This story is taken from Esquire's About Time newsletter, style director Johnny Davis’s straight-talking take on the wonderful world of watches. Sign up here.
We’re coming to the end of another year! Specifically, for Esquire's About Time newsletter – available for free, every week – we’re coming to the end of another year in watches.
In 2024, microbrands continued to flourish, auction records were smashed, old labels got reanimated and Studio Underd0g released more watches with food on their dials.
But what did we learn?
In time-honoured review of the year style, we brought together three of our favourite, most clued-up watch biz people to chew over some of the year’s key themes, ideas and releases, and see if we could come up with anything between us.
George Bamford is the founder and CEO of Bamford Watch Department. Chris Hall is a watch writer for titles including the New York Times as well as the publisher of The Fourth Wheel. Scarlett Baker is the editor of Wonderland and Man About Town and specialises in fashion and culture.
All three count themselves as first and foremost watch fans. (Me too!)
Thanks to George and his team for hosting us at his Mayfair offices, AKA The Hive, the other week.
Tag Heuer teamed up with the streetwear brand Kith
In May Tag Heuer announced a series of 10 watches produced in collaboration with US streetwear label Kith, available in limited runs from outlets for both companies. The set was based on the watchmaker’s Formula 1 Series 1 watch, a fun, affordable and Swatch-like plastic model that had been a hit in the 1980s. That watch, which cost about £100 back then, had been growing in popularity, fuelled by nostalgia and a spike in trading on secondary sites. The runaway success of Swatch/Omega’s cheap and cheerful plastic MoonSwatches suggested it could be sitting on goldmine. (‘Could Tag Heuer hold the next MoonSwatch in its Archives?’, Esquire asked, back in January.) The relaunched Formula 1 generated a tonne of media coverage, but also attracted grumbling. Detractors bemoaned its scarcity, its price (£1,500), and the fact it had been released not just as a Tag Heuer model, but as a “true collab”. The “Kith Heuer” was the first time the watchmaker had shared its logo with another brand, something some collectors found hard to square.
Chris Hall: It’s easy to forget now that this was one of the worst kept secrets of the year. What shocked a lot of people was the Kith collaboration. That was a really polarising element of it. But it was also the thing that got everybody talking. I still don’t know if I think it was genius, or cynical.
About Time: Had you heard of Kith before this collaboration?
CH: I have to admit I hadn’t. It hasn’t got much reach over here in the UK. Also, I’m maybe not target demographic.
George Bamford: For me, it was epic. The original Formula 1 watch was always something I thought was really cool. I wanted to get my hands on one. I loved the fact that when it originally came out, it was so affordable. Which this was… not so much. That’s the major difference. I was actually looking this morning at the price of them. The Kith ones are on eBay for around £2,000. The originals are around £500. Apparently, the archive team at Tag Heuer have been inundated with [original] Formula 1s for servicing. So, people have gone and found their old ones in their drawers.
AT: I’m guessing you did know about Kith, George?
GB: I’m a big buyer of Kith stuff. My kids live in Kith. Now, this is a personal take, but I did think: ‘Why didn’t Tag do it on their own?’ They’re quite a big brand. Now I’d go back to the original ones – not these Kith ones.
CH: We’re still waiting, aren't we? We’re still waiting for a straight-up Tag Heuer branded run on that original Formula 1 design. Who knows, maybe we’ll see that soon.
AT: This was about the brand targeting a younger, hipper demographic. Hence the collab logo.
GB: I think you have to be controversial. You have to push a bit more at the boundary. Look at Jaguar’s rebrand. Everyone is going, “Oh my God! This is shock-horror!” They’ve said that they only want to keep 18 per cent of their existing customers [Following the polarising relaunch Jaguar’s MD Rawdon Glover said: “We assume that 10 to 15 per cent of our current Jaguar customers will follow us, so relatively few”]. They’re going: “We need to be revolutionary, to change”. This is one of those things. Was it revolutionary enough? Did it put the Formula 1 back on the map? Did it make everyone talk about it? Because for me, that would be success.
CH: It did those things, you’re right. It’s not unique in this regard, but Tag must cater to a really broad church of people, from collectors of 2447s [sought-after 1960s Carrera chronograph] to the people who would be hopping up and down with excitement at the Mario Kart stuff [Tag Heuer has made two smartwatches with Nintendo]. It has to encompass all of that within its brand and try to maintain an identity that’s sort-of coherent. I think it does a better job than most, given that challenge. I think what's unique is that for a brand with their type of heritage to do so much of that, as you say, sort of “envelope-pushing pop culture”. A lot of brands with Tag's footprint don't go there. And that’s perhaps why they get criticism as well as praise. So, I think it was on-brand for them to do that. From a purist perspective I would have liked to have seen the straight-up versions on their own. But I do get the value of what they did with Kith.
Scarlett Baker: I think it was smart. I personally think Tag is very good at harnessing younger audiences to get them into the brand. Coming back to that huge window of price points that they have… we talk about the price of the watch and compare it to the original. But [the new price] does reflect the prices at Kith. That’s how collabs work.
CH: The category error people made was that this came hot on the heels of MoonSwatch and Scuba Fifty [ie: Blancpain x Swatch Scuba Fifty Fathoms Bioceramic watch]. And people thought, “Okay, this is another example of a legacy brand doing a more affordable, plastic-ier, cheaper, funner version of one of its watches”. And it wasn’t the same kind of watch as those two. People looked at it and thought, “What are you doing?”
Daniel Craig kept teasing unreleased Omega watches
Omega has a long association with James Bond, a deal that’s seen it dress the wrists of 007s from Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig. The latter left the franchise (spoiler alert) conclusively at the end of 2021’s No Time To Die, but his role as an Omega ambassador continues. In the absence of any more on-screen 007 opportunities, Omega has pivoted to slipping new, yet-to-be-released watches onto Craig’s wrist, before he steps out at the brand’s events/ appears as their guest at the Olympics, etc. Then he gets photographed. The resulting hype surrounding an unseen Speedmaster, Seamaster and another Seamaster months before they went into shops, suggested a new, low-effort/ high-reward approach to celebrity endorsements.
SB: I think it's genius. The best way to launch a watch is to do it incognito, and just let the masses do the work for you. I think it was so cool.
GB: It’s very smart. Omega has found a clever way to use Daniel Craig, post-Bond. It’s not going to hurt them that he’s going through quite an exciting era, with his long hair, and everything.
CH: I do know for certain that that is perceived in some quarters as not particularly helpful. Because people go into shops and say, “I want the watch that Daniel Craig wore, the one I saw on Instagram”. They go, “Oh, yeah – sorry but it’s not out yet”.
GB: Don’t you think more brands should have these [sorts of ambassadors]? You think about [formidable Breitling boss] Georges Kern, who is the ultimate marketeer, right? You know, the celebrities that he’s got. Or Richard Mille, another great businessman. They are gods in this industry. Why are they not doing this as well?
CH: It’s totally what they should be doing.
GB: You think about the amazing women ambassadors there are. Look at Bulgari. Some of those watches… there are some amazing women that could be wearing them. And any of us would pick those watches up in a beat.
SB: It’s far more exciting for me to see it on Instagram, and not have a press release [from a watch company] coming into my inbox saying, ‘So-and-so is wearing this watch at an awards ceremony’. I love the frenzy of [the watch media] going “What is it? Who’s going to find out first?”
GB: But you’re good at watch-spotting. I love it when you guys become the detectives on it, and then I see it [identified] on social media. I’m going: “How freaking cool is that?”
SB: This part of watch culture is just getting bigger and bigger. Celebrities and watch-spotting. It’s bringing in new customers, and younger consumers. You may not necessarily be able to walk into a boutique and see the watch. But when you see your favourite celebrity wearing it, you idolise it, and you think about that product. It’s like, “I want the watch that the person I love wears”.
GB: Look at Kanye West and the Cartier Crash. The reason that really pulled through, and all the tech bros started wearing the Crash was because someone saw a photograph [of West wearing the watch] and went “God, that’s a cool watch”. Or Jay Z – sometimes you’ll see him wearing something and you’ll think “That’s cool”. Because you know that he actually likes watches.
AT: Does that authenticity, or perceived authenticity, make a difference?
GB: With someone like [latest G-Shock ambassador] Central Cee, yeah. He is so G-Shock, and so Casio, it feels right. He was wearing them before, so he is the right ambassador, you know? You go, “Okay, that’s realistic”. There’s some actors, some singers, where you go, “That is so not the watch you would be wearing”.
AT: The media has always covered celebrity outfits on the red carpet. Now they also cover the watches. Like the clothes, they tend to be sorted out by stylists. Has that peaked?
CH: Omega and Cartier have swamped that as a marketing strategy. The red carpet thing is played between them and no one else can really get a look in. Yeah, I think that might have limited mileage – how much more can they make from that? But going back to what you said earlier, I think the idea of celebrities “leaking” watches is so interesting to us, because it wasn't so long ago that the industry absolutely detested the idea of a watch being seen anywhere at all, prior to its official release. It was a very formal, very structured. Now they’re embracing “the tease”. I think it’s good. There’s an openness that we didn’t see, two or three years ago.
Rolex got into publishing
Oyster Perpetual Submariner: The Watch That Unlocked The Deep was not noteworthy for being the first book to be written about the Submariner, and certainly not the first book to be written about Rolex, but it was the first book to be written with Rolex’s permission. Submariner was authored by the respected watch authority Nicholas Foulkes, the first of ten editions that will explore the brand’s various families – Explorer, GMT-Master, etc. As we wrote about here, Foulkes was given unprecedented access to its archives. It also potentially marked a new era – the famously secretive Rolex opening up like never before.
GB: Do you think they had to open up, in some ways? They had already started doing authorised pre-owned [Faced with the sheer amount of Rolexes being resold on the secondary market, the brand began its own “certified preowned” (CPO) scheme – buying back, and servicing pre-owned models and reselling them from its own authorised outlets]. There have been so many unauthorized things that you see, and you see in books. You go “I know that’s a Frankenstein” [ie: a watch comprised of parts from multiple other watches, passed off as genuine]. And what they've done is said, “Actually, these are from the archive. This is what is true”.
Inevitability, and as Foulkes himself predicted even before it was published, hardcore Rolex aficionados were quick to take issue with some of the finer details in the book – not least this 5,000-word story by self-styled horological whistleblower Perezcope, pointing out alleged inaccuracies in the text.
CH: It’s incredibly difficult to write anything of that length and not have a single thing wrong. But of course, if you are taking the opportunity to set the record straight, you should really try and get it actually straight. The presence of inconsistencies was spotted by eagle-eyed vintage Rolex people far more tuned into this than ourselves. Yes, it’s the ultimate pedantry. But also: that is what Rolex collecting is. The industry is based on pedantry. When you take a value of one dial versus another, and it quadruples because it has an “underline” or a “red” or whatever [tiny, seemingly insignificant marks on dial text that differentiates them from others]. You can’t throw out pedantry as an idea, because that’s what the whole thing is about.
AT: Playing devil’s advocate, if it’s in the book, does that make it gospel from now on?
GB: I think it will become that. Because in the world of collectors and dealers, when they want to prove that something they’re selling is right – they go “Look, it’s in the book!” It happens with vintage watches and unauthorised books. They would go “Turn to page whatever…”, even if that book is not accurate.
CH: I think that’s dangerous. They can’t have it both ways. They can't say “this is our truth”. It was an opportunity, in my view, to take the high ground and admit that perhaps there were some details that had been omitted from the history. But that’s not characteristic for a big Swiss body, let alone Rolex. Swiss brands have always sought to control the narrative. There are long-established, well-documented examples of brands and their own histories that have been conveniently rewritten. For Rolex, the benefit of being utterly, utterly closed off and not doing this kind of thing [before] is that you can set your own story out. The minute you start to engage with this, you are forced to confront the issues like “We invented the waterproof watch”. And there’s people out there going, “Actually, you kind of didn’t”. And now you have that conversation. Or, if you’re going to close the hands over your ears, it undermines the credibility of the book.
Universal Genève came back from the dead
The hypest watch label of the year was Universal Genève, a languishing Swiss brand from the mid-20th Century bought by Breitling’s CEO Georges Kern. It won’t release its first watches until 2026, but it is already generating great interest thanks to assembling a steering committee comprised of insider watch experts and auctioneers, debuting a smart social media campaign, and launching a trio of teaser watches.
SB: It’s got us talking about something that isn’t out yet.
GB: It’s building! The vintage prices have gone through the roof. You know, there are some amazing things [in the archive]. He’d be embarrassed if he knew I said this, but there’s someone I know who’s a massive collector of vintage watches – he would only buy Patek Nautilus, and all the derivatives [ie: the approved canon of “cool” watches]. And he goes – “I’ve found a new brand”. “What’s your new brand?” “Well, it’s Universal Genève”. “Oh, wonderful”. “You know, me and my friends call it ‘UG’” [laughs]. I just thought: “Georges has done the coolest thing ever, because he’s got tech bros interested”.
AT: Why is it such a big deal?
GB: Of the classic chronograph manufacturers of the 1950s and 1960s, the golden era of sports watchmaking, they’re the biggest brand that doesn’t exist anymore.
CH: It never actually shut down. A Chinese-owned business conglomerate was running Universal Genève – you could have bought one, I don’t know, three, four years ago. But they were quite soulless, uninteresting reimaginings of the old collections. It didn’t have any love. It didn't have any presence. It wasn’t marketed very interestingly. It wasn’t promoted or pushed or seen as cool. It was actually a bit embarrassing to collect the vintage stuff because everyone thought [the owners] were doing a terrible job.
GB: The Polerouter [from the 1950s] is an unsung hero. You can find one for £600. [At the time of writing prices for preowned models run from £485 to £9,764 on Chrono24]. And this is the Silver Shadow of Gérald Genta designs. If you’re reading this, and if you really want to get into the brand, go for that – because it’s not a high price point. And you’re getting an UG that is coming through [the Polerouter is likely to be reissued when the company relaunches].
Patek Philippe released the contentious Cubitus.
In October the storied watchmaker announced its first new watch family in 25 years, the Cubitus. It was controversial even before it was unveiled– an embargo-breaking leaked magazine advert apparently showed a watch design so heinous, people assumed it was a spoof. (It wasn’t.) There were objections to just about everything to do with the Cubitus, from its size (a whopping 45mm), to its shape (a square case with rounded corners) to its price (£32,000-£69,000, depending on the model). The loudest grumbles came from the fact it so closely resembled Patek’s famous and discontinued Nautilus – not the level of innovation people were hoping for. The brand’s boss, Thierry Stern, did not remain unmoved by the backlash. Naysays were “haters”, he said. “People who have never had a Patek and never will.”
CH: Who here has tried on the Cubitus?
GB: I’ve tried it on. I put it on and said “Yes, it’s a Patek. It’s got the bracelet. It feels nice.” Do I want it in my life? Firstly, on an affordability level, it’s above my price point…
SB: But do you want a Nautilus?
GB: I’ve got a Nautilus.
CH: Ask him another!
GB: I bought my Nautilus at a good price from a big watch fair. I looked at this one [ie: the Cubitus], I put it on my wrist, and I didn’t get what the Japanese call dokidoki [a word that mimics the sound of a beating heart]. My heart didn’t beat a bit faster. I didn’t go, “I need this in my life”. But Patek is a family company that is going and going and going. They’re thinking 25 years, 30 years into the future. When the Nautilus came out, everyone hated it. They hated the size of it. “Why would you do that? What’s this? What’s that? This is a disgusting watch on the wrist!” That’s why they only made 1,400 of them [actually probably nearer 3,300].
AT: But the Nautilus was an original idea when it came out in 1976. The complaint here is that this one look too much like that.
SB: I’m a maximalist by heart. But the one they released in the advertisement, there was a lot going on. So that would be my criticism. If I were going to choose one out of the three, I would go for the steel olive one.
GB: I would have loved to have seen it done in a new material. Because then you wouldn’t compare it to a Nautilus. So, if this had come out in Grade 8 titanium…
CH: Tantalum!
GB: Yes, some luxury, future material. Or ceramics. You would have then gone, “Where the beep did that come from?” And then you would have overlooked the square shape because people would have connected with it on a different level. You think about those Audrmars Piguets they did in white or black ceramic – boom! If they’d have done a “Predator” dial in black and grey for the Cubitus, everyone would have gone “Oh my God!” Then you would have seen the second-hand price not being what it is now. It would have been half a million. It would have it would have been up against the Tiffany Nautilus. And it would have been that price because everyone would want it.
CH: There would have been a lot of haters. But you’re probably right.
GB: Do I love the name? Do I love everything about it? No. But whatever the case is, Patek is Patek. You know, it’s the same thing that Jaguar said [Jaguar’s MD Rawdon Glover doubled down following the polarising brand relaunch, saying it wasn’t meant for his existing customers. “We assume that 10 to 15 per cent of our current Jaguar customers will follow us, so relatively few”]. If you look at any of these brands, they’re going to do something to change their demographic. It’s the same with the Bremont rebranding [the watch brand had a controversial makeover this year, discussed below]. As for that comment from the boss, humbition is what they should have!
CH: Is that like greedflation?
CB: Humbition is ambition with a bit of humble.
Hermès new watch was marketed solely to women.
Why?
AT: Fewer and fewer brands now say “this is a man’s watch” or “this is a women’s watch”. Given how appealing the Hermès Cut was to everyone, was it odd that Hermès chose to market this as a ladies’ watch?
GB: Let’s look at the Royal Oak Mini as well – those frosted gold miniature watches. When you see people wearing three of them together, it looks fricin’ Rock Star. One on its own, it looks like my grandmother's watch. I remember putting the new Hermès on and going “I love it”. But I see it as a unisex watch in so many ways.
CH: But isn’t this emblematic of a bigger problem? Which is that this movement towards “unisex” watches actually manifests in men getting more choice, and women still being patronised.
SB: Every guy I’ve spoken to about the Cut has been, like, “I want it”. Personally, I loved the fact that there was a watch marketed as a women’s watch that was universally loved by everybody. Let’s remove the idea of unisex watches for a second. When people talk about the “design language” of creating a watch for women, the results never truly reflect what different women want from watches. Yes, there are people that want the typical stuff: mother of pearl, a smaller case… yadda yadda yadda. But there’s also a massive market of women that ends up having to tap into the men’s catalogue to get what they want. So many brands flee from the idea of actually confronting what women want, so they just put “unisex” in the title as a cop out. Because it’s like, “Oh, well, we’re not really going to even bother to try and design that. We’ll just make everything available for anyone”. Which is why I think the Cut was amazing. Because it truly felt like they went, “No – we’re actually going to try and design something that women would want”.
AT: But what is it about the design that makes the Cut for women?
SB: The fact that you had 16 different versions of one watch, basically. If you want diamonds on it, great. If you want rose gold, great. If you want stainless steel… Also, all the strap variations they did. Straps are so much of an afterthought to brands – that really grinds my gears. I think the size of it was perfect. I think the fact that I’m like, “Is it the circle or not? Like, the corners are kind of chopped off…” And, actually, all the talk about shaped watches that we’ve had this year [such as Anoma’s A1 and Berneron’s Mirage, see discussion below], Hermès was ahead of that. So, I think it was perfect, because I felt like, for the first time, my needs as a female consumer have been addressed in a way that was productive.
GB: I agree. But what I’m going to say to you is that unless we really rebrand retail, there is a massive men’s and women’s divide with watches. And all that happens is that an increasing number of smaller watches get moved into a “unisex” size. So, if we’re looking at retail, why don’t you actually do it by size? Then there would be total equality. Imagine if you went into an Omega shop, and it was just about size? That would be amazing.
SB: There is still so much growth needed. Like, there are still brands this year who said to me [as a watch journalist], “We’ve got this amazing watch to show you. Like, “It’s 28mm, its diamonds, it's fucking… mother of pearl”. And I’m, like, “Well, I don't want to write about it, because I’m so much more interested in your other stuff”. Speaking for myself, and other female collectors I know, we love a man’s watch – a watch that’s marketed as a man’s watch and is from that section of the boutique. I eat my own words here but sometimes it’s okay for watches to be gendered.
CH: This is one of the big points from that Deloitte and Watch Femme report [Deolitte Swiss Watch Industry Insights 2024: Spotlight on the female market, published in November] – that there are as many types of female watch consumer as there are types of male watch consumer. Yet there is very, very, very little choice within that bracket.
SB: Exactly!
Watches came in weird shapes.
In the last 12 months you could take your pick from watches with unusual shapes, from Toledano & Chan’s B/1 (asymmetric; Brutalist) to Anoma’s A1 (triangular) to Berneron’s Mirage (Dalí-esque) to Audemars Piguet’s [RE] Master02, a reedition of a rectangular model from the 1960s.
SB: I come at watches from a design angle, and this category is so exciting. It goes to show you don’t have to buy a watch for its function. I think everyone you’ve got in this category has something to say in their own right. The AP [RE]Master02 was interesting, I actually wasn't familiar with the original model.
CH: Hardly anyone was. I respect AP for doing that. It’s not necessarily the most wearable thing they've ever created. But it created a buzz.
GB: Phillip Toledano [the conceptual artist who forms one half of Teledano & Chan]. What a dude. What a surprise. Because I remember him telling me he was doing a watch, and I didn’t really know what to expect. How frickin’ cool was it? But also, there was honesty with it. The case, the box, the watch, even how it fits on the wrist… it’s unusual. You’re watch journalists. I really do believe we’re attracted to a watch because of its initial “wow” factor. All of these are “gotta wanna steal it” watches.
CH: I’m going to strike a note of caution here. This is tangential to them being shaped watches. I recently spoke to the founder of an independent brand – it’s been going about a decade. And he said, “You always sell your first watch”. To the point that Anoma, Toledano & Chan and Berneron all debuted their first watches into the market this year, and they are all shaped and interesting, but that’s almost coincidental for me. You can always generate the enthusiasm and the clientele and the customers, whether it’s friends, family and whoever, when you’re asking people to buy your first design. My question is: have these brands got a plan for what's coming? We know [Berneron founder] Sylvain Berneron has – he talks about it. I look at Toledano & Chan and Anoma, and I go “I don’t know if you can follow up and achieve what your debut achieved”.
GB: Do you remember TechnoMarine watches, and ToyWatch, from back in the day? Those ones were the cool sub-£300 soup du jour watches for two or three years. And then, boom. Where are they now? Or Sevenfriday – I remember everyone having a Sevenfriday. [All three brands are still going.]
CH: That’s what I mean. You can ride that wave, and good for you. These are cool designs. I’m not taking anything away from them. But Sylvain, uniquely, I think, has a business plan. A 10-year business plan. He’s said that his next watch is a round watch. Shaped watches aren’t his identity.
SB: Each person I’ve spoken to from those brands, though, said that their marketing plan isn’t the “shaped aspect”. It’s just something that has come about because they’ve been released in the same year. None of them is trying to push that narrative of shapes. It’s just that they like felt the constraints of what was out there and wanted to do something that challenged that. But I agree with you. I’m interested to see where it goes.
And finally, what brand should we be excited about in 2025?
SB: Bamford!
GB: Thank you! We’re launching quite a lot next year. It’s going to be a rollercoaster year. I would say some of the independents from Japan. Also, Massena Lab – I think are absolutely swinging out there. I also got a reality check with Chopard this year – what they’ve done with their environmental stuff. There’s so much bullshit in this industry – but there’s something starting to happen there. And it’s not the bullshit of “Hey, we’ve got recycled titanium”. Because that uses more energy than actual titanium. I love Chopard. Piaget next year, too.
CH: I think there’s a lot of mainstream brands that will need to reassert their relevance again, particularly in light of the independent brands, as George says. To be positive, I think Christopher Ward’s got real momentum. I’m interested to see what F.P. Journe will be bring out – they barely launched anything this year. They did a limited-edition, 200-piece chronograph. Which is a fantastic watch. The did the Élégente Gino’s Dream, a gem-set watch. So hopefully Journe next year brings us something really interesting. I’d love that.
AT: Breguet. With the appointment of Gregory Kissling as the new CEO, transferring over from Omega after 20 years, where he introduced all sorts of hype-generating watches, including the Seamaster James Bond “No Time To Die” and the Speedmaster “Snoopy”, this venerable, but under-loved, brand should be back on the map.
SB: Vanguart are my ones to watch for 2025. Their founding is unique, with four members from different backgrounds, and they carry the gravitas of [revered Swiss movement makers] APRP and a history of working on some of the most exciting modern watches on the market. I think they're doing something visually striking with their catalogue. And they’re smart to target an audience outside of the watch world, too.
