It might be a controversial opinion to some, but material choice is the most important consideration in a watch. If silver is your preferred metal for watch cases, then you will be limited to vintage pocket watches and maybe just one contemporary brand. As I unleash myself from the yoke of objectivity, I can openly take positions, like the one I open with here. Why should materials be so important? Well, the most basic explanation that even makes intuitive sense is this: a material decision affects the cost of any given watch, to the brand and the customer.
Historically, if a brand wanted to play in the world of luxury, then precious materials were a must. These go a long way to explaining cost to the customer, but they also allow for, shall we say, enhanced profitability on small series or even unique pieces. If, as a brand, you opted for steel, then the customer understands that you are in the area of tools and instruments. Clearly, everyone would understand that you are playing a volume game. It does not pay to make customers uncertain. Contemporary watchmaking suggests otherwise, though.
In our introduction, we made much mention of Richard Mille and Hublot as materials specialists and yes, the material side of the story of those brands is more important than the movement part. Movements are fine and dandy, but both these brands have managed to make much of their technical virtues while being nowhere near as vertically integrated as, shall we say, Audemars Piguet and Parmigiani Fleurier.
I might even call Hublot an MMA exponent, if that were to stand for mixed material arts! It is indeed quite an art to convince the watch-buying world that the value of a timepiece lies somewhere beyond material costs. To be honest, this happens with watches in gold and other precious materials too; I think this has to do with successfully pushing the idea of the watch as far more than the sum of its parts (an idea that we suggested in our composite materials special in 2023). Seen this way, it should not be surprising that the strategy can work with any material. I will suggest once again that watchmaking needs this âmagicâ to repeat itself, and it is not really about the materials. Instead, it is about audacity â daring to propose a watch in gold and rubber and positioning it against one in full gold, at the same price.
Some of you who made it all the way here might wonder how I feel about this, especially as someone who buys watches as a hobby of sorts. Should I, in good conscience and my professional capacity as editor of this magazine, really prod watch brands to push prices up for materials like titanium and ceramic? After all, watches in both these materials are already somewhat more expensive (than steel equivalents) and have other virtues, as we have mentioned, that might already justify that expense. But pricing them at the level of gold-steel bimetallic offerings? I confess to not knowing what the exact pricing strategy should be, and I do not suggest that the brands should just raise prices to whatever level the market will accept.
What is crucial is the value-add, or what work a watchmaker can do to justify greater desirability, and thus command a higher price. The world has already seen that brands can do a lot with non-traditional materials â hand-finishing with ceramic and titanium are only two possibilities, and neither is particularly novel (anymore, but that is not important). This is also why I continue to pine for more on the platinum front, because the old refrain that the material is too difficult to work with seems, well, old. The big names in watchmaking should dare to innovate here because no other industry is going to do the relevant research and development on machining platinum.
Of course, I did not dream up this entire section on an explanatory whim, just to take you all through the greatest hits, as it were. In fact, after all these years exploring all the material options in watchmaking, I find myself no closer to finding out what suits me best. Titanium makes the most sense â it is lightweight without feeling flimsy, in a standard or larger-sized watch. If I try to reason whether it is titanium over steel, I find myself unsure â I like some pieces in steel and some in titanium and do not find either to be better, relative to each other.
When it comes to gold, there is no fair comparison to be had. That is true of the coloured variety, perhaps, but what about white gold then? I do prefer platinum simply because the weight of it is comforting and I need never worry about surface treatments or additives (much). But, as I noted in the platinum special two years ago, I have very little experience with it. Even just trying watches in this metal is quite rare â at a recent gathering I hosted for Bvlgari, I was presenting one of my favourite Octo Finissimo models, the Ultra Thin Perpetual Calendar with the blue dial. This model only exists in platinum, but the version I was showing was a display piece, and thus, not in platinum but steel. I realised then that I had never held the actual watch in my hands.
I come back then, to the idea of rarity introduced earlier, because that is what makes platinum special, ostensibly. It is perhaps not the weight of platinum that I find comforting, but its rarity. It is not âmerelyâ white gold, even if the pricing is a bit, shall we say, suspect. Anyway, the point has been made as well as we can and I resist the urge to repeat myself. Ideally, when it comes to platinum, an object made in such a material must be equally special, extraordinary even, given how intransigent a metal it can be. Watch brand Venezianico even praised the âincorruptible purityâ of platinum.
Taking our cue from that watch, maybe just a little bit of platinum is needed, if it is decorated and finessed just so. For a more mainstream approach, look no further than the Parmigiani Fleurier Tonda PF. Maybe that fluted platinum bezel in the Rolex Day-Date will find its way into other collections to supplant what are now white gold bezels. This seems the most logical thing to do, especially when one has economies of scale on oneâs side. Perhaps â dare I suggest it â a platinum-and-titanium concoction. For example, a watch with a platinum bezel and a titanium case.
As noted, obliquely, in a variety of sections, this time I will say clearly that the watch trade will wait and see if that titanium Submariner will be incoming anytime soon. Titanium can and should be the next big thing â it has been waiting for 50-odd years or so for its moment. Here, we not only have moves in the right direction by Rolex but also Seiko, Grand Seiko and Citizen. For its part, Citizen has an exciting event this year that promises much in the way of raising awareness of the brandâs role in bringing titanium to watchmaking.
To be clear, I do think that titanium is what both brands and watch enthusiasts need. When interests align in this way, powerful developments can take shape. As noted, there is nothing to keep watchmakers from fully embracing the metal and its alloys. Of course, I claim no knowledge beyond what has been presented in these pages, so my wants and desires are just that â wants and desires.
This story was first seen as part of the WOW #79 Summer 2025 Issue
For more on the latest in luxury watch reads, click here.
The post Why Materials Matter in Watchmaking: From Steel to Titanium, Gold, and Platinum appeared first on LUXUO.
