The watch market is overshadowed by external factors such as the downsizing of Baselworld, the US-China conflict, and the protests in Hong Kong. Given this, what trends did 2019 show? Our editor-in-chief, Masamasa Hirota, sums up the trends of 2019. However, at his request, the talk will be in the form of a chat rather than an article. He says that this is because the conversation tends to go off on tangents.
Watch from the first part
http://www.webchronos.net/features/39946/
The unexpected dark horse: the Code 11.59 by Audemars Piguet
Are there any other watches you would recommend?
Maybe I should have mentioned this in the design section, but Audemars Piguet's "CODE 11.59 by Audemars Piguet" is an interesting attempt. The case itself isn't thick. However, the sides are cut into an octagon and the crystal is rounded, giving it a three-dimensional appearance. However, it is still made to be as thin as possible.
Many manufacturers are now trying to make thinner cases, but this is because they seriously pursued "big and thick" watches in the 2000s. They acquired the methodology for three-dimensionalization and then applied that technique directly to thin watches. The Code 11.59 is certainly a very unique watch, but in terms of methodology, it is an extension of the "big and thick" watches of the 2000s. It is in the lineage of the 1993 Royal Oak Offshore. The movement is also interesting.
It's a new automatic movement (Cal. 4302) and a chronograph movement (Cal. 4401), right?
The 11.59 chronograph can actually do flyback. In my personal opinion, it's only since 2000 that flybacks have been used seriously. Zenith's Rainbow doesn't break because Professor Bruner supervised the flyback. It's not important, but Professor Bruner must have also advised on the design of the Unico. That's why the Unico flyback doesn't break either. As an aside, the Unico flyback has a really nice feel. It's hard to believe it's a mass-produced watch.
Why not the earlier flybacks?
Even if you put a flyback mechanism in a small movement, there's no space to properly fit it. That's why it's impossible. Nowadays, processing has improved and older designs are no longer a problem, but basically, a flyback chronograph is fine as long as it works. Panerai's 9100 series, IWC's 89 series, Hublot's Unico, and AP's 44 series are good examples of this.
Nowadays, a 72-hour power reserve is the norm
What was the best movement of 2019?
Well, you can understand this by reading issue 86 of the Japanese edition of Chronos (lol). If you read that, you'll get the gist. Simply put, I thought Omega's Cal. 3861 was fantastic, and AP's 43 and 44 series were also good. Also, while it's a bit unassuming, IWC's 82 series has the performance to be considered the company's next-generation watch. IWC's watches are a bit unassuming and don't get much attention, but they have solid fundamentals and are incredibly durable.
What about the Patek Philippe Caliber 26-330?
This is also written in the Chronos (lol). In theory, it's definitely a fantastic watch. And besides, there's no way Patek Philippe would make a strange watch in the first place. However, it's a shame that the power reserve is so short. It's typical of Patek Philippe to have deliberately avoided using a strong mainspring, but 45 hours is short. I would have preferred 60 hours. That's the only weakness I'd have to point out. The rotor bearings are made of ceramic, but there's no high-pitched hissing noise, and the feel is still as good as ever.
Isn't a long power reserve also part of the trend?
Oh, I forgot (lol). Today's core movements have a standard power reserve of about 72 hours. It used to be about 48 hours. Rolex's 31 series is an excellent mechanism, but the power reserve only lasts about 50 hours. So they introduced the 32 series, which extended the power reserve to 72 hours. It's not quite my preference, but in theory it's great, no doubt about it. Omega's core calibers are also well-made, but they have a short power reserve. They use a heavy coaxial escapement, so they can't extend the power reserve even if they wanted to. A heavy escapement consumes energy.
However, the Swatch Group has a "trick" developed by ETA that allows them to extend the power reserve. The manual-wound De Ville Trésor, released in 2019, extended the power reserve from 60 to 72 hours. I never thought it would be possible to increase it to 72 hours. Because the Co-Axial escapement is heavy, I thought it would be impossible. Incidentally, Professor Bruner said, "Once we can use (light) silicon, the Co-Axial will be complete." I agree.
What is a "trick"?
This is a technique that Breguet has been using for several years. It involves thinning the barrel core that houses the mainspring to accommodate the longest possible mainspring. Recently, the outer wall of the barrel has also been made thinner, allowing for even longer mainsprings to be housed. I think they probably apply a DLC coating to the inside of the barrel, but I don't know the details.
The power reserve of Jaeger-LeCoultre's Cal. 899 has also been extended, right?
That's right, it's increased from about 40 hours to about 70 hours. It was first introduced in the by-product Cal. 925/2, but the basics are exactly the same as the 899. The escapement has been replaced with a lighter silicon, and the rest is probably the same as Omega's, with a long mainspring. It's an orthodox method, but I never expected the power reserve to be extended this much. The 899 is a masterpiece, so I'm happy that the power reserve has been extended. Of course, 40 hours isn't enough for everyday use. If they could just reduce the sound of the rotor core, it would be perfect.
