Raúl Pagès Is The Winner Of The First Louis Vuitton Watch Prize For Independent Creatives
The mechanical purist’s pick was the jury’s choice as well.
A charming mechanical automaton in the shape of a bee. A time-only watch finished to the nines. A flawlessly executed, dare-to-be-different rattrapante chronograph. And a perpetual desk clock and pocket watch duo from a pillar of independent horology. But in the end, the jury for the Louis Vuitton Watch Prize For Independent Creatives – a who’s who of influential figures from across the spectrum of the watch universe – went with a simple regulator timepiece with an exotic escapement, from a lone watchmaker at the start of his independent career: Raúl Pagès, and his Régulateur à Détente RP1.

The RP1 is a simple wristwatch, relatively speaking, but it is by no means simplistic. Aside from the regulator layout its distinguishing feature is its use of a modified pivoting detent escapement, one of the two basic types of detent escapement. The detent escapement is also sometimes called a “chronometer” escapement as they were invented for use in, and historically were primarily found in, marine chronometers. Both versions of the escapement were invented in the mid-to late 1700s, and the earliest versions were created by some very big kahunas of early precision watchmaking – John Arnold and Thomas Earnshaw, who according to George Daniels’ Watchmaking, invented the pivoted detent escapement more or less simultaneously, in the 1780s. Both watchmakers also developed forms of the spring detent escapement.
The action of the detent escapement is different from the lever escapement. The latter works by transmitting the force of the escape wheel to the balance indirectly, via a forked lever. This causes a loss of energy and the escapement also requires oil. As the oil ages the rate of the watch will start to become unstable and precision begins to suffer.

The detent escapement, on the other hand, consists of a lever which holds the escape wheel in place until the balance trips the lever and unlocks the escape wheel. In the detent escapement, the lever is only there to hold the escape wheel stationary until the balance trips it, and the escape wheel gives impulse to the balance directly. The escapement requires no lubrication and its rate is stable over time, which is why it was favored by chronometer makers. The word “détente” in French means “relaxation” (the earliest form of the escapement was invented by French watchmaker Pierre Le Roy) and I have heard this is meant to refer to the fact that the balance for virtually all of its motion, is free from interference from the escapement.
You might wonder why, if the detent escapement is the best thing since sliced bread, it’s not used in wristwatches and there a a few reasons. First of all the detent escapement only gives impulse in one direction of the balance’s rotation (the lever gives impulse in both the clockwise and counterclockwise arcs). Second, the detent escapement is not self-starting – if you wind a lever watch, at some point, it will start to tick spontaneously, while the detent escapement requires a little twist to the watch to get it going. And finally, and most significantly, the detent escapement is very sensitive to shock. The escape wheel is kept from turning only by the pressure of a spring-loaded lever against it and a hard enough jolt will cause it to unlock at the wrong time, with the result that the escape wheel will start to “gallop” or turn uncontrollably.
The lever, on the other hand, has excellent “safety” as watchmakers put it. The lever is locked in place by the pressure of the escape wheel teeth, against the surfaces that limit either side of the lever’s swing, and the geometry of the lever, banking surfaces, and escape wheel teeth ensures the lever will not unlock until the balance trips the lever. This along with the fact that a well made and adjusted lever escapement can run for many years, with excellent precision, before rate stability related to lubricant deterioration becomes an issue, has kept the detent escapement from being widely used in wristwatches.
As a matter of fact the detent is so problematic in a wristwatch that a lot of effort has been expended to get its advantages without its disadvantages. Escapements intended to combine the best of the lever and detent, without the worst of either, include the Robin escapement, the Daniels co-axial escapement, and AP’s direct impulse AP escapement, which AP used briefly in the so-called ChronAP before deciding it was more trouble than it was worth (it was very sensitive to frequency and AP had to run it at 43,200 vph, and it wasn’t self starting either). Grand Seiko’s Dual Impulse escapement is an example of a hybrid direct and indirect impulse escapement, with impulse being given directly by the escape wheel in one direction and indirectly by the lever in the other.

However, there have been watches which use a bona-fide detent escapement, albeit there are very few. Christophe Claret and Urban Jurgensen are two of them, and believe it or not Bulgari is another, with the Bulgari Daniel Roth “Bulgari L’Ammiraglio del Tempo” timepiece from 2015 (which was also a repeater and also had a remontoire, amazingly enough).

In terms of which of the two types of detent escapements is superior, Daniels wrote, “Pivoted detent escapements were not generally made in England but were very fashionable in Switzerland in the second half of the nineteenth century. The English objected to the need for oil at the detent pivots and believed the rate would be affected by its deterioration. This was undoubtedly true in the 18th century, when Arnold made his pivoted detent watches but by the late nineteenth century it was no longer valid … in fact, the English made spring detents because they had been brought up to make them, and the Swiss made pivoted dtents for the same reason. There is no advantage in either type insofar as the performance of the watch is concerned.”
The point of this whole somewhat long-winded preamble is to point out that while putting a detent escapement into a wristwatch is most enticing, it is also fraught with difficulty, potentially ill-advised, and generally presents any watchmaker who wants to give it a shot, with a royal PITA, if I may indulge in euphemism. This is why the RP1 impressed so many enthusiasts who take watchmaking seriously and also perhaps why, until the Louis Vuitton Watch Prize, the watch has maybe been slightly underappreciated. Escapements are generally not what closes the deal for the typical collector (I once asked Stephen Urquhart, Omega’s retired former CEO, if he thought the co-axial escapement really sold watches for Omega and he said, “Frankly, almost not at all”) Detent escapements have been used with much success in pocket watches over the centuries since the escapement was invented but pocket watches enjoy a sedate existence coddled in pockets, while wristwatches lead life filled with terrifying hazards. Installing a detent escapement in a wristwatch therefore requires some creative problem solving as well as a lot of patience, as adjusting the escapement is much more time-consuming than working with the lever.

This schematic shows the escapement in the RP1. The detent lever is in red, with the escape wheel to the left with its asymmetrical impulse teeth, and the balance roller, which is mounted on the axis of the balance, is also in red.
There are also two jewels sticking out of the balance roller – they’re in pink and the shorter one is the unlocking stone, while the longer one is the impulse pallet.
Now imagine the balance and therefore the balance roller are rotating clockwise. As the unlocking stone rotates clockwise it strikes the upper tip of the blade spring attached to the detent, knocking it to the left. As the detent rotates to the left on its pivot, the pink, semicircular locking stone (in pink, halfway down the detent’s shaft) moves off the locked escape wheel teeth, and the escape wheel is free to turn under the pressure of the going train. As it turns, one of the teeth catches on the longer impulse pallet on the roller, giving impulse to the escape wheel. The detent then rotates back into position, under the impulse of its spiral spring, just in time to lock the passing escape wheel tooth and lock the escape wheel. The whole thing requires the split second coordination of a highwire acrobatic exhibition and as in the circus act the slightest screw up in timing can be fatal.
Now you may ask, what keeps the detent from unlocking accidentally? If you look closely at the impulse roller you will see a small cutout along its edge, spanning roughly 45º. If you look carefully at the detent, you will see that at its upper tip there is a beak which prevents the detent from moving freely if it unlocks accidentally – it will just bump into the outer edge of the roller. The detent can only pivot freely when the beak can move into the gap provided by the cutout; at any other time it will be prevented from unlocking by the roller – and even if the watch gets a knock, the escape wheel will not “gallop.”
If you think this is exhausting to read about just imagine making the darned thing, and adjusting it. If you know something about the history of the escapement and how hard it is to get it working in a wristwatch you will appreciate why a panel of some of the biggest experts in the business picked the RP1 as the winner.

From the perspective of the intention of the Prize, I think Raùl Pagès was a very appropriate choice. He stands to benefit enormously in taking his work to the next level thanks to both the financial support the Prize represents, and also the technical and business mentorship offered as part of the Prize by La Fabrique du Temps. The next edition of the Louis Vuitton Watch Prize For Independent Creatives is two years off but we have already seen just how much interest and excitement it’s created – I write about watches for a living and there were quite a few extremely interesting candidates whose work I’d never heard of before being asked to join the Committee Of Experts, who nominated many of the candidates and selected the finalists. Credit for supporting the Prize of course goes to Jean Arnault, whose real enthusiasm for watchmaking and ability to conceive of a strategic initiative to support independent horology made the whole thing possible. There is always room for process refinement of course but I thought the whole thing was a roaring success, and seeing Raùl Pagés’ emotional and very genuine acceptance speech was a real testament to the sincerity with which the whole process was undertaken.
At a time when watchmaking is going through a little bit of an interregnum in innovation in design and innovation, we could use more of this. Congratulations to Jean Arnault and Raúl Pagés are I think very much in order and I’m very, very excited to see what happens next – both from the Prize and from the winning watchmaker.