Reply With QuoteI too can see the charm in an ultra slim piece. A thread on here inviting thoughts on dress watches under £1k had me looking closely again at a 5.95mm thin piece by Christopher Ward as a daily wearer.
I attended a function last night and sat opposite a chap who was wearing an ultra slim gold watch. I don't know the make because it most of the time it was covered up by his shirt cuff but the watch appeared to be almost the same thickness as the leather strap.
I am currently wearing a 39mm Explorer and although it is one of Rolex's slimmer models, it now looks positively chunky and cumbersome in comparison.
I can remember back to the 1950s when a slim watch was considered a sign of engineering quality and chunky watches were considered cheap tat that lacked any form of technical finesse.
Todays fashion seems to harbour around watches of 39mm-40mm and around 12mm thick, do you think the ultra slim will ever come back as a daily wearer ?
I can see the charm of them.
I too can see the charm in an ultra slim piece. A thread on here inviting thoughts on dress watches under £1k had me looking closely again at a 5.95mm thin piece by Christopher Ward as a daily wearer.
Whenever I think of ultra thin dress watches I remember this.
https://youtu.be/jLo7tHDHgOc
Sent from my H8314 using Tapatalk
Ultra slim mechanical / automatic watches are still available but they tend to attract a much higher rrp than there thicker counterparts. Whilst I do like ultra slim watches like the piaget altipano I'm not prepared to pay the premium for them.
I like Rolex, but think the only good looking watch they make is the Cellini....ignored by the forums. The rest is, indeed, chunky and a bit ungainly. Some are plain garish; But they sell by the bucket-load, while slim dress watches are largely ignored.
The market dictates these matters. It won’t change now.
It is not seen as such these days but "thin-ness" in movements was a type of complication.
The Bulgari Octo Finissimo Automatic in stainless steel
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLZQdxRm2YQ
Do dive/tool watches have to be thick? A really thin diver would be an interesting thing. I have always liked Rolex Turnographs, where the bezel gives you a timing function, but the watch is -- relatively -- modestly girthed.
My BIL has a very nice ultra-slim Longines gold watch which I reckon to be about 4mm thick.
I’m not a ‘dressy’ watch fan - but was very impressed by it.
Come back in to favour? Absolutely no reason why not, most watches are sold effectively as fashion accessories and fashions always go round in circles.
Not a mechanical, but the Citizen "One" looks a pretty impressive achievement as well as being very elegant.
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/ci...-powered-watch
My quartz watches are quite slim. My TT Cartier chronoflex is quite dressy and elegant IMHO. A nice watch but rarely gets worn.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
The PP Nautilus 5711 is 7.6mm thick... but it is pricey.Originally Posted by Sunnie
Last edited by abraxas; 13th February 2019 at 02:41.
It reminds me of that episode of The Bob Newhart show where Emily gives him an expensive watch, and he's uncomfortable wearing it because it's too nice.
The Concord Delerium from 1979 is mentioned in the linked article, but this 1979 Bulova one was thinner. It didn't break when worn like the later sub-1mm. Concorde either.
Wow, think I might actually want that! I wonder if it's uncomfortable, with thr buckle probably weighing more than the watch.
Ultra-slim is a bit of a niche market. It’s a natural fit with dress watches, but on sports watches seems to be reserved for the premium models, like the AP15202 extra thin or the Overseas ultra-thin. I’m fond of the look personally, and find it odd that many modern brands seem to have forgotten how to make them. But it can be taken to extremes, for instance the thinnest Piaget Altiplano looks fascinating in the metal and is remarkable engineering, but is unlikely to ever be a standard fit for mechanicals. Perhaps one day for it will be for smart watches.
What I do hope to see is all-rounder sports watches becoming at least a little slimmer. To me large and thick watches can look a bit cheap, a combination of generic movements with display backs and poor engineering tolerances. Often they’ve relied on being 42mm to keep their proportions which looks fine in a photo on the right lens, but it’s a bit too big for many people. Reduce that to 38mm without tackling the thickness and you lose those proportions and end up with something top heavy. Omega have sorted this out on their latest Aqua Terra, and I hope the rest of the range will gradually follow, those bulbous bracelet trying to meet the bulk of the watch head don’t look quite right to me. Grand Seiko seriously need to slim down on their automatics, which for a certain angle look like they’ve got a stick of rock stuck through the middle, and it can’t all be hidden round the back with the watch still sitting flat on the wrist. It’s a problem the quartz models don’t have, which shows they know perfectly well how it really ought to wear.
So in summary yes, I think we could gradually see a return to slimness being a sign of sophistication and good engineering, but it’s a slow process.
Here's my "thin", worn regularly.
I love the last lineThe Concord Delerium from 1979 is mentioned in the linked article, but this 1979 Bulova one was thinner. It didn't break when worn like the later sub-1mm. Concorde either.
"it is a most unusual timepiece, available in a limited edition for a few unusual people" Back then digital watches were technological marvels, I still remember my excitement on seeing the casio calculator watch that one of my teachers wore at school!
Posting Permissions
