I know I can't read the date on my sea dweller anymore without moving my wrist a lot further away than I used too!!!!
To my mind, a watch is no use if you can't use it to tell the time: By day. By night -and, I now realise... (and if you use them) without needing to put on your reading glasses (such as, out on a dog walk, or just waking etc !)
So, here's my starter for 10. If you need reading glasses, is your watch readable without them?
The answer here is 'yes'!
Anyone care to post wrong-focus legibility brand comparisons?
I know I can't read the date on my sea dweller anymore without moving my wrist a lot further away than I used too!!!!
Yes,any that dont allow easy reading are moved on.
I find analogue dials easier to read than digitals, that's why I don't wear my Gshock. DJ41 aside, dates aren't easy to read anymore but I can read most dials without glasses. Even if the picture is a bit fuzzy I can figure out where the hands are pointing.
I gave up on dates long ago, even with a cyclops - I have a pal who doesn't even bother setting the date on his sub anymore, because it's pointless!
I dont need my glasses for the Seawolf
IMG_0021.JPG
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
At 52, totally agree! Im also considering dumping digitals as I now find them a bit tiresome to read. On the current Tudor release thread people are banging on about the new white dialled chrono and its legibility is terrible imho! - you cant beat a nice clean dial, I love watches for their design and imho if they are not instantly legible, theyre poorly designed!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Z-blue Milgauss - fantastic in sunlight; unreadable in an artificially lit bar!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I hate knowing that the date is wrong even though I can't read it. So many watches seem to squeeze in an unreadable small date (for my eyes) spoiling what would otherwise be a lovely clear dial. A cyclops is not the answer for me, as for me they are even worse than a small date I can't read. On the fairly rare occasion I have forgotten the date and actually need it for something, I don't mind taking out my phone with its large display to check (with the added bonus it reminds me of the day ...).
I think there are two issues that affect the legibility of a watch. The ease of time reading and the ease of day/date reading. I find it difficult to read the day/date without my glasses but have no problem if there is a cyclops with decent magnification. Examples would be my Submariner and Seiko Monster.
The problem with the cyclops is that it obscures the dial so if the hands are near to or under the cyclops, it takes more than a quick glance to see their position. A date function is very useful for me so I am happy for the compromise. With regards to the legibility of the dial, I find that large hands and small hour markers are the best. Good contrast is important. So a black dial and white hands are best. Large hour markers/numbers distract the eye from the position of the hands. An example of this would be my Citizen.
When I glance at the watch, the first thing I see is the 3,6,9,12. Then I see the hands. I dont see the point of the large numbers as you kind of know where they will be anyway. Its the hands you want to see first. Sword hands are my favourite for this. Like the Omega 2254.50.
However an exception would be my Sinn 104. I think the A/R coating comes into play here.
The lume helps a lot here though. Unfortunately reading the date on either of these is difficult without glasses. I must say I find day/dates more legible if they are white with a black background. For my old eyes anyway. I suppose the simple answer would be to make the day/date window much larger. Im not sure I would like the look. Its a bit like the telephones with large buttons you get for people with poor eyesight. Extremely practical but would remind me of my age every time I looked at it.
For me, the most legible watch I have is the Steinhart OVM. No day/date to squint at. White lume would be better perhaps.
Legibility is only a small factor when I am considering a watch. For the time being anyway!
Just my meandering thoughts.
One of my favourites for legibility - 39mm Fortis Official Cosmonaut diver - double sided AR coating and superb contrast between the hands and dial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some lovely legible dials/hands.
I was hoping for some deliberately mis-focussed pics as a visual simulation to compare 'without-specs readability'.
Such as this:
(A CWC dive watch)
I think a lot of chronos suffer with this, stuff like the Zenith El Primero tri colour looks superb and I love them but they arent so easy to read compared to say a moonwatch.
Legibility is important. And as old age creeps on and I start to forget what month and day it is (let alone date) - I plan to keep this one with me into my senior years. Somehow the applied gold catches the available light so it's visible even in low light conditions.
white on black though with full lume is the obvious choice:
Last edited by MartynJC (UK); 23rd April 2021 at 13:32.
I just don't think HD pics with optimal light angles tell the whole long-sighted legibility story.
Eg, an old watch of mine with sub-optimal lighting, with and without specs:
Yema maxi dial
(Found an online blurring tool!)
To my eye, minute and hour hands almost indistinct and impossible to tell which is which
Frankly, for those who use reading glasses, pretty much any chrono's registers are nigh on impossible to read without them. I think the classic Speedmaster is about as good as it gets in that regard, which is why I think it's a great aviation watch let alone a space watch.
A high contrast dial/hands combo is usually best for legibility, but good polishing on watch hands can be really useful. I've got some watches with detailed dials whose legibility is saved by polished hands.
I love full-lume white dials but at 4am the hands are lost unless they are VERY bold
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Good thread and very valid point to my eyes! (pun unintended)
I've been developing quite a bit of interest for watches with good legibility in all conditions in the past few years, even if I still have fairly young eyes...
In that regard, offers from sinn usually, or the omega speedmaster for example, are great examples of high legibility, and definitely my type of watch
Good lume, hands easy to differentiate, and dial orientation easily recognizable, all that on a high contrasting dial, is my usual set of criterias when I'm selecting my potential next watch
That being said, my recent latest acquisition is I think great for that, namely the tudor bb58.
The massive snowflake hand and long minute hand are helping quite a lot
I think you can't go wrong with a well made no date diver, I tried to take a picture showing that:
Last edited by Wandril; 23rd April 2021 at 19:48.
Just thinking on (it's my birthday and I'm prosecco-slowed!)
That pic, and your points are precisely the point I'm trying to make
As you say, as well as hand-visual-mass, vertical orientation is vital.
(And great vertical orientation in that Tudor dial from the markers at 9, 12 and 3. )
Last edited by Brauner Hund; 23rd April 2021 at 21:23.
I remember in my Panerai owning days - back when they were worn by every Hollywood actor, Stallone etc - watching a tv interview with the actor Richard I dont believe it Wilson - who was wearing a 44mm luminor and it struck me as the perfect watch for an older man who wants an easily read watch! Felicity Kendall also wears a large Panerai, makes more sense than one of those stupid little ladies datejusts, about a centimetre across the dial with gold hands on a champagne dial, whats that all about??!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This mornings blurred timekeeping view!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fortunately my eyes still work (well my one good eye does at least)
This watch is not as legible as I thought it would be, either sober or with tired and emotional eyes.
My initial thought when I saw these was that dial would give me a migraine (and I dont get migraines!) - then having seen a few in the forum Ive thought they actually look amazing, I want one but that photo has put me firmly back in the migraine camp and probably saved me upwards of 1k!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
These photos are excellent - they tell a new truth!
They strike me, although big, as having fairly fine hands and fine markings, so I'm a little on the doubtful side that they would provide great legibility.
- it'd be great to see a mis-focussed pic of one to assess that.
...meanwhile, Felicity Kendal is now stuck in my mind 😍
(Do my emojis garble? That was a laugh and a thumbs up)
Anyway.. I think you may have hit on a part 2, to the 'real' legibility test:
1: mis-focussed pic
2: pic at >6ft away.
If you have a 6ft long arm legibility will always be a problem
Legibility is a critical factor for me - not just because of eyesight, but because I just can't live with a watch that isn't good at its one - pretty-simple - job.
As soon as you start looking at watches with legibility in-mind, you start noticing bad design everywhere - especially with more complex dials, notably chronographs, where all too often not enough consideration is given to contrast and chrono-function specific colours for hands, for example.
I suppose the creeping-acceptance of watches-as-jewellery has meant that aesthetics are now more important than functionality for the majority of designs.
Couldn't agree more. A watch really does have to do only one thing!
The watch that epitomises the loss of understanding over legibility is the Yema maxi I pictured below.... Big maxi dial dots, but spindle hands... if anything the design requirement should be exactly reversed: Indices actually matter less than hands - it's the hands that deliver the watch's one function: time.
(And look at my old 16710 further down - the minute hand is barely fit for purpose in anything less than good light)
I'm finding these mis-focussed pics very interesting, I hope more are posted.
Last edited by Brauner Hund; 24th April 2021 at 16:37.
Not as good as real misfocussed photos, but still interesting.
I have been fortunate to find the answer recently: Rather than buy another watch for my collection I spent the money getting lens replacements....and now i am back to my youth with no glasses at all for anything....and i can read them all just fine! Miracle operation and one month in i am rediscovering watches that i had put away because i simply could not read them easily.
Voila, problem solved, the only limitation now is the depth of my pockets.
Last edited by Rich; 24th April 2021 at 17:56.
High contrast dial and hands, hour hand much shorter than minute hand, coloured seconds hand and lume that lasts all night.
I give you the Marathon Navigator
This thread has been a littoral eye-opener for me
Just never thought about watch selection in this way, which is just stupid given my slowly worsening eyesight
Coloured and fancy dials really don't help and the cyclops might just actually earn its keep
Might have to buy a speedie back given its pretty legible vs most
Last edited by Kidsteruk; 24th April 2021 at 23:03.
Already mentioned, but it really doesn't get much better than a 2254.
Don't just do something, sit there. - TNH