SDC Weekly 114; Watch Habits; AP’s CEO Drama; Bennahmias buying DB?
September Equinox, Royal Oak RD#5 Details, SJX on Ondřej Berkus, Nick Hayek speaks out and more!
🚨 Welcome back to SDC Weekly! Today happens to be the September equinox (or southward equinox), which is when the “sun appears to cross the celestial equator, heading southward. Because of differences between the calendar year and the tropical year, the September equinox may occur from September 21 to 24.”
Cool, right?
Anyway, Robb Report shared and then deleted AP’s new RD5 (Officially named: The Royal Oak “Jumbo” Extra-Thin Selfwinding Flying Tourbillon Chronograph RD#5). The standout feature seems to be their new chronograph pushers, because Giulio Papi and his team managed to reduce the activation force required by 80%. What this means in practice, is that you can, according to Robb Report, start, stop, and reset this chronograph with the same pressure you’d use to adjust your iPhone volume.
Within the Calibre 8100 movement, rather than relying on traditional hammer mechanisms for the reset function, AP developed a rack-and-pinion system that stores energy to whip the chronograph hand back to zero. The titanium tourbillon cage reduces weight, the enhanced escapement improves power management, and the high amplitude keeps everything running smoothly. Cramming all 379 individual parts and 44 jewels into a 4mm-thick movement seems like quite a feat, to be honest.
As for case construction, they use titanium paired with “bulk metallic glass” for the bracelet; the bulk metallic glass contains 50% palladium and supposedly offers substantial durability against scratches and corrosion. I’d never heard of this stuff until I saw it on this watch, but you can read more about it here.
This puppy is allegedly priced at CHF 250k before taxes, but who knows.
All this information is already published elsewhere on the internet, so I am not leaking anything here… just sharing for those who missed it.
Admin note: The Unofficial Editor is resting after a tragic accident with a thesaurus. The injury wasn’t just bad; but it was atrocious, appalling, and lamentable… so click here to read this post online and ensure you see all corrections made after publishing.
If you’re new to SDC, welcome! If you have time to kill, find older editions of SDC Weekly here, and longer posts in the archive here.
Estimated reading time: ~30 mins (sorry!)
🍿 SJX on Berkus
This weekend’s Instagram post by independent watchmaker Ondřej Berkus was directed at SJX Watches; more specifically, it was a response to this article by Brandon Moore. You might think this is a trivial topic which we need not discuss, but I actually learned something from the exchange, and I think others might find it enlightening, too.
If you haven’t done so already, I would recommend you read Brandon Moore’s piece on SJX Watches before you continue reading this post. You might think of it as being a typical SJX article, with all the hallmarks of decent contemporary watch journalism. He’s got some technical analysis, historical context, and even some price speculation. Moore positioned Berkus as a refreshingly human alternative to industry conformity, writing:
“In contrast, the watchmaking of Ondřej Berkus is refreshingly human. He has no formal website, and conducts business via Instagram.”
The piece felt like it celebrated Berkus’s unconventional path, in that he’s a self-taught knife maker turned watchmaker who “flips the script, and strives to deliver watches that are unique technically and finished selectively.” Moore highlighted a few technical innovations like the reuleaux triangle mechanism, the Damascus steel case, and the wolf’s teeth gears. Sounds cool, right?
Then came the finishing section, where Moore wrote: “Mr Berkus intentionally leaves many components in a visually rough state; it’s part of his aesthetic and helps define his work.” He compared this approach to other independents, suggesting it created “an interesting tension between the observed and the expected.”
—
So where’s the problem?
Well, I spoke to Ondřej, and he shared his perspective on the article with me. The first was a location error, in that Berkus had relocated to Italy, and was not based in the Czech Republic as the article originally stated (this was corrected). The deeper wounds, for Berkus, were about how he was represented. On the finishing critique, for example, Berkus wasn’t happy with the above quote, which says “many components” are left in a visually rough state.
Berkus also said, regarding the wolf’s teeth gear:
“I had to calculate the profile, design the tools, have them made and then come up with a way to cut the wheels... because the tool can’t be centered as easy as a symmetrical cutter can. But yeah, let’s mention some old dude and forget I spent hours on this.”
What I take from Berkus’s perspective is that his ire is about more than factual errors (even though those do matter). Berkus felt his innovations were consistently downplayed while others were elevated, and he said as much to Moore:
“for every instance where I went in a new and more demanding way (instead of just polishing another fucking 6498) you gloss over it and mention someone else.”
The pricing speculation was a particularly bad oversight, in my opinion, because Moore wrote:
“It's difficult to guess the price of a hodinky from Mr Berkus.”
I don’t agree with that statement at all. Aside from perhaps asking Berkus directly, which anyone can do and which Moore did not, there is this 3 year old video with Swiss Watch Gang in which Berkus demonstrates that he has a rather transparent pricing structure. Essentially it’s a build-your-own system like configuring a car, with base prices starting around 10k for time-only pieces, scaling up with complications. To be honest, this video stuck with me since I first watched it, precisely because it is refreshingly straightforward when compared to the opacity which is all too common with other independents.
What Next?
I think the Instagram story revealed the human cost of journalistic choices. When I read his story, and later understood where he was coming from, what I took away was a mixture of vulnerability and resilience that captures an essential aspect of being an independent watch maker. Far from being faceless corporations, these are individuals who pour themselves into their craft, and whose reputations and livelihoods hang on how their work is interpreted and presented.
I keep thinking about what has become my favourite quote to repeat on SDC, which is “we see the world as we are, not as it is.” Moore likely perceived his article as being positive coverage, in that he was featuring an innovative independent on what many will agree is a major platform in our hobby. Yet, Berkus experienced it a piece which was diminishing his achievements and amplifying his perceived shortcomings!
It might even boil down to semantics, in that “rough” suggests carelessness or inability; while “selective” or “intentional” suggests some kind of artistic vision. Who knows. What I do know, is that the resolution here shouldn’t be complicated, because Moore can easily correct any factual errors and clear the air if he chooses to.
Maybe this whole controversy will end up being positive for both parties. Berkus gets his corrections and his side of the story told, Moore gets a reminder about the human cost of casual characterisations, and bystanders like us get a case study in how to do better!