For those of you that like wrist watches a question

Thomas Carey

Thomas Carey

Dealer / Materials Provider
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
722
First up I want to point out we are not selling these at this point.

Some of you by now know my small brand Minuteman is coming out with our first watches with automatic movements. We are considering adding one more design that would be built on this new platform.

The design team just sent me the below image. My question for you is which version do you like best?

17620471_1090452831059353_8102435735463264465_o.jpg
 
That's a good design for a field watch. I personally like version B. IMO if you are going to put numerals on the hour markers you should put all of them on there.

I have a somewhat similar watch in my collection-

DSC_6297b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Version B is the best because it's the simplest to read. I would not buy version C because it has too much visual stimuli. It looks like a chronograph without a chronograph function.

For version A, I would switch the smaller numerals into 24 hour time (1 is now 13).
 
Last edited:
Put me down as another for option B.

From a designer's standpoint (I do both graphic and industrial), it's the most functional, with a clear "purpose" of design. It's also the most visually appealing.

'A' is a bit odd with the numbers being highlighted every two hours, instead of the traditional three (3, 6, 9, and 12). On top of that, the smaller hours, with the large hash marks just seem to make the watch look a bit busy.

I actually like the look of 'C', but again, it's a bit odd to emphasize the seconds in big numerals, vs the hours. It looks cool, but unless it's target is to be used as a stopwatch or timer as a primary function, it's hard to look at quickly and determine the time. Not a good thing in a field/tank style watch, where form should follow function.

I know it's more than you asked for, but it's an occupational hazard for me... :D
 
Version B, but get rid of the clutter. The additional lines on the face, and the hash marks between the minutes/seconds add no function and are therefore not desirable.

In my opinion, version C is a design error. The hours and minutes/seconds markings are reversed. If that was corrected, it would be C for the larger markings.

In this type of watch, function comes before fashion. Less is more. That is the appeal of a tool watch.
 
Thanks so much for the response.

So far a very interesting result based on the various groups I have asked for feedback from. In some watch groups most picked C and then A. I had started to give up on B which is the closest to what I had in mind including the gray cross hair which while it has no function is what was used on our very first version in 2013. We then dropped that gray cross hair but I thought for this we might bring it back.Recently I did have a watch group go for B pretty heavy.

C is not a mistake and in fact we are not the first brand to sell a watch like this. At first I did not like it at all and some military vets have called it Gucci which is not good. There is actually a very solid theory behind it and it was explained to me a few years ago by the owner of Lum-Tec when they did it. To be honest I had not thought about it at all but told my supplier to ask for a few suggestions from their design staff and that is where that came from.

I am thinking I might just do 25 of what ever one we settle on in the batch we are looking at making.
 
"B" for me, also without the hash marks. Just the hours and minutes. I'm old and easily enough distracted as it is. Extra stuff just makes it worse for me.
 
Version B for me as well.

However, I don't like the hands on any of them. I prefer the type of hands on the Luminox in the photo in post number 2 or at least hands that aren't so "blocky."

Just my $.02.
 
Agree with the B. Easy to read, most timeless design of those options. A and C look messy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top