you don’t want to slow down your forehand. And unless you’re trying to stay at the bottom of the sea for good, it’s not practical to have a hefty yellow gold Sea-Dweller on your wrist either… Jokes aside, the weight of a watch and its distribution can vastly change how a watch balances on your wrist. The Tentagraph, for example, feels ergonomic because all of its weight largely stems from the centre of the watch, whereas the bracelet remains familiarly light. Again, shout out to both Grand Seiko and Omega for listing the approximate weight of all their watches on their websites – other brands should follow suit.

Where the movements come from

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a (modified) mass-produced calibre, and the significance of in-house should not be so highly considered. Movements from companies such as ETA and Sellita are tried-and-true performers with highly robust builds. On the other hand, some in-house calibres come to market plagued with issues and customer complaints that take time to resolve. But while a modified mass calibre may have been totally overhauled, not disclosing the ébauche of your calibre explicitly is kind of like writing a paper for school and not citing your sources. You may have made a great argument, but the professor is still going to want to know how you came to these conclusions.

With watch buyers becoming more and more informed, we’ve all become more scholastic consumers, the professor who demands a bibliography if you will. At this point, brands seem to hint at the presence of an ébauche, like a pharmaceutical advertisement disclosing the side effects in small print at the bottom of your screen, by using the phrase “manufacture calibre” for a movement modified in-house, and “in-house” for calibres designed from the ground up by the brand. You also may see brands like Bell & Ross or Bremont hint at the ébauche in their reference or calibre numbers. For example, the BR-CAL.302 inside the Bell & Ross BR-03-92 is an ETA-2892 or Sellita SW300, and the same goes for any Bremont watch utilising the modified manufacture calibre BE-92AE.

The subtle giveaway only the initiated would catch is the presence of “92” in the watch reference number of the Bell & Ross and the calibre number for Bremont. I say a little more transparency won’t hurt anyone: in fact, I think it really helps sweeten the offering if they would simply elaborate on all the work they put into modifying the provided ETA, Sellita, or other ébauche. It’s definitely better to be upfront because if not, the watch community will do the deep dive. And when the findings point to an undisclosed ébauche, it will completely blemish the conversation around a watch.

Supplier transparency

Stemming from the ébauche conversation, it’s not only on the movement side where watch brands could be more standardly transparent. Perhaps a symptom of in-house snobbery expressed by watch consumers, watch manufacturers rarely build their watches entirely in-house, and equally rarely reveal which specialists helped make it happen. Or, they at least do not make it easy for the average person to find out. It could also be that the brands innocently think the larger marketplace does not really care to know that deep behind the scenes, but with more people fluent in the nuances of watchmaking, watch geeks certainly want to know. Not only do they want to know, but there is an opportunity for brands to impress watch lovers as well. Cadraniers de Genève, Metalem, and Agenhor are all specialists the watch community celebrates. So why hide their names when they are actually valuable selling points?

I think watch manufacturers will get better about this in the coming years, though likely never perfect. Indies like Czapek certainly lead the charge, always citing specialists who help the brand realise its creations – whether Chronode for certain calibres or Donzé Cadrans for dials like the Goutte d’Eau. I recently spoke with newly appointed Hublot CEO Julien Tornare, who, during our conversation about the news that LVMH would expand Zenith movement production for use across the group, told me, “You don’t need to have your movement made in-house. What you need to have is high-end quality movements.” I would agree, and I imagine most of the market this information would be relevant to would agree as well. For those not concerned, it would be information ignored, with zero detriment to the brand.

Realistic images

The render versus reality conundrum still very much plagues the watch industry. Sure, “proper” photography can be touched up, but the rendered soldier shots all brands provide as a baseline never do a watch justice. Grand Seiko, a brand known as an industry leader in colour, texture, and finishing, was long plagued by this issue. When the SBGA413 first made its debut, many pointed out in the wake of live coverage that its dial was not as pink as the original renders of the watch led them to believe. Furthermore, as you can see in the photo example above, the website renders do little justice to convey one of the brand’s core design mandates: light and shadow. The metal remains bright in the renders, not making it clear which surfaces are brushed and which are polished.

Grand Seiko, however, has proven it has its ear to the ground and listens to feedback. In the years since people have pointed this out, Grand Seiko now takes top-notch live photography and includes the photos in its press packages. That being said, the brand still has yet to use these wonderful photographs fully on its website’s product pages. The render image use problem still runs rampant across the industry, and while I understand quality photography requires investment, the bigger brands with larger war chests have zero excuses not to take the time to solve this. Ironically, the micros again lead the way here, and tend to be better about this, because they know it makes a world of difference for sales conversion and is particularly important when you don’t have a worldwide physical presence.

The feature image “Megaphone & fumigène” by Grégoire Lannoy is licensed under CC BY 2.0.