Smiths Everest.
Most the time, if given a choice, I would take a manual over an auto. A watch can never be too thin or light for me, so I'm happy to be without a rotor, and I also like the greater stillness a manual has. A couple of autos I've had have had thin casebacks, and the rotor has been very audible. I also simply enjoy being obliged to wind the watch each day: the auto winding brings me no benefit (I would change my tune if I had a screw-down crown, I know)
At the moment most watch companies are generally wary of producing manuals in any genre other than dressy, and so choice is limited if you're looking specifically at manuals. I end up daydreaming about watches that will never exist.
If I had the chance to turn one auto into a manual, it would probably be the entry level daily wearer style Grand Seiko, the SBGR053.
It's only 37mm in diameter, but thanks to the 9S auto movements being 6mm, it's 13mm thick.
(I would also appreciate Junghans putting the 2801 into the 38mm Max Bill as well as the 34mm model)
Smiths Everest.
Any current 15mm+ Omega!!!
It's just a matter of time...
I will cheat a bit by suggesting the Rolex Perpetual Oyster...every version. Each model to be offered in both manual and automatic versions. Since the demise of the Prince, there is not a single manual wind Rolex. And probably never will be again. A shame.
I like you thinking here.
I would much rather have a manual than an auto.
The Smiths Everest as Barry suggested would be a good candidate. The thread currently running on the Speedmaster Reduced makes me think that this would also be a good choice.
It's scarcely my end of the market, so it's no skin off my nose, but I've never understood why the Chopard LUC XP(S) are autos not manuals. Do people really wear these day in day out?
IWC Mark XVIII - I just think that watch would be the perfect hand wound watch with and with out date.
Can't be too much of a leap for them to do so. Orient have a whole new line up using their pocket watch movements in the monarch, they had some in the star and a sterling silver Royal Orient.
Reality is they are just not as popular, compare the hand wind Grand Seiko 035 to the similar looking automatic date version it's much more common.
I would personally prefer more chronograph watches to use a manual wind movement.
Any of the Damasko three-handers so long as they came with a non-screw down crown.
A manual requires a decent sized crown and Damaskos also have a permanent lubrication feature which gives a pleasing winding action.
Edit: I would also prefer my PRS-22 to have a non-screwdown crown and 2804 inside.
Last edited by forpetesake; 21st March 2017 at 20:31.
This is a coincidence as I am wearing my SBGR053 this morning as per the quick snaps below and it was my first big watch purchase and still my favourite to wear with a suit.
Originally yes I did wish it were thinner but as I have bought and worn bigger watches I have grown to love its rotund charms.
As a daily work wearer I do however appreciate that it is automatic and with the 72 hour power reserve, always running ready to wear.
This thread also reminds me that I must try the GS on the GS leather strap and deployant I have as it looks great in that photo at the top. Do you have any more of it, especially on the wrist?
Anything with a 7750 movement.
I can't help thinking they could all do with being a fraction slimmer, although that doesn't stop some of my favourite watches featuring the movement
M
Definitely agree with this. IMO the only watches that are acceptably thin with a 7750 are the automatic speedmaster date variants, not sure why others could not shave that exrta few mm off.
I really tried hard to keep a few of the thicker Sinn chronographs, but their thickness always annoys me in the end.
(perhaps that should be "winds-me up" for a rotor related pun)
There are so many watches with power reserve gauges that I would "convert" if I had the chance. In my mind, a power reserve gauge is pointless on an automatic. If I'm wearing it, and not laying in bed in a coma, then it's going to be fine. It's exclusively manuals for which I need to know the reserve. Take the IWC Portugieser 7 Day, and the Oris Calibre 111. I will be in a minority I'm sure, but I would take the Oris and it's manual movement every single time.
There were plenty of slim automatics produced in the past, automatic doesn`t have to mean significantly thicker case. If you look at 60s watches the caseback on an automatic was dished slightly to accommodate the rotors, otherwise the case was the same. on the wrist the autos still wore very slim. Even the relatively modern auto watches could be made slim; the ETA 2892 is a very slim movement, I have a 2003 Omega Constellation which is very slim by modern standards. It's ironic, makers strived to produce slim movements then did a complete U turn with the size of the cases. Omega are probably the worst for this; I don`t know how thick the cal 8500 movement is but I`d be surprised if the cases really need to be so thick to accommodate it. Certainly the early 2500 co-axial is no thicker than the ETA 2892 on which it's based.
If you like slim watches forget the modern stuff and buy older/vintage. Other than the pitfalls with old automatic movements, which can be expensive to sort out, I don`t see any drawback with autos vs hand-wound.
I`d like to see modern watches a lot thinner, but I can`t see much logic in losing the auto winding. The 38.5mm Omega Aqua Terra would be a nicer watch if it was 2mm thinner, maybe I would've kept mine but it always had a slab-sided look that I never really took to.
Paul
Screw-down crown on a hand-wound watch is a bad idea. Threads wear because the crown gets screwed every day.
I'm struggling to see the attraction of hand -wound watches; I'm quite happy to own vintage hand-wounds but a modern one just seems wrong unless it's a Speedy Moonwatch or something with the big Unitas movement.
Paul
How long did you "struggle" for? In the OP I gave several reasons for preferring manuals over autos. No one has to agree with them, but I see no evidence of your even noticing with them, let alone "struggling" to comprehend them.
Here's a really basic one: I like winding the watch each morning, giving it in a few seconds the energy it will then spend the day releasing with immaculate care; it makes the relationship between me and the watch symbiotic.
Here's another: in a nicely thin auto I can hear the rotor moving around. In the stillness of the end of the day, I prefer a watch that is doing nothing more than ticking very quietly.
The idea that people should be obliged to abandon their own tastes and share in a prevailing enthusiasm seems antithetical to the central principles of wearing and thinking about mechanical watches.
Might look best yes but they are intended as daily wearers for which the bracelet is necessary. I wore it as such for a year or so before I started justifying other purchases and the bracelet is essential in the summer as don't want to sweat into a posh leather strap. Also the bracelet is beautifully finished and articulates nicely round the wrist. I know there's no micro adjustment but it's the only bracelet I have found comfortable that fitted me perfectly.
Super slim manual wind DJ would be quite a thing to behold
I'm in the opposite camp. I'd be happy if all my watches were hand-wound. My collection numbers around eighty now so it's rare for me to wear the same watch two days running as I have plenty of choice. Therefore an auto holds no particular advantage for me. Regardless of that, I enjoy winding and setting a good quality hand-wound movement. I think it's a daily ritual which is a fun part of having a watch collection.
I have to say that I do love winding a handwound watch each morning.