In this final round table discussion, my Quill & Pad colleagues and I discuss the virtual evening of November 12, 2020 and what we thought of the big night’s winners. Our panel consists of:
Elizabeth Doerr (ED), co-founder and editor-in-chief
Ian Skellern (IS), co-founder and technical director
Joshua Munchow (JM), resident nerd writer
GaryG (GG), resident collector
Martin Green (MG), resident gentleman
ED: Before we dive into this, I think it’s important to stress the fundamental changes to the way the GPHG voting occurred in 2020, which started with the creation of a diverse Academy of contributors who performed the first “screening” to arrive at the six “nominated” watches in each category, the merits of which we discussed here in our round tables at length.
Then the categories went on to be voted on by a nuclear jury of 30 members. In that final round of voting the Academy also voted again, the sum total of which was equal to three votes in the final round – which made for a total of 33 individual votes.
Due to the COVID-19 situation with its dire travel and event restrictions this fall, the entire in-person jury was chosen from within Switzerland, which made it possible to have an event at all. However, it also meant that its diversity and outlook was also drastically reduced. Only six of those 30 had previously been on the jury at any point, including jury head Aurel Bacs and vice-head Gianfranco Ritschel.
The results of the big night speak to a very Swiss-minded jury cognizant of the politics, inner details, and motors that keep the watch industry running.
JM: As the event began with no real pomp and circumstance, no parade of attendees, and as the nearly empty theater came into view it was clear this was going to be a different experience.
And yet one thing was still the same: the terrible translation voiceover. The translators were great, doing a very nice job of keeping up and trying to share the humor and maintain the pace. But seriously, I don’t know who I need to accost about this: when you have a translated livestream, the host needs to have his audio nearly muted otherwise it is like listening to two people vying for your attention in different languages; nobody wins.
ED: This is the first year I’ve ever watched it from home, Joshua, and, wow, now I know what you’re talking about! That was in a nutshell just awful. I flipped to the solely French transmission pretty quickly as I couldn’t understand either the English or the French on the translation channel. Also, when the host or speaker was speaking English, and the translator stopped speaking, we were rewarded with feedback and double voices. Someone obviously isn’t working the microphones correctly. I can’t believe that that occurs year after year!
JM: Aside from that recurring problem, the organizers did have some good ideas for this socially distanced award show. First, it was a great idea to have multiple podiums to keep people separated and reduce proximity due to people sharing microphones. The presenters were able to keep their distance and only the winners would come up to the podium on stage, minimizing risk, which as an American is refreshing to see.
Another good idea was to avoid the “crowd pleaser” activities like performances, lengthy joke-filled monologues, and videos designed to break up the show and entertain the crowd. With no crowd, the show was able to keep a fairly good pace and never did it feel too much like it was lagging besides perhaps during the leadup to the Special Jury prize and the Aiguille d’Or, but that was minimal compared to other years.
Overall, the show format was rather enjoyable considering the need for pretty much no one to actually attend. As someone who has never attended (and never been asked . . . cough cough . . .) it wasn’t dramatically different as a livestream viewer, but I imagine that in person it was a big shift.
ED: The biggest thing I actually enjoyed about watching from home was drinking my bubbly during the show!
JM: I’d be happy to see some of these alterations stick around moving forward as it helped streamline the show a bit, avoiding some of the typical awkwardness that accompanies jokes to international audiences.
ED: Yes, the jokes! And here’s a funny thing I noticed: the clapping, laughing, etc. was piped in. Which is not unusual right now; Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, for example, has done the same every Friday night throughout the pandemic. But during Aurel Bacs’ fantastic tribute to Antoine Simonin, at least two of the jokes managed to appear to fall flat because, I suspect, Aurel’s homage was in English and whoever was working the laugh button didn’t understand or wasn’t following. That was a shame.
But on to the watches!
GG: Well, either I really needed to see more of those watches in person or my tastes are quite different from those of this year’s GPHG jurors because, unless I counted incorrectly, I think I only picked two of the 14 category winners correctly this time around – although in the cases of the Petermann Bédat and Parmigiani two of my category picks were elevated to wins in the “bigger” prizes.
Heck, there were three winners that weren’t even in my initial six picks in the first round!
ED: I have tallied up our correct predictions at the end of this post, Gary. I hate to say it, but you and I fared the worst of all our colleagues!
IS: I did not see nor handle most of the finalist watches in the 2020 GPHG, and I’m well aware just how important/essential that is. So I was fully expecting the jury to select a few winners that I didn’t pick. So far so normal. However, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the jury was much smaller and much more homogenous than usual (all Swiss-based), and I was surprised what a difference that made.
It’s not the GPHG organizers’ fault that the makeup of the jury had to be so restricted this year, as Elizabeth explained at the outset, but I strongly feel that if the event is to reclaim some of the credibility lost in the 2020 laureate selection – and the event certainly lost credibility in my eyes – then I think that the GPHG committee should publish a few clear guidelines as to what the jury should take into account in the judging. It feels like you would be better served reading tea leaves to divine the best watches in each category.
Here are a few things I’d like the organizing committee to clarify so that there is more transparency in the judging:
1. Should retail price be taken into account or not? It’s far easier to make an expensive superlative watch than a cheaper one, but do we always want the most expensive watches to win?2. Should previous wins be taken into account? If basically the same watch has already won a prize in a previous year, should that count against it? Or should every year be treated as an isolated case? If the latter, I expect we will see different-colored Tudor Black Bays winning prizes for years to come.
3. Should the category title be taken into account or just the rules? Or neither once a watch has been nominated? I’m curious how the least complicated watch – Greubel Forsey’s Hand Made 1 – won the Men’s Complication prize. It’s a fantastic watch (I thought it best of show), but complicated?
4. Are tourbillons complications or not? Technically a complication drives an indication, and a tourbillon is a type of escapement rather than a complication. I’m no stickler for that interpretation, but I think that it’s crazy that so many relatively simple watches with tourbillons were bumped out of the Men’s and Ladies’ categories into the Complication categories. I suggest either allowing tourbillons in the Men’s and Ladies’ categories or making a separate category.
5. Should quartz and/or smartwatches be separate categories?
6. The GPHG should share highlights from the jury’s decisions in picking a winner. They are judging watches not a murder trial and there’s no reason the public shouldn’t be informed how/why the jury comes to their decisions. They could even take a leaf from the U.S. Supreme Court and have two jury members respectively write a short majority opinion and, if not unanimous, a dissenting opinion highlighting the strengths of the runner up. It appears to me that the jury ignored the category title and category rules as a to guide judging and simply picked their favorites of the six nominated watches according to any criteria they felt like. If so, I’ve no problem with that. But the GPHG should make that clear.
My biggest disappointments were the lack of recognition for the Armin Strom Minute Repeater Resonance, Bernhard Lederer Central Impulse Chronometer (although I think Lederer should have entered the much better-looking full-dial version), and De Bethune DB28XP Starry Sky (although I think that De Bethune should have entered the more sedate De Bethune DB28XP instead), and the Ming 18.01 H41 diver’s watch.
ED: Yes, once again Armin Strom went home empty handed. Just unbelievable to me that a brand introduces a reliably working, mainstream resonance watch and not once takes home a prize for it in any variation despite entering very new editions of it since 2015. Good on Armin Strom for continuing to peck away at it by continuing to enter the GPHG – that’s a good way to build brand recognition. As Karl-Friedrich Scheufele said in accepting the 2017 Aiguille d’Or for the L.U.C Full Strike Minute Repeater, sometimes it just takes a bit longer until the breakthrough.
IS: My three biggest “what on earth was the jury thinking?” moments went to Breitling (Diver’s and Petite Aiguille) and Charles Girardier (Ladies’ Complication).
JM: There were 18 total watches that won prizes, but eight of those watches (45 percent) were represented by just four brands. I can understand one brand getting lucky and hitting two categories on the same year; it’s not unheard of. But four brands getting double prizes shows a lack of variety and perspective in my opinion. I know there is a lot of subjectivity here, but there were many, MANY fantastic watches that got no prizes, many brands that went home empty handed. But Breitling double dipped? Maybe it shows my bias for variety, creativity, and fresh ideas, but this was a tish pathetic.
In 2019 Audemars Piguet triple dipped, coincidentally the same year it got absolutely dragged for the controversial launch and subsequent PR debacle with the Code 11.59. Continuing that trend really makes me feel like we need to make it official: #GPHGSoWhite #GPHGSoPolitical.
And with that I probably seal my fate of never being asked to join the Academy or to judge – or even attend the show. I’m not saying I, or we at Quill & Pad, are the arbiters of quality or value, but given that we usually predict 60-90 percent of the winners between us, and this year we missed on so many, does make me question things. But I don’t want to sound like a sore loser asking for a recount of the votes, so I’ll just say I was surprised this year.
MG: I felt that this year’s edition had its ups and downs. I found it hard in some cases to follow the reasoning of the jury, and I think that further fine-tuning of the concept is in need for the GPHG to reach its full potential.
ED: And on to the individual categories.
Ladies: Bovet Miss Audrey
JM: This is a great watch from a great brand. I didn’t guess it would take the crown, but I also knew it would be in the running given its simplicity and beauty. I always love when Bovet gets recognized and even if I liked others perhaps more this is definitely a fantastic piece.
MG: There were no unworthy watches in this category, yet I am happy to see that the Bovet won. It is a stunning watch, classic yet imaginative both design and execution. In terms of sophistication, the best of the bunch says a lot as the competition was intense.
IS: I picked the Bovet 1822 Miss Audrey as my close runner up in the Ladies’ category and think it an unsurprising and well-deserved winner here.
ED: This vibrant green Miss Audrey was also my pre-event runner up, Ian, and I find it a sheer delight. If the others voted for this, then I am happy to acknowledge the justified tiara on its head.
See how our panel voted in Our Predictions In The Ladies Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): A Sprinkling Of Jewels, A Mismatched Date, And The Ever-Raging Debate On Quartz
Further reading:
Bovet Amadéo Fleurier 36 Miss Audrey: The World’s Most Versatile Ladies’ Watch, And One Of The Prettiest
Give Me Five! From The 2015 Bovet Collection
Ladies Complication: Charles Girardier Tourbillon Signature Mystérieuse Fleur de Sel
GG: In a stunning victory for lovers of “thingies” everywhere, the triumph of the Charles Girardier Tourbillon Signature Mystérieuse. I’d have bet more readily on Donald Trump winning California than on the Girardier at the GPHG, but it just goes to show you how wrong one can be!
MG: I am a bit surprised that the Girardier managed to come out on top over the world’s smallest tourbillon (Bulgari), one of the world’s slimmest tourbillons (Piaget), and one of the most over-the-top tourbillons (Jacob & Co). I know that it is a matter of the way the weighted voting falls, but in cases like this I am also very curious about the motivations of the votes.
IS: The Charles Girardier Tourbillon Signature Mystérieuse Fleur de Sel is without doubt a very pretty watch. But how a tourbillon and rotating disk earned it best Ladies Complication is beyond me. Especially compared with what I feel were hands down more worthwhile winners. I’d love to know what swung the jury in this category.
ED: So would I. I was thinking about this long into the night afterward . . .was it the diamonds on the tourbillon cage? Was it the beautiful paillonée enamel dial? As pretty as these elements are, this watch is still a relative unknown.
Meanwhile, however, we here at Quill & Pad know a little more about it as one of our old industry friends sent us an email after we published the Ladies Complication round table. The watch seems to be known in Switzerland – there’s that advantage of the Swiss jury again! – with a television station even having broadcast something about the watch back in August.
Unfortunately, since none of us live in Switzerland anymore, we have not been privy to the communication. So I am quite sure if we had had the chance to handle this watch in person, we may have come away with a different opinion than we do now – or did in October when we wrote the round table.
JM: It’s a nice watch; it has more than just a tourbillon, even if it’s not a complication and instead just a doodad of sorts. But by this time in the awards show, I had not picked a single winner. Every year I usually pick 50-65 percent of the winners; at this point it became clear that something was definitely not going my way.
See how our predictions went in Our Predictions In The Ladies Complication Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Is A Tourbillon Complicated Enough?
Men’s: Kari Voutilainen 28SC
ED: Kari won this category last year too – when will his streak ever end!?!? (laughs)
JM: Surprising yet very well deserved! I didn’t choose it but simply because I always wonder whether the jury will discount brands that win often but it is a dang good men’s watch and hard to argue with! But since it won this category last year (I really would have wagered the jury specifically trying to avoid a back to back win) it now becomes Kari Voutilainen’s obligation to try and threepeat by making the best Men’s watch of 2021. Can he do it? It would be unprecedented and would mean he has dominated both the Men’s and Artistic Crafts categories.
GG: We’ll never know how the original voting in the categories from which the evening’s big prize winners emerged originally went, but my guess is that the Voutilainen may have benefitted from the departure of the Petermann Bédat, which received the Horological Revelation prize. I’ve been a patron of Kari’s for over a dozen years and know the quality of his work even if this is “just another” Vingt-8.
MG: While the Voutilainen is most certainly a formidable watch, I am surprised that it won among this set of six. For a Voutilainen, I think that the watch is a bit too understated. But if there is one thing that we have seen here, it is that the jury has voted quite conservatively as a whole. I am also happy that the Petermann Bédat won the Horological Revelation prize. I cannot wait to see more of this brand.
IS: While the Voutilainen 28SC wasn’t my top pick here, it’s a great choice and I wasn’t surprised. Kari Voutilainen has won so many GPHG prizes now that he should have his own category.
See how well we predicted (or didn’t) in Our Predictions In The Men’s Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): All 6 Are Potential Winners But Our Panelists Ruthlessly Whittle Them Down
Men’s Complication: Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1
MG: I am not going to repeat my argument that this category has been given the wrong name and just applaud the winner. The Hand Made 1 is a watch that gives me goosebumps, a superlative watch, one that pushes the envelope even at Greubel Forsey, and that is saying a lot!
IS: I thought that the Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1 was so good that it was the top contender for Aiguille d’Or. But displaying just hours, minutes, and seconds, how one of the least complicated watches out of the six finalists took the prize for best Men’s Complication is beyond me. Aside from its tourbillon escapement, it qualified in the Men’s category. Hand Made 1 certainly deserved a prize, but best complication? That’s another head-scratcher for me too, Martin.
GG: A particularly well-deserved win in my view went to this piece, which I additionally picked for the Aiguille d’Or.
JM: Utterly fantastic watch. Not a complication but, hey, 2020 doesn’t mean anything so why should categories have any meaning too? This watch may have deserved the Aiguille d’Or, but I was already a bit disappointed with the choices in this category from the start so I shouldn’t really beat the dead horse that is the term “complication.” Still, super happy for Greubel Forsey as this watch is magnificent.
ED: Aside from the superlative watch itself, I love that Stephen Forsey brought David Bernard on stage with him to accept the prize as the head of the department in charge of the Hand Made 1. You don’t see a CEO or company owner sharing the spotlight very often, and that speaks volumes to the quality of Forsey’s character.
See how everyone did with their predictions (and listen to us gripe about the use of the word “complication” here) in Our Predictions In The Men’s Complication Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Is A Tourbillon A Complication? Part Deux
Further reading:
Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1: Hands Breathing Life Into Metal
Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1: Making A Watch The Traditional Way (Video)
Iconic: Bulgari Aluminium Chronograph
JM: This is an odd category in general to judge but this win does make sense. The aesthetic of this watch is pretty iconic from the brand: even if the exact watch isn’t as long running a model as some of the others, the style has been around for a while. I knew this category could go a lot of ways and while it seems I am drastically wrong on many of the winners, this does follow for the category.
GG: In the “what were they thinking” classification, I’ll note anything other than the IWC Portugieser in the Iconic category . . .
MG: The win for the Bulgari Aluminium strikes me as quite convenient for the brand as it just relaunched this watch. I’m guessing the majority of the jury was in its early thirties in the 1990s, perhaps rocking the original model and felt nostalgic. For what it is, it is a great watch. But when you talk about icons, I think that the other five watches in the category bring a bit more pedigree to the table.
IS: Nice watch, but the most lasting influence on watchmaking and its history? This just reinforces my view that the Iconic category should be dropped. It’s just a way to give prizes to big brands.
See how our predictions went in Our Predictions In The Iconic Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Another Head-Scratcher For Our Panelists But There’s A Clear Favorite
Further reading: New Bulgari Aluminium Watches For 2020: The Past As A Roadmap To The Future
Calendar and Astronomy: Vacheron Constantin Overseas QP Ultra Thin Skeleton
MG: I guess the jury went for gold! While I still like my Overseas Perpetual with a full dial, I can understand this choice: this configuration was too good to pass up for many jurors. On the wrist, the watch feels very good and solid yet also pleasantly comfortable thanks to its slim profile. One thing I do wonder is if the jury also took into consideration that this watch comes with additional straps in the quick-change system? If so, it might have been the secret weapon.
JM: In a category focusing on calendars and astronomy, an ultra-thin perpetual calendar skeleton from one of the big three is going to be hard to beat unless you’ve brought your A game. The competition was decent for this prize, and I could definitely have seen it go another way, but I’m happy I predicted what the jury would end up going with.
GG: The combination of the Vacheron Overseas case, Caliber 1120 base movement, and skeletonization checks a lot of boxes for me. It may, however, have benefitted here with the departure of the Parmigiani Hijri piece to receive the Innovation prize.
ED: That is a good question, Gary. Although most in our panel chose the Sarpaneva during the round table discussion, in most cases this Vacheron Constantin was our collective runner up. I would have liked to have seen the Sarpaneva honored for its extreme creativity if I’m honest, but I will admit to having been torn about feeling that way as this Overseas Perpetual Calendar is simply one stunning piece of horology. Having seen it in the metal only reinforced that feeling for me. A well-deserved winner.
IS: In my GPHG prediction for this category I wrote of the Vacheron Constantin Overseas Perpetual Calendar Ultra-Thin Skeleton, “This is the both the most artistic and the most technical looking of the three classic perpetual calendars here, but I’m looking for more innovation from the winner.” I didn’t pick it but it’s a stunning watch and I can see its attraction to the jury.
See how everyone did with their predictions in Our Predictions In The Calendar And Astronomy Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): We See A Good Moon A-Rising
Further reading: Vacheron Constantin Overseas Ultra-Thin Perpetual Calendar Skeleton (Video)
Chronograph: H. Moser & Cie Streamliner Flyback Chrono
JM: Another winner I picked! It’s also one that I would fight for, super happy to see such a cool watch win and one that has the incredible AgenGraphe inside. I definitely think it deserves the title this year. Glad to see the jury isn’t entirely unreasonable as this piece stands strongly against the other chronographs this year.
MG: I think that the best chronograph won. This H. Moser does so many things so well and is original in its approach. To me, a better choice could hardly have been made,
IS: The Moser Streamliner Flyback Chronograph Automatic was my hands-down pick to win this category. Another good call from the jury.
ED: While this watch perhaps wasn’t my pick as winner here, I commend the jury for choosing this excellent chronograph. No complaints from me.
I must also mention something H. Moser & Cie CEO Édouard Meylan said while accepting this award. He called out his case supplier, Guillod Gunther, who produced the Streamliner’s funky stainless steel housing. “It’s an amazing team and they did a great job,” Meylan said. “Unfortunately, they must close down due to the COVID-19 situation. While many would have just shut down, leaving us standing, they worked with us to organize the transition to a new supplier so that we in the end we were not affected.”
Meylan told me afterward that he wanted to thank them and acknowledge that without suppliers (like that) there wouldn’t be brands like Moser. He also thanked Jean-Marc Wiederrecht and Agenhor for the superb caliber. I find that commendable on all parts.
GG: No complaints about the Moser win here, although the AgenGraphe-based Streamliner isn’t to my personal taste aesthetically (and I preferred the Atelier de Chronométrie and Parmigiani pieces overall in this category in any case).
See our predictions in Our Predictions In The Chronograph Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Limited Editions Rule The Roost
Further reading:
Moser & Cie. Streamliner Flyback Chronograph Automatic With Full Metal Bracelet: Inspiring Amnemori!
The AgenGraphe By Agenhor: The Most Significant Chronograph Since . . . Since The Invention Of The Chronograph (With Videos)
Chronometry: Ferdinand Berthoud 2RE.2
ED: Ferdinand Berthoud was the winner in this category last year as well – I wonder if this is also the beginning of a streak for the boutique brand residing within the Chopard organization?
IS: The Chronométrie Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE.2 was a hands-down winner for me in this category and I thought it had a good chance at the Aiguille d’Or.
GG: A well-deserved win!
JM: Clear winner, super excited that it won! But I also chose it for the Aiguille d’Or so a bit sad it won’t win for that one, but I can’t argue in any way that another watch was more deserving to win the Chronometry prize. This is a true grail watch and it deserves every ounce of accolades it receives. Given just the chronometric results it should win, but the style and craft are also second to none in the category.
MG: A very well-deserved win for Ferdinand Berthoud. The competition was tough in this category, but given the technical setup of this watch, round case, and extremely high finishing grade, I think you can hardly do better. Without the Berthoud in the mix, I believe that the jury would have had a much more difficult task as calling a runner up might have been nearly impossible.
How did our predictions go in this category? See them here: Our Predictions In The Chronometry Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Our Panel Is United, But Not Unanimous
Further reading:
Ferdinand Berthoud Chronomètre FB 2RE: Change Is Round
Who Was Ferdinand Berthoud And Why Should We Care?
Mechanical Exception: Bovet Récital 26 Brainstorm Chapter 2
JM: I’m torn on this category as the Récital 26 Brainstorm Chapter 2 is an incredible watch. I loved it when it came out, but it also isn’t, at least in my mind, as different and exceptional compared to its predecessors as the other watches in this category. Out of the six watches, five were, by most definitions, kind of groundbreaking for what they were.
Brainstorm Chapter 2 was amazing yet was definitely just a rearrangement of things Bovet had done in other pieces, taking a bit of the edge off. All the other entries could claim world records or world firsts, so I do feel that this was a missed category in my mind. Luckily one of the pieces went on to win the Aiguille d’Or so at least one was recognized.
GG: Did the Bovet benefit from the Piaget being lifted to the Aiguille d’Or? We’ll never know. But having handled the Bovet, I can say that it’s an impressive piece of kit.
IS: While I didn’t pick the Bovet Brainstorm Chapter 2, I did write that, “It is one of the best-looking watches here and I would not be at all surprised if it was a favorite for many.” Another well-deserved winner.
MG: Another well-deserved win for Bovet despite very, very heavy competition. This almost felt like one category in which the jury couldn’t pick wrong. The Jacob & Co and Ressence might have been more progressive choices, but I think that in the end the jury may have just tallied up the number of complications. And that’s where you could not beat the Bovet, which also has a sapphire crystal case and astonishingly well finished parts.
See how everyone did with their predictions in Our Predictions In The Mechanical Exception Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Exceptional Circumstances Split Down The Middle
Further reading: Bovet Récital 26 Brainstorm Chapter Two: It’s Mind Blowing! (Live Photos)
Diver’s Watch: Breitling Superocean Automatic
IS: WTF! While I picked the Ming 18.01 H41 to win here, I can fully understand that would have been a left field choice as it is an atypical dive watch. But if the jury was looking for a more traditional dive watch, what on earth does the Breitling Superocean Automatic 48 Boutique Edition have over the Grand Seiko, which is smaller/more wearable, has four days’ longer power reserve, and double the water resistance?
JM: I mean, okay, it is a pretty great watch, I just can’t say I thought it was the best. But based on how the awards had been going up until this point it really wasn’t a shock, even if I disagree. I had this watch in the middle of my pack so it wasn’t wholly unsurprising. But especially since Breitling won the Petite Aiguille I would have figured the jury would try to spread the love but I guess there is no reason other brands have to win.
GG: The two categories I know least about (Jewellery and Diver’s) went very much against my assessments, but I don’t think the all-Swiss jury comprised mostly of industry insiders was ever going to go for the Ming or the Grand Seiko.
ED: Sadly, Gary, I must concur. And as if to prove the point: not one non-Swiss watch was chosen among the 19 winners (though, truthfully, practically all the watches among the nominated have some Swiss in them somewhere, just perhaps not in conception or name).
MG: Some might disagree with me, but the win for Breitling makes sense to me. If you are looking for a rugged, functional, straightforward diver’s watch to actually go diving with, this Breitling is your watch. I personally prefer the Grand Seiko, but although the price isn’t supposed to be a consideration during voting, it might have very well influenced a juror or two.
ED: Thank you for bringing that up, Martin. That may clear up some questions for desk or non-divers.
See how everyone did predicting this category in Our Predictions In The Divers Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): We Have An Unexpected Favorite
Jewellery: Van Cleef & Arpels Frivole Secrète
IS: I didn’t pick the Van Cleef & Arpels Frivole Secrète but thought it the prettiest of the nominated watches. Good call, well-deserving winner.
JM: This is a lovely watch but feels like it fell way short for the category. The lack of stone variety, cut variety, complicated settings, and overall aesthetic just felt like this watch could have fit in the Ladies’ category better. Obviously, the jury disagreed so I guess we will have to agree to disagree. It fits the theme of this year.
GG: It may well be that the relatively speaking plain-looking Van Cleef & Arpels Frivole Secrète was much more impressive in person than in photos.
ED: It must have been, Gary!
I had also called out the fact that this watch had the least number of gemstones in our original round table. I would have been very curious to see this one in the metal if it made such an impression!
And speaking of impressions: I was slightly disenchanted with the Dior in this category in my round table comments, but when the award came up and the official video of the watch was shown on screen it actually ended up taking my breath away. In the metal, from what I could see, this is a work of art. But the renderings the company submitted are so lifeless. And nowhere in the submitted description text did it say that the wings of the bee dominating the dial move! How enchanting that is . . . I can only hope Dior submits better information and visual aids from here on out. That might well have made a big difference in how the commentary – and possibly – the voting went.
MG: I guess the jury didn’t like gemstones and went for the watch that had the least of them! This category should celebrate jewelry techniques as an art, and despite it being a very nice watch the Van Cleef & Arpels a bit light in that category. I still think that the Jacob & Co should have won as it is out of this world. By the way, I can imagine that Jacob is not very happy as his brand had four nominations but not a single win. I find this also quite surprising as in my opinion its watches were strong competitors in each of the categories they participated in.
See what our team predicted in Our Predictions In The Jewellery Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Our Panelists Are Split For A Winner (Again)
Artistic Crafts: Van Cleef & Arpels Soleil Féerique
JM: Finally! I was worried I wasn’t going to pick a single winner this year, so I was happy to see my choice get recognized. This watch was a very interesting and vivid one in the Artistic Crafts category, it stood out to me for its variety and it seems the jury agreed. Maybe they can’t be all bad.
ED: One of my two correct picks as well, Joshua! Whoo hoo!
IS: The Van Cleef & Arpels Soleil Féerique was my runner up pick for best Artistic Crafts, so again a good call from the jury in my opinion.
MG: A category with a lot of worthy pieces in it, and the Van Cleef & Arpels is most certainly one of them. I think that the mixed-methods approach was perhaps the clincher.
See the team’s forecasts in Our Predictions In The Artistic Crafts Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): 6 Watches, 5 Panelists, And 3 Picks For Winner
Petite Aiguille: Breitling Superocean Heritage ’57 Limited Edition II
ED: I’d like to say WTF for this category, but I do find this choice to not be so far out of the ballpark, especially for an all-Swiss jury whose eyes may (unfortunately) gloss over Austrian or Finnish watches a bit too quickly. This is personally my favorite Breitling to come out this year, so I understand if people are taken with it. I thought the Habring2 Chrono-Felix Panda was the biggest bang for the buck in this category, though, which was created to be specifically about price.
GG: The Sarpeneva x Moomin that I picked may have been too offbeat for the jury. And in any case the winning Breitling Superocean Heritage’57 Limited Edition II is both a delightful watch and made by a big Swiss manufacturer rather than a Finnish artisan, so its victory shouldn’t come as any surprise.
JM: Besides the fact that it didn’t make even make my top three, I had moral qualms about this watch as well, which I expressed in the Petite Aiguille round table. It’s a great watch but like with the Challenge category, I definitely felt there were many better options that should have probably dismissed the Superocean Heritage.
IS: While I’m not keen on luxury watches being marketed as worthy causes either, Joshua, the colorful Breitling Superocean Heritage ’57 Limited Edition II shouts FUN! Any watch that puts a smile on my face is a winner for me. While it wasn’t my pick, I expected it to be a strong contender and can understand its appeal to the jury.
MG: I don’t understand this choice. Perhaps free packs of Skittles were given to the jury before making their choices so that they could “taste the rainbow”? The Breitling is most certainly fun, but the Sarpaneva is more fun. I just don’t get that. The Trilobe is more eccentric, too, and if a juror was looking purely for horological qualities I don’t understand how he or she could pass up the Habring2 Chrono-Felix Panda.
See how we did guessing which way the jury would go in Our Predictions In The Petite Aiguille Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Comic Figures, Legibility Issues, Skeletonization, And An In-House Monopusher
Further reading: Breitling Vintage-Inspired AVI Ref. 765 1953 Re-Edition, Superocean Heritage ’57 Limited Edition II, and Chronomat B01 42 Bentley: Do They Hit The Mark?
Challenge: Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight
IS: The Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight was my runner up pick for best Challenge watch, and I think it the best nominated watch in the category so I’m fully behind the jury’s choice here. I marked it down because I felt that as the Black Bay Bronze (and Black Bay Chrono) had already won the Petite Aiguille prize in 2016, and the Black Bay P01 won the Challenge prize in 2019, that enough was enough. However, that was a bit unfair as the Black Bay Fifty-Eight is a different watch with a more wearable case diameter of 39 mm compared to 42 mm of the other Tudor laureates, so again I think the jury made a good call here.
MG: Maybe they should now rename this category the “Black Bay prize”! Just last year the Black Bay P01 won. Again, a very conservative choice by the jury that I have trouble understanding. While a great timepiece, it is a bread-and-butter-watch. Among the competition, there were quite a few more exotic treats that I think should have won.
GG: Somewhere in the GPHG bylaws it must state, “Tudor must win a prize every year”!
IS: Gary, I’d change that to, “Kari Voutilainen and Tudor must win a prize every year.”
JM: Pfft. Please. Do something new. But I guess if you continue to win prizes for the same thing, year after year, why change. No need for creativity, just make one good watch and then coast for a decade. I guess since Rolex doesn’t enter, the industry still needs to find a way to coddle the king. It is a pretty good watch, but it’s done, it’s stale, let’s move on. I just can’t imagine voting for the Black Bay again when you have new and exciting options. This is a category where I literally want to tell the entire jury that they need to take off their blinders and get with the times. The Black Bay shouldn’t win every dang year, it’s not THAT awesome.
See how everyone did with their predictions in Our Predictions In The Challenge Category Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): Very Interesting Finalists With (Relatively) Affordable Pricing
Horological Revelation: Petermann Bédat Dead Beat Second
IS: I’ve no beef with the jury here. While I predicted the Petermann Bédat Dead Beat Second to win (I called it a tie) the Men’s category, I also thought that if it was passed over there then it would be hard to beat for the Horological Revelation prize.
JM: I was unsure that this watch would or could win in the Men’s category, but I full well knew it was another fantastic piece from a brand-new brand spearheaded by two talented, young watchmakers. It’s great to see it honored, and with an open category like the Horological Revelation, this could have gone to many other pieces as well (a great group of watches by young brands this year all around). This should be a great boost for the fledgling brand as it grows.
GG: I was quite happy about the Petermann Bédat Revelation Prize win, especially as Florian Bédat was kind enough to give me a shoutout from the stage during his victory speech for my (incredibly) small role in reacting to their original design and my supportive comments on their watch over the past months. Thanks, guys, and I’m looking forward to where you go from here!
ED: Nice choice! I look forward to getting to know this young brand better.
MG: Very well-deserved win by Petermann Bédat. I thought that this piece entered in the wrong category (a thought that I had with various watches this year, though) but I am delighted to see that some honor was bestowed upon it as they most certainly deserved some. It is a very promising brand, and I am curious to learn what will be next from them.
Further reading: Petermann Bédat Seconde Morte: Dead Seconds, Independently (Video)
Innovation Prize: Parmigiani Hijri Perpetual Calendar
GG: A particularly well-deserved win in my view with its Agenhor-developed movement.
JM: The Hijri Perpetual Calendar is a feat of horology, so to take the innovation prize does make a lot of sense. There were at least half a dozen other pieces that could have easily taken the prize as well based on their own incredible innovations, so this demonstrates how awesome the variable Hijri calendar is as an engineering problem.
IS: While I didn’t think that the Parmigiani Fleurier Hijri Perpetual Calendar was a strong contender for the Innovation prize, GaryG did so there must have been something there that he saw and I either missed or dismissed.
MG: The way that the decisions are made regarding the discretionary prizes are still a bit foggy to me. Nevertheless, the Parmigiani is well-deserving of the Innovation prize as it definitely brings something new and exciting to the table. To me this watch is a bit like the tide-indicators from Corum, I have absolutely no need for them, but find them so cool!
ED: It is an arbitrary prize discussed and decided upon in the jury room, Martin. It may or may not be given out. And the process is exactly the same as for the Aiguille d’Or. No real mystery. Good call this year, by the way, I like this choice, though I do think that the Ressence Type 2A would have also fit well here.
I must also mention the speech given by Parmigiani CEO Davide Traxler, who first of all thanked freelance designer and consultant Stefano Macaluso – son of the deceased Gino Macaluso, previous owner of Girard-Perregaux – “who was behind the bridges.”
I was also pleasantly surprised by another part of Traxler’s speech, which (translated for me by Parmigiani) reads like this:
“At Parmigiani Fleurier we stand strong in our belief in solidarity, in the power of community, in being inspired by the work of greats who have come before us, in inspiring future generations, and sharing the gifts of watchmaking with industry colleagues and those around the globe who appreciate the artistry of our work. The international community of watch admirers and devotees is a motley of cultures and traditions; we celebrate this diversity in our own way with the Hijri Perpetual Calendar, and we hope that – as an industry and as citizens of the world – we will also embrace it in the people we choose to represent and lead us.”
He didn’t say anything political, but he certainly did provide us with a clear and hopeful attitude that I much appreciated.
Audacity Prize: H. Moser & Cie x MB&F Endeavour Cylindrical Tourbillon
IS: The H. Moser & Cie x MB&F Endeavour Cylindrical Tourbillon was entered into the Chronometry category, where I thought that it was the best-looking watch but not the best chronometry watch. I love it, but in what parallel universe can a jury think it more audacious than the MB&F HM10 Bulldog or Jacob & Co Bugatti Chiron Tourbillon?
MG: While I very much like what Moser and MB&F did, to say that it is the best watch featuring a non-conformist, offbeat approach to watchmaking might be a bridge too far. Or to be more specific, I believe other watches do it better. Basically, this watch is a DNA-mix of Moser and MB&F, which is what MB&F does all the time. In my opinion, the E-Crown from the Ressence Type 2A fits this profile slightly better.
ED: I wanted to mention the same thing, Martin! That said, I am pleased for the recognition for these two independent brands who courageously collaborated and released this watch at the height of the first COVID-19 wave.
GG: I would have preferred to see the Sarpaneva x Moomin for Audacity – but the latter is an amorphous enough category that the winning H. Moser x MB&F seems quite a fair choice (and is also a beautiful watch).
JM: Audacity could mean so many things to different people, so this is always a hard category to know what to expect. Since it is also an open category, the jury could define just what they are looking for but we will never know, so I am constantly surprised to see what they valued in judging this category. The Endeavour Cylindrical Tourbillon H. Moser x MB&F is an awesome and beautiful watch and I have no reason to doubt it deserves recognition.
In a strange way, though, I just imagine MB&F cheering for H. Moser (since they were technically half winners with Moser) and slowly realizing that they made a similar watch, one with a world record in it, and yet went unrecognized. This is like that awkward moment in a meeting when you share an idea and nobody says anything, and the person you came up with the idea with mentions it again later, only slightly different, and everybody suddenly says “Wow, great idea, Brad!” And you are left sitting there knowing that your idea got picked, but Brad got the recognition, and that feeling just hits different.
Further reading: Hands On & Live Photos: MB&F x H. Moser LM101 And H. Moser x MB&F Endeavour Cylindrical Tourbillon
Special Jury Prize: Antoine Simonin
ED: This prize was surely a long time coming already. In fact, last year when Gary and I were on the jury still the subject of nominating him came up yet again, but to most of us it really seemed like Luc Pettavino’s year for Only Watch – and naturally it would have also been very awkward to nominate someone from within the jury’s own ranks. So I’m not really 100 percent surprised about this incredibly well-deserved award coming to pass in 2020 now that Antoine is no longer part of the jury. In fact, I’m tickled pink that members of the jury who may have been returning from past years remembered those discussions and thought to act on them this year.
GG: The Special Jury Prize to Antoine Simonin was another in a string of great choices for this award over the past several years. Having served on the jury with him in 2018 and 2019 gave me just a glimpse of the depth of his knowledge and wisdom, and as always jury chief Aurel Bacs did a splendid job of making the presentation both grand and personal.
ED: I am so in love with the way Aurel presents the Special Jury Prize, Gary! So much style, panache, and passion! Even if one or two of the jokes managed to seem to fall flat because Aurel very rightly gave him the homage in English and I suspect whoever was working the laugh button didn’t understand. I adored the very personal story of how they met. This was my favorite prize given that night. I love to see true pioneers in our field honored in this way.
JM: The Special Jury Prize is one of those where they are right to honor industry members who have left a lasting impact across the industry as a whole, and judging by the stories shared about Antoine Simonin, he definitely deserves recognition for a lifetime of work dedicated to horology.
IS: Great recognition for Antoine Simonin, who has contributed an incredible amount over his lifetime in the service of fine watchmaking.
Further reading: Dr. Rebecca Struthers has written a small op-ed on Antoine Simonin, which is well worth a quick read.
Aiguille d’Or: Piaget Altiplano Ultimate Concept
JM: I was surprised that this watch that won the Aiguille d’Or, not because it isn’t deserving (I pointed out that I thought it was one of the best of the year in my predictions), but because it kind of breaks the mold of the more traditional or conservative Aiguille d’Or winners. It is a behemoth while being only 2 mm thick. Achieving a world record for thinness is difficult, and I am fairly confident that this one may stand for a while simply because it is a very difficult thing to do while being a niche market segment. Most people don’t want wafer thin mechanical watches because they want to feel the connection to the machine, and a machine should have heft or at the very least, substantive presence.
But the amount of engineering that went into this piece needed recognition and I am so happy it found some with the Aiguille d’Or. Two years ago most didn’t believe the watch would ever see the light of day after the original concept watch, but taking it to production was, in my mind, what likely sealed the deal for this watch becoming the watch of the year for the GPHG.
IS: I have tip my hat to Martin Green for calling this correctly as while I thought the Piaget Altiplano Ultimate Concept had a shot at the Innovation prize, I couldn’t see it beating either the Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1 or the Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE. This may well have been a watch that looked much more impressive in the metal, and while not my pick for the Aiguille d’Or it is an incredible watch and worthy winner.
MG: Last year, in 2019, when the ultra-thin Bulgari Octo Finissimo Chronograph GMT took home the prize in the Chronograph category while the Aiguille d’Or went to the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Self-Winding Perpetual Calendar Ultra-Thin, I mentioned that the ball was now in Piaget’s court to come with a proper response, and did the brand ever do just that! A very well-deserved win with the Altiplano Ultimate Concept!
ED: I have to say that it was really nice to see some female energy on the stage to accept the Aiguille d’Or! If I’m not mistaken, this was a first; CEO Chabi Nouri thought to speak very unifying words out to the whole industry and in such an emotional way. It was a breath of fresh of air, ending with, “Let’s all keep dreaming, creating, and inspiring for our industry.” Bravo!
See our predictions for this category in Our Predictions For The Aiguille d’Or (Grand Prize) Of The 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG): And We Think It’s Down To Two Watches (Or Possibly Three)
Further reading:
Piaget Altiplano Ultimate Concept, The World’s Thinnest Watch: Shaving Microns To Make Millionths
Top 10 Thinnest Mechanical Wristwatches: 8 Modern Record Holders And Their 2 Historic Rivals
Quick Facts Piaget Altiplano Ultimate Concept
Case: 41 x 2 mm, cobalt alloy, sapphire crystal 0.2 mm in height, flat telescopic crown
Movement: ultra-thin manual-wind Caliber 900P-UC, 28,800 vph/4 Hz frequency, 40-hour power reserve
Functions: hours, minutes
Limitation: 3 per year, by special order only, only available through Piaget boutiques
Price: 410,000 Swiss francs
Video highlights of the 2020 Grand Prix d’Horlogerie de Genève
GG: So much for 2020! I’m looking forward to the 2021 version of the GPHG in hopes that we will have a return to the traditional flow of new watches, that more makers will choose to enter their pieces, that we will see a return to a level of public health that allows for the jury to once again take on a diverse global composition – and that all of us will have the opportunity to see and touch these wonders and discuss them with friends in person!Highlights of the
So, how did we do with our predictions?
IS: All in all, I was not very successful with my predictions. I called three correctly: Petermann Bédat Dead Beat Second (Horological Revelation), Chronométrie Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE.2 (Chronometry), and H. Moser & Cie Streamliner Flyback Chronograph Automatic (Chronograph). Plus, three of my runner-up picks won: Bovet 1822 Miss Audrey (Ladies), Van Cleef & Arpels Soleil Féerique (Artistic Crafts), and Tudor Black Bay Fifty-Eight (Challenge).
ED: For someone who’s actually been on that jury eight times (2012-2019), I ended up with a pitiful balance of only two correct predictions in Artistic Crafts and Chronometry. But the same goes for Gary, who was on the jury twice (2018-2019).
I’m going to put that down to the much-evolved nature of the large, new Academy and the smaller all-Swiss nuclear jury. There was probably just no real way to predict what would happen here – much like the year 2020 altogether.
Our correct predictions
Congratulations to Joshua and Martin with three correct predictions in the regular categories each – in particular Martin, who correctly called the evening’s grand prize!
Joshua Munchow
Calendar and Astronomy: Vacheron Constantin Overseas QP Ultra Thin Skeleton
Chronograph: H. Moser & Cie Streamliner Flyback Automatic Chronograph
Artistic Crafts: Van Cleef & Arpels Soleil Féerique
Ian Skellern
Chronograph: H. Moser & Cie Streamliner Flyback Automatic Chronograph
Chronometry: Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE
Martin Green
Chronograph: H. Moser & Cie Streamliner Flyback Automatic Chronograph
Chronometry: Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE
Aiguille d’Or: Piaget Altiplano Ultimate Concept
GaryG
Men’s Complication: Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1
Chronometry: Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE
Elizabeth Doerr
Artistic Crafts: Van Cleef & Arpels Soleil Féerique
Chronometry: Ferdinand Berthoud FB 2RE
You may also enjoy:
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
It’s nowt to do with diversity, just bad taste.
#keepRaffyawayfromthejury
I thought you all did far better than the jury. I found several of the choices perplexing and without consistent standards. To me it tarnished not only several of the prizes, but the entire value of the GPHG awards. One can justify by “democratization” of the voting process but inconsistencies, politics and superficialities cheapen awards.
Thank you, Michael. We do put a lot of thought into our arguments and choices.