# Grand Seiko thickness.



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

After reading this review...

https://www.deployant.com/1-on-1-co...and-the-jaeger-lecoultre-master-control-date/

one can see that the review is heavily biased towards thickness as the primary failure of GS compared to another brand.

Personally I see that review as nonsensical in the sense that the watch they compare it against has a 38hr vs 72hr on the GS. The dial on the JLC is printed and has uneven finishing of the exposed brushed metal around the 9. There isn't even a hint of polish internally.

Even when JLC does applied indices on their more expensive watches you'll observe they use a triangular pyramidal style index that requires only 3 polished surfaces! The absolute minimum most of the time.

GS on the 305 has 10 mirror polished surfaces on each index and another two surfaces internally in the groove! 4x the work and detail of a much more expensive JLC.

If one replaced the JLC label with another mall brand the JLC would have very little if anything to show itself as a watch worthy of anywhere near its asking price.

It's probably natural that I disagree with the review but the thickness appears to be the only argument here. I guess how valid that is will be up to the individual buyer.


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

I kinda think they have a point. All those things you mention are great, but i'm not going to put up that much money for a watch that i won't want to wear. And i don't want to wear a watch that thick.


----------



## CFK-OB (Oct 15, 2007)

I don't see the point in articles like that, comparing one watch directly against the other. They are very different watches from two companies trying to achieve very different things and have no real basis for comparison.


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

The writer makes some valid arguments, but one can't help but notice he is biased in his argumentation.


----------



## T1meout (Sep 27, 2013)

CFK-OB said:


> I don't see the point in articles like that, comparing one watch directly against the other. They are very different watches from two companies trying to achieve very different things and have no real basis for comparison.


True, it's like comparing a phone to a tablet.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

While I don't mind the thickness of my SBGR051 and appreciate the extra PR, if I were ever getting a dress watch the case thickness of that particular GS Will definitely put me off. 

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

barutanseijin said:


> I kinda think they have a point. All those things you mention are great, but i'm not going to put up that much money for a watch that i won't want to wear. And i don't want to wear a watch that thick.


If 12mm is considered a thick watch to you, then I would humbly observe that you are the kind of aficionado for whom ultra-thin watches are specifically marketed to and thus will find pretty much any non-ultra-thin watch not to your taste.

Hence, the observation made by others above that the writer should not be comparing a watch from the ultra-thin category to a regular three-hander and finding the latter "deficient."

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## chenpofu (Feb 21, 2015)

I agree with OP that the GS is a better made watch overall. I have to disagree with the review because the GS is not really a dress watch, it is much more of a versatile everyday watch like a Rolex OP (10 bar water resistance). 

That said, I tried on the SBGR305 last year when visiting Japan, it is a big watch for someone with a small wrist like me and it wears big, and I suspect that may be the issue the reviewer in this article had. It didn't feel thick, I thought the proportion was great. In my humble opinion, the GS is simply a better watch but one that may be more suited for someone who has a bigger wrist or just likes rocking bigger watches.


----------



## whineboy (Aug 12, 2012)

Over they years I've seen many comments here and elsewhere focusing on the thickness of Grand Seikos mechanicals. This one explains, at the end, why the movements are thicker:

TimeZone : Seiko » grand Seiko 9S65 movement

This Seiko post states the 9S65 movement is 6.0 mm thick:

https://www.seikowatches.com/press_release/2015/RLS1503-02/index.html

I have a 9.5 mm thick Hamilton Jazzmaster with ETA 2895-2 movement that is 4.35 mm thick. To some degree it's comparing apples to pears, but since the GS movement is about 2 mm thicker than the ETA, the GS watch case should also be about 2 thicker, say, about 11.5 mm. Since GS automatics are a bit thicker than that, I'm guessing there are other mechanical components contributing to the thickness, and maybe also a design decision to make the watch thicker.

Perhaps in Japan thicker watches are viewed differently than we see them? Maybe a thicker watch is desirable because it's more noticeable?

It would be interesting if any Japanese members of WUS could comment.


----------



## bluedialer (Sep 16, 2011)

I do think one of the main downsides of Grand Seiko is their general case thickness.

But that was such a weird comparison, and idiotic closing thoughts. He penalizes the GS for "value" when this is a limited edition piece, and not an economy model the way the JLC was intended. These models were created with completely different intent, and should not be compared on that point. GS has other economy models.

And I really like JLC, but I very nearly abhor this sector dial. Absolutely Cheap-o dial, it's flat, horrible, actually a rip off price-wise even at the reduced price.

3things the JLC wins at: Proportions, yes including thinness; brand prestige (partially negated by this being a cheapened cost-cut model); and movement finishing, which these nimrods didn't even bother to look at.

The GS is superior in every other way, especially, and as usual, dial and case construction and detailing.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Alysandir said:


> If 12mm is considered a thick watch to you, then I would humbly observe that you are the kind of aficionado for whom ultra-thin watches are specifically marketed to and thus will find pretty much any non-ultra-thin watch not to your taste.
> 
> Hence, the observation made by others above that the writer should not be comparing a watch from the ultra-thin category to a regular three-hander and finding the latter "deficient."
> 
> ...


The SBGR305 is spec'd at 13.6mm thick... the same thickness as a Rolex Milgauss. If that's not thick for a dress watch, may I ask how thick does it has to get to be considered thick?

Many complain about the Tudor Black Bay with the new in house movement being too thick, which is at 14.8mm and it's a sport watch. But compared to this particular GS it's only about 1mm thicker.

Of course everyone is entitled to what preference they have for any genre in watch styles, but personally when a watch gets any thicker than 10mm it's no longer a dress watch...but that's just me.

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## whineboy (Aug 12, 2012)

mui.richard said:


> The SBGR305 is spec'd at 13.6mm thick... the same thickness as a Rolex Milgauss. If that's not thick for a dress watch, may I ask how thick does it has to get to be considered thick?
> 
> Many complain about the Tudor Black Bay with the new in house movement being too thick, which is at 14.8mm and it's a sport watch. But compared to this particular GS it's only about 1mm thicker.
> 
> ...


Richard, I agree about thickness. I think 10 is even too thick, IMHO, a true dress watch is 8 mm or less.

And IMHO no date on a dress watch. Two or three hands, stick markers, no lume, the more you add to a watch the harder it is to make it elegant. Think of a Patek Calatrava, Lange Saxonia Thin, dateless older GSs and Seikos (my Lord Marvel with black face). I suppose the SBGWxxx line has some dressy watches, but they are 11mm and thicker, so, they are close to but not quite, a dress watch in my thinking.

I'm sure many disagree and I'll be hearing from them .


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

whineboy said:


> Over they years I've seen many comments here and elsewhere focusing on the thickness of Grand Seikos mechanicals. This one explains, at the end, why the movements are thicker:
> 
> TimeZone : Seiko » grand Seiko 9S65 movement
> 
> ...


i don't know about the noticeability or wrist presence being an aim but I'm sure you are right regarding the fact that all else being equal a 6mm GS movement should be able to be housed in a case that is thinner than in what it is sold given your good example of a Hamilton watch you own.

As far as Japanese engineering goes your links hint at reliability being a key and it's definitely a huge thing in Japan. Reliability and dependability are probably the biggest feature Japanese premium products attempt to bring to the fore.

Taking the example of Lexus, it routinely uses non turbocharged engines that are a decade or more old in their highest end cars because the engine in question has stood the test of time. They could very easily engineer a brand new engine that is highly strung and double turbo etc but it has the potential to hurt the goal of reliability.

That's why it is known that a Lexus engine at 60,000 km is only just starting its service life whereas a European engine at the same point is halfway to its rebuild or journey to the junkyard. A generalisation for sure but reliability is definitely a known major goal of Japanese premium products imo.


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

In a very non technical way I remember a piece I read which commented on certain Seiko features firstly like the skeletonised escapement and design which better retains rather than disperse lubricants. Secondly the contact surfaces of the escapement not depending on ‘claw’ like surfaces to ensure proper function. The said ‘claw’ surfaces being naturally more susceptible to being worn out and needing replacement. The wear and tear also adding to debris needing more frequent service. 

The Seiko versions being engineered so tightly that the surfaces are basically plane to each other and don't have the problem of being worn out like the thinner pieces.

I don't know the physics or mathematics of wearing out of surfaces but common sense would indicate that a thicker or larger surface area takes longer to wear out whether that is in a linear or exponential way I don't know. 

I can't remember the source for this but do remember being very impressed by the philosophy behind the design features.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

I think you're mostly spot on in your complaints, and I think JLC is taking the piss with the new Master Control Date. I was a fan of the previous model, but as others have mentioned, JLC is fully capitalizing on the Hodin*** inspired market with that rather economical, vintage-flavored sector dial.


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

bluedialer said:


> I do think one of the main downsides of Grand Seiko is their general case thickness.
> 
> But that was such a weird comparison, and idiotic closing thoughts. He penalizes the GS for "value" when this is a limited edition piece, and not an economy model the way the JLC was intended. These models were created with completely different intent, and should not be compared on that point. GS has other economy models.
> 
> ...


Similarly I actually like JLC mostly.

If they compared to say their Geophysic True Seconds it might be a fairer fight. In that case the watch is 11.81mm thick. Their movement is 6.57mm thick.

A difference of only 1.8mm for case. But it has 5 bar WR vs 10 bar for the GS.

Yet again though only 40 hours of power reserve vs 72 hours on the GS.

The deadbeat complication in a mechanical is definitely cool and geeky but replicating the second hand motion of what you can get in a cheap quartz is questionable perhaps.

Coming to the dial, the use of flatter rectangular unpolished satin indices is telling and again reveals the same sort of lazy design that the pyramidal 3 surface polished indices give on their other 'high end' watches. The GS wins imo here by a country mile.

The movement decoration definitely elevates the JLC. It's probably the only thing about the JLC apart from the thickness that it has over the GS.

Price wise the GS wins. So 1.8mm difference in thickness and superiority in power reserve of almost 2x, superior water resistance of 2x, superiority in dial and case polishing and detail and probable superiority in reliability in the long term in the GS vs superiority in thinness, deadbeat complication and movement decoration at a significantly higher price.

Now the same website in my op reviews that JLC here...

https://www.deployant.com/review-jaeger-lecoultre-geophysic-true-second/

and one of their pictures shows this....









Now I don't know if it's just the picture but the 8 oclock index appears to have the outer end lifted off the dial surface like it's bent. The 2 o clock index has a black line in the picture in a similar position but less clear if it's lifted up like it appears at 8.

Anyhow I think it's agreed that the dial and finish in GS is special and really it's that enclosed perfection (or as close to it as you can get) in the dial space of the watch that makes this what it is for us. Personally I think the GS wins even against this more expensive JLC.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

mui.richard said:


> The SBGR305 is spec'd at 13.6mm thick... the same thickness as a Rolex Milgauss. If that's not thick for a dress watch, may I ask how thick does it has to get to be considered thick?
> 
> Many complain about the Tudor Black Bay with the new in house movement being too thick, which is at 14.8mm and it's a sport watch. But compared to this particular GS it's only about 1mm thicker.
> 
> Of course everyone is entitled to what preference they have for any genre in watch styles, but personally when a watch gets any thicker than 10mm it's no longer a dress watch...but that's just me.


I wouldn't consider the SBGR305 to be a dress watch. Hence, my complaint about the writer comparing the two.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## barutanseijin (Sep 18, 2017)

zuiko said:


> After reading this review...
> 
> https://www.deployant.com/1-on-1-co...and-the-jaeger-lecoultre-master-control-date/
> 
> ...





Alysandir said:


> If 12mm is considered a thick watch to you, then I would humbly observe that you are the kind of aficionado for whom ultra-thin watches are specifically marketed to and thus will find pretty much any non-ultra-thin watch not to your taste.
> 
> Hence, the observation made by others above that the writer should not be comparing a watch from the ultra-thin category to a regular three-hander and finding the latter "deficient."
> 
> ...


A couple points : assuming all else is equal, i would prefer the thinner watch. I agree that thickness aside, the GS is the nicer watch in all respects. It's just that 13.6mm kills the deal.

As for Japanese preferring chunky watches, i don't think that's necessarily true. Seiko & Citizen have made some very thin watches (e.g. the Goldfeather & Diamond Flake)


----------



## Domo (Sep 20, 2013)

I'll never understand the "GS is too thick" argument. A large factor in creating the beauty and sense of expensive-ness of a GS is the incredibly deep dial. The hands are thick, and spaced quite far apart, and the hour markers are very tall. If you want that dial (and we all do) then that's the price you pay. Seiko have made many other high-end watches in the Credor range with even more care and olde-world craftsmanship than any GS and if you see them in the flesh, the dials just don't impart that nice sense of luxe and depth of a GS dial, because the hands, rehaut, hour markers, etc are all much thinner and 2-dimensional to fit the much thinner case. GSes aren't "dress watches" at all IMO.

Also, I try to be more objective but comparing any of the smaller brand high-end swiss is a GS is a losing battle. Even though they have great names, their entry-level 3 hand watches are a gigantic rip off. Exceptionally bland 3rd party cases and 3rd party dials and hands assembled with a decent movement they developed 30 years ago that's hand assembled but entirely machine produced anyway. Once you break 20K the swiss wipe the floor with GS in every respect with amazing complications and design finesse but something has to financially support those operations and it's their low end stuff that accounts for most of their sales doing it.


----------



## whineboy (Aug 12, 2012)

Domo said:


> GSes aren't "dress watches" at all IMO.


I was never brave enough to say that, but you did! YES!

(and I love both of mine, don't hate on me)


----------



## Boomerdw (Jan 30, 2017)

bluedialer said:


> I do think one of the main downsides of Grand Seiko is their general case thickness.
> 
> But that was such a weird comparison, and idiotic closing thoughts. He penalizes the GS for "value" when this is a limited edition piece, and not an economy model the way the JLC was intended. These models were created with completely different intent, and should not be compared on that point. GS has other economy models.
> 
> ...


One thing that attracted me to the SGBX119 was it's smaller case and larger appearing crystal. Noting it is a quartz piece.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

The article in the OP isn't wrong about thickness. And a thinner case is a desirable trait in a dress watch.

I liked the Snowflake that I tried on last month; liked it enough that I took photos to show my wife later (to no avail :-( ). I didn't like the 305, and handed it back without bothering to get my phone out for a pic.

It looks nice, and of course it has better-finished details than the JLC, but it's just too fat and clunky to be a good dressy watch. It's too simple-looking to be sporty, too (and besides, it doesn't come on a bracelet).

I dunno, but the more I think about the 305, the more I dislike it.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

zuiko said:


> Similarly I actually like JLC mostly.
> 
> If they compared to say their Geophysic True Seconds it might be a fairer fight. In that case the watch is 11.81mm thick. Their movement is 6.57mm thick.
> 
> ...


the black line you see on the 8 & 2 o'clock markers are reflections off the 39 and 11 minute hash marks.

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

Alysandir said:


> I wouldn't consider the SBGR305 to be a dress watch. Hence, my complaint about the writer comparing the two.
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


I'm no watch designer and I certainly can't speak for GS, but if that watch is not intended to be a dress watch I certainly don't see what else they could have intended it to be...

a cocktail maybe?

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

BarracksSi said:


> The article in the OP isn't wrong about thickness. And a thinner case is a desirable trait in a dress watch.
> 
> I liked the Snowflake that I tried on last month; liked it enough that I took photos to show my wife later (to no avail :-( ). I didn't like the 305, and handed it back without bothering to get my phone out for a pic.
> 
> ...


I think the thinness thing for watches is a leftover from the mid 20th century and is something the Old World watchmaking companies try to perpetuate as a meaningful aim. At the time it was a sign of more sophisticated engineering since it was a challenge to produce. But it's been done and as a sign of an expensive watch it has become meaningless since you can buy watches that are exceedingly thin and very cheap.

Seiko could easily produce thinner watches imo. Their excellence in watchmaking engineering is established and thinness does not appear to be their aim.

The power reserve of a watch is determined by the strength (width or breadth of its metal) of its mainspring and you will typically not find these thin mechanical wrist watches having reserves over 40 hours.

My observation is that Seiko's aim is to produce the majority of its expensive automatic watches with at least a 72 hour power reserve. I have a few cheaper 40 hour reserve watches and I can assure you if that is all I had then I'd probably stop wearing it since the thing I love about 48-50 hour plus reserves is that you can take the watch off on a Friday to wear others and come back to it on Monday and put it on for the week etc. This segment of expensive automatic watches will have many buyers who have more than one watch and the 40 hour reserve is not ideal for these people imo.


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

mui.richard said:


> I'm no watch designer and I certainly can't speak for GS, but if that watch is not intended to be a dress watch I certainly don't see what else they could have intended it to be...
> 
> a cocktail maybe?
> 
> Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


The 305 is not a dress watch imo. In fact I don't know what a dress watch is. It's an invented term to hint that certain attire needs a certain watch as a part of an unwritten code. These were typically used in social signalling as indicators of class or societal position. The upper crust has never liked the lower ones having access to things that they considered as defining of their own status. These days where these dress codes are virtually and practically meaningless the term "dress watch" is an anachronism.

At the time a dress watch was just a watch - in fact every watch produced looked about the same as each other - three hands on a dial in a case with a leather strap. It wasn't a dress watch. It was just a wrist watch and how wrist watches of the day all looked. I would guess that at the time a wrist watch was probably looked upon with disfavour in these circles - a pocket watch being much more common and moreover having a watch on implied the wearer had time on their mind whereas in genteel society a disregard for time at gatherings is considered much more favourably. Someone looking at their watch to see what time it is would have been rude even. So I think trying to write in a "dress watch" into these dress codes is somewhat ironic.

What's different is the so called "sport watch" which implied a watch made for particular activities, professions etc and is a phenomenon of the latter half of the 20th century.

I think the 305 is just a watch and if it was on a bracelet would be clearly unmasked as a sport type watch in that it is 10 bar WR (screw down crown), titanium for strength and lightweight and a date. It wouldn't be all that different from a Snowflake except the spring drive. In fact if you put the Snowflake on a strap it would be very similar.

So I think this "dress" watch thing is outdated and anachronistic. If you buy a watch these days as a "dress watch" to be used at these dress code type things then the average person these days would find that these sorts of watches would be worn very infrequently.


----------



## Pete26 (Feb 17, 2006)

Boomerdw said:


> One thing that attracted me to the SGBX119 was it's smaller case and larger appearing crystal. Noting it is a quartz piece.


That's exactly what attracted me to my SBGX265, and the Quartz movement is arguably the best in the world.


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

mui.richard said:


> the black line you see on the 8 & 2 o'clock markers are reflections off the 39 and 11 minute hash marks.
> 
> Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


Reflections?

Are these reflections too?









10 and 5 (and other eg 9) indices.

You see reflections, I call it sloppy uneven dial work. But feel free to pay more for it if you want 

The point isn't to make it a JLC bashing thread but just saying the reviewer and most people are kind of brainwashed when it comes to some brands.

GS is virtually the only company that can produce the high end finish you see in $50k+ watches at the prices they do.

It shows that even with the price rises (a reality of inflation and fiat currency) that GS punches way way way above the competition.


----------



## BarracksSi (Feb 13, 2013)

zuiko said:


> I think the thinness thing for watches is a leftover from the mid 20th century and is something the Old World watchmaking companies try to perpetuate as a meaningful aim. At the time it was a sign of more sophisticated engineering since it was a challenge to produce. But it's been done and as a sign of an expensive watch it has become meaningless since you can buy watches that are exceedingly thin and very cheap.
> 
> Seiko could easily produce thinner watches imo. Their excellence in watchmaking engineering is established and thinness does not appear to be their aim.


Thinner watches are just more comfortable to wear. Wristwatches were always capable of being tiny -- the first ones were ladies' jewelry, remember -- so added thickness isn't a sign of advanced engineering. Human wrists haven't changed _that_ much either (obesity trends aside). It's just fashion these days to make thicker watches under the guise of, "Yes, that feels like a 'real' watch, nice and hefty."

You've deflected the article's criticism of the 305 GS's thickness from the get-go. You're _not_ unjustified in protesting the article's verdict, I'd say -- the GS looks better-finished in every way -- but better finishing can only go so far when the watch wears clunky. This one feels far clunkier on-wrist than it should. I even told the shop owner, "I want this watch to be _thinner._ It just doesn't feel right," and handed it back to him.

It's no thicker than a Snowflake...

... but it's too thick for this style.

(imo, ymmv, etc)


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

mui.richard said:


> The SBGR305 is spec'd at 13.6mm thick... the same thickness as a Rolex Milgauss. If that's not thick for a dress watch, may I ask how thick does it has to get to be considered thick?
> 
> Many complain about the Tudor Black Bay with the new in house movement being too thick, which is at 14.8mm and it's a sport watch. But compared to this particular GS it's only about 1mm thicker.
> 
> ...


It's not a dress watch design though.


----------



## DustinS (Nov 3, 2013)

Domo said:


> I'll never understand the "GS is too thick" argument. A large factor in creating the beauty and sense of expensive-ness of a GS is the incredibly deep dial. The hands are thick, and spaced quite far apart, and the hour markers are very tall. If you want that dial (and we all do) then that's the price you pay. Seiko have made many other high-end watches in the Credor range with even more care and olde-world craftsmanship than any GS and if you see them in the flesh, the dials just don't impart that nice sense of luxe and depth of a GS dial, because the hands, rehaut, hour markers, etc are all much thinner and 2-dimensional to fit the much thinner case. GSes aren't "dress watches" at all IMO.
> 
> Also, I try to be more objective but comparing any of the smaller brand high-end swiss is a GS is a losing battle. Even though they have great names, their entry-level 3 hand watches are a gigantic rip off. Exceptionally bland 3rd party cases and 3rd party dials and hands assembled with a decent movement they developed 30 years ago that's hand assembled but entirely machine produced anyway. Once you break 20K the swiss wipe the floor with GS in every respect with amazing complications and design finesse but something has to financially support those operations and it's their low end stuff that accounts for most of their sales doing it.


We all want our cake and want to eat it too. That said they just need to be thinner. 13 mm is too big for a watch. I love my GS, but it sucks that it's so thick. It just looks silly and hits things. I have to admit, I'd give up a day of power for 2 mm less in thickness. At the end of the day it's on my wrist and it should be easily forgotten. GS doesn't do that well with their huge thickness.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

zuiko said:


> Reflections?
> 
> Are these reflections too?
> 
> ...


Without examining the actual watch in question with a loupe, your guess is as good as mine isn't it? But in this photo it would definitely look like the indices are separating from the dial.

Not trying to defend JLC at all... in fact, personally I don't really like most of their offerings... being a tool/sport watch mostly guy myself I seldom see any JLC I like. I'd much rather be wearing my Explorer or by GS.

In terms of workmanship alone GS is probably impossible to beat at their price point. But that's not the only attribute we consider in buying watches is it?

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## MLJinAK (Feb 14, 2015)

The author had to stretch pretty far to make JLC the winner... Sad! 

Why do you want a 2 toned "subtle" dress watch?


----------



## Pete26 (Feb 17, 2006)

I thought the reviewer was reaching. I could tell the difference between the two by the photos

Sent from my SM-J120ZN using Tapatalk


----------



## westcoastco (Apr 10, 2016)

IMO a dress watch these days is one that fits easily under a shirt cuff and is more conservatively styled. Sheer thickness rules out most contemporary GS models from fitting easily under a cuff, in my experience. Even if they are styled very differently from sports watches, being mostly un-lumed, highly polished three-handers with baton indexes.

I owned an automatic GS before (forgot what LE it was), loved the fit and finish, really wanted it to be a dressy piece, but its thickness was too much for me.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

zuiko said:


> The 305 is not a dress watch imo. In fact I don't know what a dress watch is. It's an invented term to hint that certain attire needs a certain watch as a part of an unwritten code. These were typically used in social signalling as indicators of class or societal position. The upper crust has never liked the lower ones having access to things that they considered as defining of their own status. These days where these dress codes are virtually and practically meaningless the term "dress watch" is an anachronism.
> 
> At the time a dress watch was just a watch - in fact every watch produced looked about the same as each other - three hands on a dial in a case with a leather strap. It wasn't a dress watch. It was just a wrist watch and how wrist watches of the day all looked. I would guess that at the time a wrist watch was probably looked upon with disfavour in these circles - a pocket watch being much more common and moreover having a watch on implied the wearer had time on their mind whereas in genteel society a disregard for time at gatherings is considered much more favourably. Someone looking at their watch to see what time it is would have been rude even. So I think trying to write in a "dress watch" into these dress codes is somewhat ironic.
> 
> ...


Well, fair enough... but how would you characterize/categorize this particular GS?

I mean we have divers, field, casual, dress, fleiger, contemporary, racing,...what else is there? To me personally, I think Seiko is trying to position this particular GS as crossing between dress and casual leaning towards dress....given the simple un-lumed dial, polished hands and indices, and the glossy crocodile strap.

While your points may have their merits, it's no augment that people in general are conditioned with certain pre-conceived judgements when we see certain things...call it generalization or whatever, people are still people.

A simple example : do you see a dress watch or sport watch in this photo? We could argue all day whether it's just a watch or whatever we coin it, but I believe most people in the general population will see this as a dress watch rather than a casual or even sports watch...and giving it WR to 100M and a rubber strap doesn't make it a diver.









Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

mui.richard said:


> Well, fair enough... but how would you characterize/categorize this particular GS?
> 
> I mean we have divers, field, casual, dress, fleiger, contemporary, racing,...what else is there? To me personally, I think Seiko is trying to position this particular GS as crossing between dress and casual leaning towards dress....given the simple un-lumed dial, polished hands and indices, and the glossy crocodile strap.
> 
> ...


My test for category would involve first asking whether the watch, if it was fitted with a link bracelet would pass as a sport watch. I think the answer for the 305 is absolutely. Titanium case for starters. Name me one old world maker who uses titanium in what you might term their "dress watch" category. Screw down crown and 10 bar WR. Same question. Automatic compared to mostly mechanical wind for the old worlders (for the thinner movement). Etc.

So I would say the 305 is a sport watch which happens to come on a leather (crocodile no less) strap. It might be misinterpreted as a "dress watch" by the majority of casual observers but is no less a sport watch for it. Companies play on people's desires and Seiko can put in cues to aid in this misdirection but they have it covered. In the end it comes down to consumer's tastes and a company has a great measure for that in their sales figures. They'll give the market whatever it wants for profit.

The 305 itself is not a new formula for Seiko. A glance through a GS dealer catalogue will show many examples of 305 like watches minus the new titanium alloy, new movement (albeit minor change to the 9S65) and premiere GS branding. In time it might be a seminal piece or it might be a nothing given the absolute volume of output from a mega-company like Seiko let alone the entire watch industry.

Anyway in the end comes down to what makes one happy. What makes them part ways with their hard (or not) earned money for these objects. Some find the 305 passes this threshold.


----------



## mui.richard (Aug 13, 2014)

zuiko said:


> My test for category would involve first asking whether the watch, if it was fitted with a link bracelet would pass as a sport watch. I think the answer for the 305 is absolutely. Titanium case for starters. Name me one old world maker who uses titanium in what you might term their "dress watch" category. Screw down crown and 10 bar WR. Same question. Automatic compared to mostly mechanical wind for the old worlders (for the thinner movement). Etc.


I'll expand further... try name one "old world" watchmaker that uses titanium in making ANY watch genre in the old days?

Anyhow, if it had an optional titanium bracelet avaliable from Seiko I'd probably agree that it can pass for a sport watch. As it is? Let's agree to disagree.

Maybe Seiko designers should actually take note... design is a tricky thing and giving the SBGR251 (obviously can pass as a sport watch, given the stainless steel bracelet, 100M WR and all) a push in crown, while giving the SBGR305 a screw down crown and a Croc strap? Sometimes I do wonder what they are on when they make these design decisions.

Sent from my F8132 using Tapatalk


----------



## DickoryDoc (Jan 25, 2016)

I have to say when I initially looked at Grand Seiko I thought the thickness as advertised in the ‘vital stats’ of their watches would bother me. Those concerns evaporated the minute I tried the watches on. I have not tried the new 305 specifically, but the way the cases slope and are polished on the majority of models makes them wear much thinner than the dimensions suggest. I’ve not had any trouble getting my 12.9mm hi beat under any of my dress cuffs. Partly that is due to the extra thin clasp, which makes up for some of the girth of the watch head, but also because cuffs slip over the well-rounded case with no issues.

in terms of the 305 I think the discussion about whether it is or isn’t a dress, sport or whatever stereotype of watch is really moot. The thinking in the design is from a different angle altogether - it’s a reinterpretation of what the original GS would look like if it were designed today, so it takes its cues from the 1960 original, but with some modern enhancements. Modern watches are thicker and automatic, so is this one. So it hasn’t really been designed as a dress or sports watch, but a roided-up version of the first GS, and maybe that’s why we have trouble putting it neatly in the sport or dress categories.


----------



## zuiko (May 17, 2016)

As someone whose worn the new GS HiBeat diver under shirt cuffs easily thickness on its own has never worried me either. 

As for the 305 I honestly don't worry about what it is except the fact that the past 10 or so days with it have been great. It's honestly hard to believe titanium can be so bright. One of my favourite features is the recessed case which gives the bezel a floating polished ring look. Suspended in air. 

The accuracy is also great. I set it around 7 days ago and it's just 2 seconds fast overall. 

It's so light it's almost like one isn't even wearing a watch. The most comfortable watch I have I would say. The crocodile leather has already conformed to my wrist and worn a little on the loose side it is wonderful. I've already ordered 2 more original straps for it it's so good.


----------



## Mirabello1 (Sep 1, 2011)

I love GS, and think the 305 is beautiful, but I agree, it should be thinner.. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


----------



## bluedialer (Sep 16, 2011)

zuiko said:


> Similarly I actually like JLC mostly.
> 
> If they compared to say their Geophysic True Seconds it might be a fairer fight. In that case the watch is 11.81mm thick. Their movement is 6.57mm thick.
> 
> ...


I've studied the JLC True Second somewhat closely, as it's been a watch on my want list for over a year. But I have to agree to a point that one of the things holding me back has been the sort of flatness of the dial. In particular I think the lack of girth of the indices and narrowness of the hands, also the grained dial is nice but very fine and doesn't stand out as much as I would like. But those are aesthetics that lend themself to subtlety, a design choice that I can't really fault.

I would still tend to contend that the quality is there. This piece, much like a Grand Seiko excels under magnification or in macro shots (see pics). Funny thing, the first time I ever saw or heard of this watch I spotted it in a shop window and was drawn to it because it had such a Grand Seiko-esque aesthetic, and the iridescent way the very precisely striated indices were reflecting the light was magnificent. I of course was thrown off a bit when the sales lady started up the movement for me, but more so was turned off by the lack of bracelet and screw down crown... Further comparisons based on my GS love, but keeping in mind that these are not necessarily quality issues; ie screw crowns aren't universally preferred.

Now the interesting thing about the indices. Yes they're thin and almost flake-like, thus not substantive and facetted like GS markers, so seemingly more easily constructed... Definitely maybe so, but it is also hard to say that any applied indices not as heavily faceted and constructed like GS ones are simply lesser. 
But what I really want to speak of is, yes they are bent! And purposeful presumably to enhance the light play, which it does. Only one online review cared to touch on this detail.
Stunning Geophysic Collection From Jaeger-LeCoultre: True Second And Universal Time (Archive) | Quill & Pad

_"And in the kind of detail that few will notice (except for its increased legibility), those gold hour markers are not straight-cut on top but ever so slightly, in fact microscopically, wavy. Again, everything is incredibly well thought out and executed to catch available light from all angles."_

I have on a couple occasions while viewing, commented to the sales person how I notice the indices are a bit bent/wavy and reflect the light differently. Of course, the often clueless sales person responds "no, I'm not sure I see that, I think it's just the lighting..." Thinking I'm pointing out a flaw, when I'm actually appreciating it. It is imperfect and some might balk, but I think it enhances the piece. A bit of Swiss wabi-sabi if you will. 

Also as for the points of an index raising off the dial, it can be looked at as slop and sometimes it may be, but I'm not sure that's the case in these JLC arrowhead marker examples. I don't have a lot of experience connoisseur-ing this aspect, but I think this is a deliberate detail. In fact Seiko Presage very beautifully incorporates it in exaggerated form in the Cocktail Times (see pic). I would not doubt that this is a micro detail done to enhance the dimensionality and the fine hand applied nature of the indices. After all, it would be relatively simple to have these white gold pieces formed completely flat to be flush to the dial.

A related pictorial: http://www.watchprosite.com/page-wf.forumpost/fi-2/ti-1082508/pi-7962393/

It's much like some have expressed appreciation for the raised off the dial nature if the "SEIKO" and "GS" appliques such that they cast an almost unnoticeable shadow on the dial. Some may appreciate that, others could wonder if it's slop and feel they should be flush to the dial.

Anyway needless to say I'm a fan if the JLC True Second, but it does have a movement complication (abhorrent to some, beautiful to others) so it would be more fitting to directly compare it to a Hi-Beat. Talk about a matchup of opposites. Most people here would def take a Hi-Beat, but I fully appreciate that True Second. 

These 2 great macro shots by forum member Dinexus


----------



## Rasbcer (Jan 3, 2018)

bluedlaler said:


> I do think one of the main downsides of Grand Seiko is their general case thickness.
> 
> But that was such a weird comparison, and idiotic closing thoughts. He penalizes the GS for "value" when this is a limited edition piece, and not an economy model the way the JLC was intended. These models were created with completely different intent, and should not be compared on that point. GS has other economy models.
> 
> ...


Thanks very much ,


----------



## bluedialer (Sep 16, 2011)

More relevant to the rest of the discussion than my last post:
The primary virtues of Grand Seiko are precision, legibility, durability, and beauty. I think the thickness is due mostly to the virtue of durability. It either enhances (more case finishing to admire) or detracts from beauty. Certainly is a detracting factor in comfort/wearability, which is not one of the primary virtues, so durability trumps that in the GS philosophy. In any case, I'm not sure why the 305 needed to be any thicker than the sbgr251, though both are over 13mm. I do wonder if the base mechanical movement could be used to make a watch thinner than 13mm? My Snowflake is about 12.75mm, so there's no reason why GS wouldn't want to make SBGR at least as thin if it were practical. I guess the movement is just too thick.. But it is durable.


----------



## Cocas (Jul 7, 2015)

The thickness for GS is inevitable due to its movement history reason - GS uses standardized part and grind to achieve GS movement specifications.


----------



## whineboy (Aug 12, 2012)

Cocas said:


> The thickness for GS is inevitable due to its movement history reason - GS uses standardized part and grind to achieve GS movement specifications.


What does this mean? GS movements are not based on older Seiko movements, as far as I know.


----------



## Cocas (Jul 7, 2015)

Someone has just shared the latest model released on 5 Mar 2020, this is a gold hi beat automatic GS with thickness only at 11.7mm.

My yesterday post was outdated.


----------

