In my opinion, there is no opposition between sophisticated complication and refined craft.
My philosophy when designing a watch is to define, prior to anything, the general idea or the overall concept from which this watch is inspired.
As an example for the Antiqua the concept was "The Time machine ", in other words the watch that could have been brought by H.G. Wells during his trips through the time. This should lead us to a watch expressing the futur as it could have been imagined by people from the XIX century.
In that respect, the choice of a perpetual calendar was obvious : what else could H.G. Well haven taken with him for such a trip ?
I have been asked for a tourbillon. I could have put one tourbillon inside an Antiqua case (and I would have sold it without difficulty). But, what for ?
To distinguish myself from my colleages should I have put a double, a triple, a quadruple (or more) tourbillon ?
When I will put a tourbillon within one watch (and this day is not that far ..... hush....hush.... it's a scoop !)the reason for this will be self contained in the initial concept of this watch.
It is true to say that I work with designers. This is because I know that I am not able to translate myself my ideas into shapes and drawings. Even if I tried, the result would not be what I have in my brain. To this respect, the contribution of the designers among whom Pascal Pagès and Jean Yves Mariez is very meaningful.
Nevertheless, when it is needed by the inital concept (as for Opus 3) I am not reluctant to develop ultra complications.
|