Everyday Beauty - Marine Annual Chronograph experience review, pt. 1
By: Marcus Hanke (registered) Wednesday, August 8th, 2007 - Photo Nav: View All 9 photo(s)
Everyday Beauty:
Ulysse Nardin’s Marine Annual Chronograph
An experience
review
by Marcus Hanke
Part I
I have always held the opinion that a review of any product must be based on a profound experience with the use of that product. If you plan to buy a new car, I somewhat doubt you would consider a review of the type “I have the car since three hours, and it is absolutely great!” a really useful base for your purchase decision. The perfect review should be the result of a serious product test, that mirrors all what normally happens during a product lifetime at the consumer. However, the problem is that - if I stick with my automobile example - the perfect car reviewer should test a car for at least four or five years, so that a consumer can read what he has to expect from a vehicle’s longtime performance. During these years, though, the car has undergone several upgrades and productive modifications, so that the reviewed car does not correspond with those offered in the showrooms. Fortunately, watch manufacturers only rarely change their products on a yearly base, some even stir a massive surprise just by changing its bezel colour once in a lifetime ...
Even if this review here has needed quite some time to be published, or better: because it needed this time, you, valued reader, have the certainty that this report is based on a really thorough experience that you can count on.
First Impression:
My first impression of Ulysse Nardin’s Marine Annual Chronograph was: Huh? why this asymmetrical dial layout? Why should someone want to delete the small second subdial? I admit that I had some difficulties getting used to the watch’s appearance, because the two prominent subdials with the red hands shift the optical weight towards the left side of the dial, leaving a blank space, that serves as a canvas for the brand name with the applied anchor logo. Additionally, I thought I needed a running second as essential part of my life; how else should I check that the watch was running?
Only later I realised that some things are not that essential for happiness in life; function indicators on watches being one of them. I understand that for a diver in 40 metres depth, it might be really important to know if his watch is working flawlessly, but for me, the worst that can happen from a non-functional watch is to miss the bus. Additionally, I already have my experiences with watches that had stopped working without telling me about this intention in advance: In all cases, the actual time was so different from that shown by the watch, that there was no doubt about its status. Finally, when in doubt, the classic acoustic function check method (tic-toc-tic-toc) would always work, and since the watch is a chronograph, it has an integrated “Check-on-demand”-system, also known as chronograph second.
And what about the asymmetric look? I also realised that this is what makes the Marine Annual unique, different from the rest of the chronographs offered on a fast-growing market. The deletion of the permanent second offered UN a very easy way to achieve that look of difference, that is so typical for Ulysse Nardin. Above that, this has also a very practical aspect, which I only learned later, during the actual use of the watch.
As a consequence, the Marine Annual’s design, finally grew on me so much that I had to have this watch - and still I love it; which is a perfect example of love at second sight!
Case, crystal and crown:
Five years ago, I reviewed the UN Marine Diver, my first watch from the Marine series. The Marine Annual has basically the same casework, so what I wrote in 2002 is valid in that case, as well:
“As
already indicated, the watch has substance. With a diameter of 40 mm,
and a height of about 13 mm, it is not a small watch. And it is heavy.
However, these attributes are common for sports, and even more for
diving watches.“
While the specifications have remained the same (except the case height, which I will deal with later), the fashion has changed, though. In the five years since my Marine Diver review, watches have continuously grown, and today, 40 mm is on the small side already. While the classic 40 mm Marine Diver is still offered, the larger Maxi Diver with 42.6 mm case diameter is considered more up to date.
But let me continue quoting the casework chapter from my earlier review:
“The
case itself is highly polished. Many people, only few of them actually
owners of this watch, have suspected that UN uses a rather soft steel,
and that together with the polished finish, the case would be very
prone to scratches. As a result of my own experience during the last
year, when I wore the watch most of the time, 24 hours a day, I cannot
confirm these allegations. On the contrary, my Marine Diver has
remarkably few scratches, while normally I am infamous to scratch every
new watch within a few weeks. One of the reasons for the Marine Diver's
lucky escape could be the concave shape of the case, which is typical
for all watches of UN's "Marine" series. This seems to effectively keep
the case's material out of harm's way. Such a unique case shape is
expensive to produce, which makes the end price of the Marine Diver
more understandable.”
Meanwhile I have more than five years experience with the Marine Diver, and three years with the Marine Annual, and I fully adhere to my earlier statements: While of course the watches collect some tiny scratches, as do all personal accessories worn for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, these nevertheless remain remarkably unconspicious. Compared with other “tool watch category” watches I have owned, the UNs do not appear to have collected more scratches than the others. In the contrary: the brushed steel sides of other watches show scratches even more than the polished parts, since the direction of the scratches is different from that of the surface brushing, which makes them stand out very clearly.
“Also
typical for Ulysse Nardin is the small plaque on the case's side,
bearing the engraved serial number. Fastened with two small screws, it
adds a classic, if not historical design element, and reduces the macho
factor of the watch.”
I still love that detail, and the little plaque is one of the reasons why I think UN watches are so special and immediately recognised.
From the beginning, it was my subjective impression that the Marine Annual is a lot higher than the Diver, but some measuring disclosed the difference to be but a millimetre, the Marine Annual being 13.5 millimetres high, which is a millimetre less than the manual-wound Omega Speedmaster Pro. The high coin-edge bezel was responsible for the wrong impression. The unique concave curves on the case flanks are the same on the chronograph and the Diver, which is the reason why the solid end links of the steel bracelet and the rubber/titanium strap fit on both watches, which is a nice way to further increase the possible styling variations. Especially noteworthy is the titanium caseback, engraved with the dates and the locations of those world exhibitons where Ulysse Nardin won medals for its products. I certainly prefer that massive caseback over the displaybacks, since the antiallergic titanium is more convenient on the skin in hot and sweaty conditions. Additionally, the 2894 movement is not that much a beauty that I really have to see it.
The flat sapphire crystal has a large diameter, making the watch appear larger on the wrist. It has a highly efficient anti-reflective coating on both sides. A lot has been written about the softness of anti-reflective coatings and the scratches that are visible therein. The fact is that no metal oxide coating can be as hard as synthetic sapphire. It is correct that during a watch’s life, a lot of scratches can collect on the coating. However, the effect it was applied for, reducing reflections on the crystal, still by far outweighs the tiny disturbance caused by the scratches. Additionally, these are less visible over a bright dial, than over a dark one.
The crown and the two chronograph pushers are secured tight by screwing them down. While I have no reason to object this for the crown, which is unscrewed only rarely during normal use, I think this technology to assure extended water tightness is outdated and unpractical for the pushers. I know there are many people who barely use the chronograph function at all. but I do. Daily. While I am far from sportive, I need the chronograph function for everything in my everyday life: timing the tea, my walk with the dog, whether this route or the other is quicker on my way into the office, and so on. Having to unscrew the pushers every time then is similar to owning a Porsche, but taking off its wheels and hanging them on the wall after very drive.
I cannot believe that in a time, when mechanical watches are presented with new high-tech material in cases and movements, ultra-super shock absorbers, anti-magnetic protectors, multi-layered material mixture components, we customers are still expected to accept the primitive technology of screwing down chronograph pushers in order to keep them from leaking water into the case.
Yet I should not cause any misunderstanding: All chronograph pushers are perfectly watertight, even when they are not screwed down. However, their tightness is rated for a static pressure, meaning that the watch must not move under water, or - worse even - hit the hard surface of the water when its wearer is jumping in from some meters height. Consequently, it is essential to protect the gaskets by screwing down the pushers in these situations. Other than that, it should be okay to leave them open, which is what I do since ever I have this watch.
Please click here to read Part 2
