I recently had the pleasure of seeing the Moritz Grossmann BENU tourbillon and took an instant disliking to the minutes indicator between the seconds and hours sub-dials—I like the timepiece overall but the unnecessary (at least to me) distraction is UGGH! Comments appreciated.
I've got a face full of beer and a head full of fumes.
Messages: 9505 Location: Northern Virginia
Registered: August 2006
Well...
Mon, 12 March 2018 10:32
Since they just received a European patent for the feature, and one of the near constant complaints on open dial watches is the difficulty of precisely reading the time, I find it a relatively simple solution to that perceived problem. If that's not a problem for you, then it would clearly be a distraction.
Doesn't bother me. Admittedly, I'd be fine with a "stealth" tourbillon on the back of the watch, but most tourbillons are visible on the front of the watch...
Mark
Moderator of the TimeZone Breguet and German Brands Forums
Messages: 4529 Location: The Netherlands
Registered: December 2009
I have no use for such a hole in the dial
Mon, 12 March 2018 11:03
What doesn't help with this brand is the choice of stupid names for their watches. Benu, when choosing such a name, it shows a total lack of fantasy, it shows some kind of disrespect of the customer too. So, no to this watch, and the brand.
Messages: 9505 Location: Northern Virginia
Registered: August 2006
Beautiful!
Mon, 12 March 2018 11:21
But if you're not Patek Philippe, do you "need" to have the tourbillon visible on the front of the watch? I've seen others on the back of the watch, but they certainly seem to be the exception.
Mark
Moderator of the TimeZone Breguet and German Brands Forums
want look at the tourbillon and the fact the minute track is missing is not so important. It looks a 'cleaner' dial without. It's a clever idea however. Good for them.
A bit like one of those electric devices that help you core an apple in one go. You never thought you needed it until you saw it.
Messages: 25298 Location: Australia
Registered: November 2003
For me it's not a matter of gaudiness, but of design...>
Tue, 13 March 2018 00:35
...and whether people like display backs or not they don't impinge on the design as seen from the front.
I feel that having a hole in a dial to show off a feature such as this is poor, unimaginative, lazy design and rarely does a watch any favours. Of course, I understand it from a marketing standpoint but that doesn't affect my opinion on design.
In general I don't like skeletonised or dials with
Tue, 13 March 2018 03:33
holes. Transparent case backs I believe became a must, in the early phase of the mechanical revival. Some people had never owned such a watch or had forgotten about them so this was a way to prove that it was all there. I say this because in the pre-quartz era I don't recall any watch with a transparent case back. Not a single one.
(one explanation maybe they didn't have hard sapphire crystals then, but why show off what was in every other watch anyway?)
I would hope that manufacturers/assemblers are more confident nowadays (or should be) and don't need to prove their competence so obviously.
(Although many years ago I did have a transparent Monogram V-8 kit. That was really cool).
Messages: 4566 Location: long island
Registered: February 2008
Re: Moritz Grossmann: love versus hate death-match.
Tue, 13 March 2018 08:53
I agree with the removal of the central part, but I like the tourbillon on the front. I take pleasure in looking at the watch. Watching the tourbillon in action would only add to my enjoyment. Than being said, I have yet to own one.
I like the "tourbillon hole" at the 6 o'clock but not at the 12 o'clock.
Tue, 13 March 2018 10:16
Maybe because I'm accustomed to a sub-seconds dial I more-or-less like the "hole" at the 6 o'clock but not at the 12 o'clock—the tourbillon at the 12 o'clock more often than not looks hideous to me.
I've got a face full of beer and a head full of fumes.
