Don’t look so stunned! You already knew precisely which watches would go face to face on this week’s Sunday Morning Showdown. The Vacheron Constantin Historiques 222 was in all probability the watch that was most incessantly talked about after Piaget launched its new Polo 79 this week. And it is smart. They’re each based mostly on an earlier model from the ’70s. Each watches have a so-called “built-in bracelet” design and are made out of 18K yellow gold. Even their (fully random) record costs are very related at simply over €80,000. However get your self able to vote as a result of, regardless of all of those similarities, in the present day, solely considered one of them can win.
This week, it was Thomas and Daan’s flip to select sides. Thomas has visited the Vacheron Constantin manufacture, so he feels a bit extra compassion for that model. Daan is at all times taking a look at classic Piaget gems on the boards and Chrono24, in order that’s why each knew precisely which watch to defend. However earlier than we get into this week’s battle, let’s check out what occurred final week.
Picture: Analog:Shift
The confrontation of the Tanks
It was a face-off between two tanks — Cartier Tanks, that’s. In a single nook, we had the Tank Louis Cartier, and within the different was the Tank Should SolarBeat. It was a battle between “the King of Tanks” and the trendy iteration of the Tank for the lots. One has a rose gold case and a hand-wound mechanical motion, whereas the opposite is made out of stainless-steel and is powered by daylight. From the feedback, it was clear that many individuals nonetheless thought the Tank Louis Cartier was the Tank of all Tanks. However there have been definitely additionally lots of people who appreciated the practicality of getting a solar-powered motion. After all of the votes, this match resulted in a draw! Let’s see if we’ll get such a well-balanced end result from in the present day’s battle…
Daan: Piaget Polo 79
I feel that I additionally communicate for you right here, Thomas, once I say that in the present day’s showdown is a very fictitious one for us. In actual life, we are going to in all probability by no means have to decide on between these two watches. They’re just too costly, and we are going to in all probability by no means be provided a possibility to purchase both one. Nonetheless, the watch interest is one during which one can dream. And if I had to decide on between these two watches in my dream world, I’d go for the Piaget Polo 79 right away. I imply, the VC 222 is a ravishing watch and all, however the Polo’s design is a lot extra authentic.
The 222 has a traditional built-in bracelet, and its very slim design and the 37mm case with the daring bezel on prime look magnificent. However the Polo doesn’t merely have an “built-in bracelet” design — additionally it is really a bracelet before everything. It nearly even seems to be just like the watch face was planted on prime as an afterthought.
That’s, after all, not the case, however the truth that these gadroons proceed proper by the case is a a lot bolder transfer than merely placing a notched bezel on prime of the case. After which there’s the problem I’ve with that date window on the trendy 222.
Unique on the left, reissue on the fitting
No date, please
Just like the reissue, the unique 222s from the ’70s used to have a date window at 3 o’clock. I’d have most well-liked a no-date model, however at the very least that date window was well-aligned. It began proper on the fringe of the minute observe and ended there, and you possibly can draw a straight line between the hour markers above and under it. Nevertheless, on the reimagined 222, the date window is way more towards the middle of the dial. I suppose it’s good that it has a properly executed body, at the very least. However that random place on the dial is inexcusable.
No, in that case, I a lot favor the Polo 79’s dial design with none date window by any means. It seems to be a lot cleaner and doesn’t take your consideration away from that magnificent development. There have certainly been Polo fashions up to now with day and date home windows. However even these have been properly carried out, with a date window at 12 and a day window at 6 o’clock. Every part stored the design in stability. However I definitely applaud Piaget’s determination to not characteristic a date window on the Polo 79, particularly when seeing the way it may’ve gone flawed, like on the 222’s dial.
Not like the rest
Lastly, we get to the query of what you get for that outrageous amount of cash. I feel we will all agree that each these record costs come from someplace fully out of the blue. To be sincere, if I have been to spend just a little over €80.000, I’d need my watch to not appear like another watch on the market. Though the Vacheron Constantin Historiques 222 does look fairly good, it additionally seems to be a bit extra typical.
In contrast, the Piaget Polo 79 doesn’t appear like the rest aside from its predecessor from the ’70s. It’s daring and clearly exhibits the craftsmanship that has gone into the development of that lovely case and bracelet. It’s way more of an announcement compared to the pretty modest-looking 222. And isn’t that what you need while you spend this sort of cash on a watch? All proper, Thomas, over to you. Let’s see what you’ve received.
Thomas: Vacheron Constantin Historiques 222
Thanks, Daan! Certainly, each watches are very spectacular. Each additionally, certainly, reside exterior of our universe. Nonetheless, the Vacheron Constantin Historiques 222 looks like a watch that I’d put on if I had entry to it. The Piaget Polo 79, as cool as I feel it’s, doesn’t appear like one thing I’d rock. I’m not overly occupied with evaluating calibers or specs right here. As you suggest, you aren’t paying for that with both of those watches. What you might be paying for is a giant, daring, gold assertion. So let me get into the extra related aesthetic variations that push me towards the 222.
For starters, I feel you’ll shortly get tired of the Piaget. Don’t get me flawed; it is rather cool. The problem is that your complete watch is made up of, basically, one design concept. Granted, that concept is neat and really cohesively executed, but it surely does only one factor. This makes the watch recognizable and straightforward on the attention. Sadly, it additionally renders it quite one-dimensional. You might present somebody a single sq. centimeter of this watch, they usually may draw your complete factor, completely extrapolating the remainder of the design.
The Vacheron 222, then again, is extra intricate. It strikes that uncommon stability of wanting easy whereas being deceptively complicated in its shapes. This, I really feel, will preserve you for for much longer. There may be extra to find, and it’ll develop on you over time. I agree that the date window was in a greater place earlier than, but it surely isn’t overly jarring should you don’t see the outdated and new variations aspect by aspect.
The Vacheron Constantin Historiques 222 over the Piaget Polo 79 in fashion
We may get into the nitty-gritty of design, Daan; you understand how a lot I really like to try this. The problem right here, I really feel, is greater. It’s extra a matter of an total design philosophy. What are each watches attempting to say? And what sort of message does sporting every categorical?
The Piaget, in my humble opinion, is extra jewelry-esque. You describe it as a bracelet, and I agree. Now, inform me, Daan: would you put on a 200g yellow gold bracelet? The subtleties within the 222’s design be certain that it’s, at its core, a formidable wristwatch. It’s a daring assertion watch in gold, certain. Nonetheless, it exudes Haute Horlogerie.
The Piaget Polo 79, then again, exudes trend. It’s a trend assertion greater than a horological assertion. And that, to me, makes it much less cool.
Solid your vote!
Okay, there we now have it — two literal heavyweights in yellow gold going face to face. Which is your favourite? Are you Workforce Piaget or Workforce Vacheron? Solid your vote under, and share your motivations within the feedback!
