Click to view our Accessibility Statement or contact us with accessibility-related questions
Showing 1 of 2 conversations about:
Daisy_Cutter
1288
May 21, 2018
bookmark_border
Some people think that there is no bad art, and no bad design. If you are one of those people, then perhaps you might consider buying this watch.
Because if there is such a thing as objectively good design, then this is objectively bad design. It would be nigh impossible to enumerate all the reasons this is bad design, but let's go for the highlights:
1. Clutter - Words, numbers, lines. So many. There are numbers layered on top of other numbers that are upside down (see left subdial).
2. Imprecise - The Valjoux 7750 is a fairly precise movement, and it demands precision from whoever puts it in a case - when the chronograph is reset to zero, it's pretty obvious when the chrono seconds, minutes and hour hands are out of alignment. Like here.
Also, surprisingly for such a cluttered watch, you have no way to time stuff to the second, because there is no chrono seconds track. Instead, you get a tachymeter track, which approximately 0.5% of the population might find useful (and that 0.5% already have radar guns).
3. No Design Coherence - The chrono seconds, minutes and hour hands are blue. Okay.. But so is the running seconds hand. Dude, you aren't part of that club. You ought to be black like the main hands. Also, the main hands are solid while the subdial hands are skeletonized... except the running seconds hand which has that solid lume tip. Get with the program, running seconds hand. Also, needle hands don't really work when you can't actually see the needle bit, like what's happening with the hour hand right now.
Plus, there are at least 4 different fonts on that dial. Count 'em. Four.
Why is there a metal rivet between 10 and 11? Why do the stripey cutouts inexplicably stop between 1 and 3? Why do I keep finding more awful stuff the longer I look?
You know what, I guess I would not call this a bad design.
It's a terrible design.
May 21, 2018
Alev
May 21, 2018
bookmark_border
Daisy_CutterCan not agree with any of your statements, sorry. 1. Clutter - no problem, I read everything at once, I'm a pilot and I was trained to read much more complicated data gauges. I read a completely analog gauge board which consists of at least 12 different dials in one glance and most pilots can do the same. It is just a matter of attention-to-cognition training. 2. Imprecise - a little hint for your future consideration: it is practically impossible to judge hand-positioning by the picture. It is not a technical illustration, it is a part of product advertisement, hence it was made to look good in a first place. In order to do this you have to play with lights and shadows and do a lot of other stuff INCLUDING proper positioning of the object in front of the camera lenses. There is a possibility the watch is not perfectly perpendicular to the line of focus and it explains why it looks all screwed. 3. Design coherence - unless those hands are pink with blue polka-dot I, again, have no problem with it. 4. Why do YOU find more awful stuff - consider training your critical perception, the one which based on assumption that neither you nor facts surrounding you have a meaning unless one was attributed by third-party observer. In other words - THINK!
May 21, 2018
Daisy_Cutter
1288
May 21, 2018
bookmark_border
AlevIf this is a watch you would spend more than $1,000 on - by all means! Every face has its admirer (else mankind would have gone extinct ages ago).
But since we can apparently agree that there is objectively good and bad design, and that the criteria I identified are important elements in design, allow me to offer a quick rebuttal:
1. Clutter - I admire the fact that you are a pilot, and envy your ability to process large amounts of visual information at a glance. However most people are not pilots. Also, unless I am very mistaken, the concept of a pilot's watch is to make his job simpler, not give him an extra visual challenge.
2. Precision - You are precisely right that a watch in a publicity pic ought to be looking good. So if the hands are misaligned in the glamour shot, imagine what it looks like in real life...
3. Design Coherence - It's not so much about what the design elements are, but how they fit together. For example, even if you gave your 5 year old Picasso's palette and a canvas, odds are her work would not end up in a museum.
Finally, I keep finding more awful stuff precisely because I am looking at this thing with a critical eye and noticing the details. Certainly I would not find awful stuff if I did not look at it closely, but why would I want to pay over $1,000 for something I don't want to look at?
Actually no, I correct myself. Even at a glance it is awful.
May 21, 2018
Alev
May 22, 2018
bookmark_border
Daisy_CutterRespectfully disagree. Beautiful watch!
May 22, 2018
View Full Discussion