Taking Sides: The 4:30 Date Window is an Affront

In this installment of Taking Sides, Jack Forster and Griffin Bartsch debate the merits of one of watchmaking’s truly divisive issues — the 4:30 date window. Today, Griffin argues against it. You can read Jack’s counterargument here.

Good watch design is a challenging concept to nail down. After all, whether a watch is aesthetically appealing is, for the most part, a subjective thing. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that many of us have a watch or two where our opinion goes against the grain of the typical set.  All that said, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t certain rules which, when followed, can help set a watch up for success, at least insofar as a watch’s looks. Keeping a relative level of symmetry is one of those guideposts.

Obviously, this is not something that is absolutely required to create a watch that’s pleasing to the eye. The Lange 1 is a prime example of how asymmetry can be a wonderful tool in watch design, but — and this is important — in that case, the asymmetry is a bold choice thoroughly committed to, a deliberate exercise in watch design outside the norm.

Where asymmetry begins to hurt the design of a watch is when it comes across as an afterthought. To me, the 4:30 date window is the ultimate example of this. Take the latest Breguet Type XX and Type 20 Chronographes, released last week. Both of these watches are incredibly compelling vintage-inspired pilot’s watches with a ton going for them, but both have a serious detriment in the form of their date apertures.

The recently released duo does make for a killer set of pilot’s watches, and come from a brand with more history than most.

Large, commanding, and fixed solidly at 4:30, these date wheels reek of imposition — as if some well-meaning bean counter was adamant that a beautiful and well-made Breguet chronograph wouldn’t sell without a date. It is counter to the design of the watch, something that becomes obvious when you notice that the original chronographs on which these watches are based don’t feature dates at all. After all, why would a purpose-built tool watch meant for flights lasting not more than a few hours need a date? (Short answer — it wouldn’t.)

Possibly my favorite iteration of the Octa Lune, the Octa Automatique Lune France-China 50, celebrating 50 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

I should say that I am not against dates at odd placements; watches like the F.P. Journe Octa Lune, which sets the date at around 11:30, show how an odd date placement can work, or even serve, a watch. But I am vehemently opposed to slapping a date on a watch for the sake of it.

And that’s the issue at the heart of it. Many watches with a 4:30 date seem like they chose that spot because it was the easiest compromise between having a date and putting in as little effort as possible. I think it is safe to say that the most recognized position for a date, going back all the way to the first Rolex Datejust, is at three o’clock. As a result, most date wheels, especially on off-the-shelf movements, have dates printed for that spot.

Another example of a considered abnormal date wheel. The Bell & Ross BR 03-94 Multimeter puts the date window close to one o’clock, but not without adjusting the angle of the text on the wheel.

If that three o’clock space is taken up on the dial by a marker or a subdial, 4:30 has become the default position for a compensatory date window, I would imagine largely due to not needing to adjust the printing on a date wheel to account. This strikes me as not just lazy but verging on insulting. If you’re asking me to spend a significant amount of money on a watch, I want to experience the result of a fully thought-out design process, not the result of slapdash accommodation.

At that point, I’d rather not have a date at all.