Oh, to have been a fly on the wall at Rolex HQ the day Toledano & Chan revealed the B/1. While just about everything the crown has touched in the last decade has turned to gold, somehow, the New York City-based microbrand had been the one to bring the Midas back.
Of course, the B/1 is more than just a homage watch. Enough that one of the world’s leading watch designers, Emmanuel Gueit – whose portfolio includes the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore and a revamped Rolex Cellini – included it in his favourite watches of the year so far.
“It’s very different,” Gueit said in an upcoming interview with Time+Tide magazine. “And you can wear it two ways actually. You can wear the crown on your arm or the crown on the other side because there is no logo on the dial. So you can turn your watch, you can wear it like you want. As a design, it’s harsh. It’s very tough. But it works well.”
While clearly an echo of the brutalism that influenced architecture and watch design in the early ‘60s, the B/1 has an origin story that puts it in the company of Carlo Crocco’s first design for Hublot in 1980.
How? The wonderfully weird fact that the case shapes of both watches were inspired by windows. Crocco’s from a ship’s porthole – which is the English translation of the French word ‘hublot’ – and Toledano & Chan’s from the external windows of the Breuer Building, at the Whitney Museum in New York. Seems legit is an understatement. They’re practically identical.
The zinger is that the B/1 was not the only microbrand that Gueit selected in his top five for the year.
Sylvain Berneron’s ‘Mirage’ was included too. “It’s beautiful,” Gueit says of the clearly Cartier Crash-adjacent design, which is by far the best of a large bunch of lookalikes.
“You are just attracted to this watch. You can feel some sensuality. You want to touch it and, you know, to caress it. It’s fantastic. I’m a big fan of this watch.”
Would Rolex entertain a Midas revival anyway? It’s a question that would have had two very different answers on either side of the year just gone.
Pre ’23, not a chance. “Evolution not revolution,” was practically engraved beneath the logo. Post ‘23? After puzzle pieces, coloured bubbles, influencer affirmations on a Day Date model and a clear casebook or two, why not?
Regardless of whether any thunder has been stolen by the B/1, three things are abundantly clear – the speed to market of microbrands is formidable; the standard of their designs are elevating, and the proven ability for this cohort to drive trends is emerging as a threat to bigger brands.
Especially those with oddly shaped designs that might be plundered in this current craze for the creativity of the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Compounding the challenge is the micro seasonality that is now the norm in the watch industry – those consumer demands are more fickle, and faster changing than ever. Like in fashion, there used to be two seasons on the watch calendar – not S/S and A/W, but SIHH and BW.
Now, there is a seemingly endless cycle of releases, designed to take share of voice whenever it’s available. Microbrands are born ready for this world of reactivity. After all, they are a result of it.
So, if you’re generous, you might suggest that microbrands are the tail of the industry, and the best of them are starting to wag the dog.
It has not always been this way.
In fact, if you’d have told me as recently as five years ago that some of the hottest and hardest to get watches in the world right now would be microbrands and that a member of the Holy Trinity would be low key accused of drafting off them, well, I would have accused you of microdosing.
My earliest memories of ‘microbrands’ are of poor versions of hard-to-get, or generally more expensive watches. A Big Pilot without the big price. A Submariner without the sucking up.
The piteously brief Wikipedia stub for ‘microbrand watches’ – a sign of just how nascent this sub-industry really is – states that they debuted in the early 2000s, and removed the “overhead usually associated with luxury goods”.
Despite the alleged bang for buck, for me the name insinuated a generally inferior product that might look good from afar, but one that is so very far from good as you approach the wrist.
As for having a discernible design language? Forget about it. What you saved on price, you sacrificed in style.
There were some exceptions. Halios stood out for its lush sunray dials, early use of materials like bronze and overall excellent quality for the price.
The brand’s three bullet-point mission is refreshingly unpretentious. Example, point one: “To make well-built watches that you can take into the water.”
But as popular as Halios watches continue to be, the brand’s claim to fame has never been to exist at the very cutting edge of trend, and to be leading the brands that are considered to lead the industry.
Contrast this with the recent Audemars Piguet [Re]Master 02 launch, which, surprise surprise, also hails from the brutalist era, and followed hot on the heels of the B/1.
Time+Tide was not the only watch media title to notice the timing. Oracle Time, Hodinkee and others all made note of the fact that Toledano & Chan got there first.
Shortly after, Anoma released a widely praised model that presents as a smaller Hamilton Ventura that has been smoothed by ocean currents like a piece of bottle glass.
And then ALTO, founded by ex-Audemars Piguet employee Thibaud Guittard, dropped a [Re]Master 02 looking model with sapphire crystal chamfers on the front and back crystal called the Art 01… it’s a veritable armada of oddly shaped UFOs attacking our new release feeds.
Needless to say, it ain’t all a fluke. It’s a new era, and it asks the industry at large a searching question: How on earth can billion dollar watch brands compete with smaller, and more agile startups, who can tune into consumer demand and turn around a watch in months, not years?
The silver lining for all involved is that the watch industry is richer for this new wave of creativity, and I have proof.
In a story for another day, I once travelled from Melbourne to New York to interview Roger Federer for six minutes – in that interview (which ran significantly longer thanks to the Fed’s generosity), I asked him if he rued Nadal coming up with him, and stealing so many titles.
“No!” He said with an incredulous look, “You could halve the titles I’ll end up with if you take away Rafa and Novak. They make me better. I have to be better to stay on top.”
So while we all cry our way through Federer: Twelve Final Days, let’s note what greatness can come from competition, and let’s not shed any tears for the tomb raiders.