Watch features you dislike?

funkyouup

What features put you off a watch?

I personally don’t like chronos, or anything with additional dials generally.

Roman numerals, especially California dials.

Too much text on the dial, brand name and maybe one more line of txt and that’s about it.

Putting 2 micro adjustments, should always be 3 or more.

I’m sure I could think of more but it’s been a long Sunday.

njburke

The Jacob & Co Astronomia used to sum it up for me. I didn't get it. Then I found out that Jacob did time in the big house and I learned a bit more about watches and watch culture. So something you dislike initially can grow on you or at the very least cause you to rethink.

Wibbs

Three register chronographs. I love cathedral hands, but for some reason I never liked Mercedes hands. 'Dive' watches where the hour hand is the one with a pointer. I'd be with you on California dials.

funkyouup

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118486153#Comment_118486153

For years i hated skeletonized dials but I do have a liking for one of the Hamilton Jazzmaster models, reminds me of the Terminator after he was missing part of his face.

893bet

Thick watches. Too thick is not something I can put a number on. It’s just something I decide.

Dive watches

Small seconds (and I have one)

Black coating

Titanium

Plain caseback (yes Rolex I am looking at you).

Cienciano

Weird, I agree with almost everything! Always exceptions though. For instance, not a fan of roman numerals but I have a seiko and the numerals are sort of squished so they look almost like baton indexs.

Never liked small seconds, plain caseback, chronos, skeletons. Thing is, some are nice and i can really appreciate the workmanship, but I'd never buy one.

Jacob & Co and Richard Mille are all horrendous but don't think their designs are aimed at plebs like us.

Fitz II

Hommage watches.

Tang buckles.

Pushers for adjusting complications.

Buss down watches.

Watches that are hard to read the time off.

Modular chronographs you thick feckers.

Movements that don't hack Patek.

Display backs on watches with nasty looking movement Seiko.

Brass watches...that not patina that's rust.

Watches that you cannot actually buy

Blanchy90

Plain caseback

Non screwdown crowns

No lume on a dive watch

Overly busy dials

The Floyd p

The cyclops on Rolex watches It's not necessary to be legible and I think it looks ugly.

The jubilee bracelet on Rolex watches. Often times it's too dainty.

Bund straps. Absolutely awful.

blackbox

I hate a date that is too small to read if you are older than a teenager.

Daemonic

Roman Numerals & square / rectangular dials are an instant no for me.

hitemfrank

Mercedes and snowflake handsets are not for me at all.

Dive watches with bezels that are just the same silver colour as the case.

Lorddrakul

Gold - never mad about it, even two tone.

Rose gold - just no.

Dial adornment that reduces legibility - usually some kind of sparkle, sunburst or other ill advised bling.

Any kind of gem or cut stone indices - this should be punishable by the stocks!

Fashion watches that ape some design classic or style icon and then put an $8 movement in.

Manufacturers that insist their decades old design with known flaws are in some way innovative when given some minor make over that usually consists of a cost cutting exercise for mass production.

partyguinness

Gold

Jewels on the bezel

Chronographs- I don't like features that realistically I will never ever use (says the guy with a 50ATM Pelagos)

Tachymeter- again, just hurt my eyes and pointless

Any watch that comes with a big fancy write up and box with all sorts of extraneous nonsense about the moon (Yes Omega Speedmaster I'm looking at you) or even worse James Bond (Yes Omega you again)

CalamariFritti

There aren't many features that I really dislike.

Not mad on chronos but I saw nice ones for which I'd make an exception. In fact I have a couple of cheaper ones. Not a huge diver fan either but like to have one around for holidays etc.

The real NoNos for me are anything 'baroque' for want of a better word. Gold, two-tone, moonphase etc, full day of the week, roman numerals, 'elegant' fonts. Overelaborate non-tech dials with fancy swirls and mini sub-dials (smalls seconds not too bad). Anything over 40mm (although I don have small wrists) and anything that feels or actually is thick.

Also anything with a massive presence. I dont like 'statement' watches. Watches that draw looks and are shouting out to the world 'Im an expensive watch'. I'd spend a few grand on a watch if I really liked it but I wouldnt want it to be blatantly obvious that it cost that much. Working class guy at heart. 😀

Cienciano

Oh yeah, jewels anywhere on a mens watch is terrible

Fitz II

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118490479#Comment_118490479

Except in the movement 😉

Pablo_Flox

Mercedes hands for me... Wouldn't be a fan at all, and I have a suspicion that if it wasn't a Rolex thing that many more would feel the same!

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118490910#Comment_118490910

Maybe. Though I've seen them on other brands down the years and still nope. Even with the classic that is the Rolex Sub. Here are two 70's examples, both military issued, but one was 'refreshed' at some point(and lost a ton of cash because of it).

With Merc hands

Now with the original hands as issued(from a 60's Omega Seamaster).

I soooo much prefer the second one. Much nicer bezel with it. IMHO more elegant lugs back then too. My fave Rolex ever and by quite a margin. Though since I don't have a spare 300,000 quid laying around and personally wouldn't wear an homage that's that.

Actually another plus point for Rolex is their lume. That 'advice' you read that "dial and hand lume should always match on vintage or it's wrong 'un" is mostly BS. Unless it's a Seiko, dails and hands were made by different manufacturers, so slightly different mixes were involved. Plus the dial lume is thinner and only exposed on one side, the hand lume is thicker and exposed on both, so more open to ageing from damp and oxidation. I've seen plenty of perfectly fine even NOS vintage watches where the collar and cuffs didn't match. Rolex on the other hand seem to have been a general exception to this. Their lume on hands and dial tends to match much more. Older IWC stuff the same. Omega can be all over the place and Heuer can be laughably bad on this score.

funkyouup

65lp0tf0mec81.jpg

Looks so wrong without the Mercedes logo in the circle.

o1s1n

Metal bracelets - I find they draw way too much attention to themselves and away from the actual dial itself. Love how a nice subdued leather strap lets the dial pop.

Transparent case backs or any type of case really that lets you see the inner working. Always think there's something really tacky about it.

.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118495152#Comment_118495152

Transparent case backs or any type of case really that lets you see the inner working. Always think there's something really tacky about it.

I dunno about tacky myself, but I just don't see the point or transparent casebacks, or fancy casebacks in general. I could understand it with pocketwatches because the whole case is on view every time it comes out of the pocket so jazzing that up with fancy engravings, enamel inlay and the like makes sense, but not on a wristwatch. A dedication from a loved one who got it for you cool, but otherwise wouldn't be for me.

I don't understand how something only you can see can be considered tacky. Like the whole point is that you can see the inner working for yourself.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498686#Comment_118498686

Good point. And only after I hit post comment it did occur to me that my position on transparent casebacks is entirely biased towards my end of the hobby. I have never owned a watch where I didn't have the caseback off at least once and in a few cases more than once. I know what my movements look like(which sounds well dodgy as I type it. 😂) On the other hand someone who buys a new watch and/or doesn't want to open the back for all sorts of very good reasons, wanting to see the movement is perfectly understandable.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118498686#Comment_118498686

I just have it in my mind that people with transparent case backs go around with their watch in their hand showing off the inner workings of their new mechanical watch 😁

Totally unfounded I'm sure, it's just something I've experienced and have ingrained in my head as a thing.

Creamy Goodness

Might be recency bias showing here but transparent case backs that have screen print on them, specific examples of this are the Tiffany Nautilus and the new Speedmaster look at this absolute trash obstructing such beauty.

Untitled-4.jpg

Fitz II

I really have no feeling on display backs so long as they display something worth looking at. The new Seiko5 displays a movement that looks fairly rudimentary. But a lange with a display back give the owner an oppertunity to see all that quality usually hidden from view. Its for the owner, I have never met anyone that goes around wearing the watch the wrong way up. On mature reflection I am totally agnostic about them, but I do not like when they thicken a watch, and are more suited to dress watches where the added protection of a solid caseback is not being removed.

Squeeonline

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499048#Comment_118499048

LookHowTheyMassacredMyBoy.gif

Creamy Goodness

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499309#Comment_118499309

heh 😀, thanks to Wibbs for embedding the image (can't get my head around this new boards at all at all).

o1s1n

Hard to believe someone at Omega looked at that case back with the print over it and thought 'yeah, that looks great - start manufacturing this bad boy!'

njburke

It looks like either a unicorn or seahorse begging for acetone at the first service, unless they laser etched the glass with it. I've seen older seamasters with a fairly crude seahorse/unicorn etched on a steel case back, fairly crudely done. If you told me it was done by hand like a backstreet sailors tattoo, i'ld believe it.

scwazrh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499048#Comment_118499048

At least you can see some of that movement, Who knows what Panerai were thinking with this one.

Come to think of it they were probably trying to hide the movement after lying about it being in house .

Creamy Goodness

Might add a few of my own after I've had time to think about it.

• Day/night indicators (looks out the window lol)
• Leap year indicators

Whilst these are technically impressive more often than not just muddy the face of the watch

Fitz II

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118501434#Comment_118501434

Day night indicators are usually there to indicate when its safe to set the colander and when its not, lot of complicated watches dont like being adjusted when the mechanism is energising to flick the date, day, month etc so you should set the watch to 6am before setting....the indicator means you save time setting and its safer.

Creamy Goodness

Ah I wasn’t aware of that. Similar to not changing the date between 10-2 and never thought the more complicated the more chance of fecking it up there would be. Makes complete sense.

Cienciano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118501434#Comment_118501434

If you think about it, most complications are there for showing off technicalities rather than functionality. But you can also say the same about an automatic movement. We all draw the line somewhere.

run_Forrest_run

Roman numerals and day of week words splattered across the dial...day of the month should suffice

Squeeonline

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118499469#Comment_118499469

there was no shade directed towards your writing, just the the Omega.

blue5000

I don't think anyone has mentioned it yet, but for me it's crowns that dig into the back of my hand. Apart from that it's the usual suspects;

Merc hands

Small seconds

Dials that are covered in text/busy.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118523734#Comment_118523734

Crowns never even occured to me! That's the reason I sold on my B&R, I loved the watch but it was impossible for me to wear comfortably without getting divots 😉

o1s1n

I've a love/hate relationship with large crowns. Absolutely love flieger watches and they generally come with a crown that wants to burrow it's way through the back of your hand.

scwazrh

Yeah onion style crowns always leave a mark on my hand , strangely though Panerai never seems to and you would expect the crown guard to be a nuisance

Slutmonkey57b

Pretty simple list for me :

Skeleton dials.

Ugly typography (Arabic or roman, both can be beautiful or awful).

Anything with the word "rolex" on the dial after 1930.

Stainless Steel dive watches (they are all the same, stop lying to yourselves).

Other than that I will happily take a look at any sort of watch from whomever.

Cienciano

Power reserve indicators. These are great if they can be stuck nice and small on the back. But stuck on the dial, I am not a fan. Grand Seiko are the worst at it, beautiful dials with a stupid power reserve indicator on the front.

Subdials cutting off numbers is one thing that I FÚCKING HATE! Googling it, seems I'm not alone. Here's an example, a beautiful watch ruined by that stupid 6 at the bottom.

Gorteen

Luminous hands that aren't very luminous!!!

893bet

Subdials cutting off numerals is a good one. Triggers me.

Dornblüth very guilty of this.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118601431#Comment_118601431

Funny enough I think that's a far more balanced design than most subsecond dials these days where you see the full of the six(because in most cases the movement is too small to fit the case, unlike with the vintage originals).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118601548#Comment_118601548

For no good reason either. A century of chrono designs and very few had to cut off the numbers, it makes the subdials look like an afterthought. It seems to have been a trend started in the 80's and 90's. How you can tell a Heuer Bund has been later refurbished for sale by Sinn in the 90's is the new nuclear free safe for kids to lick 'em dials had cutoff numbers, whereas the originals didn't.

Exact same movement, handset, case, dial size and yet they couldn't make the numbers fit? Daft.

Cienciano

That Dornblüth gives me a nervous twitch. Few examples in this thread below, plenty of high end offenders, but also examples of doing it "right"

https://www.watchuseek.com/threads/not-a-fan-of-chrono-sub-dials-that-chop-dial-numerals.5245679/

Wibbs

This Sinn in that rogues gallery nails it for me.

No half numerals, all the info required and you can read it at a glance. To be fair legibility was a strong suit of Helmut Sinn's philosophy.

Wibbs

Oh I have another that winds me up no end for some reason: Two register chrongraphs where the subdials are at 12 and 6.

Even the photographer knew to turn it on its side.