Why do Seiko's display back movements *look* so plain?

[ck1109]

Was looking at SJX's article on the new presage chronos and as I was looking at the pics, I realized that for some odd reason, I don't find Seiko's movements to be pleasing to the eye.

Caseback in question:



Why is this? If you look beyond the gold rotor, the rest of the movement looks so.....plain.
This was quite surprising, considering the watch above is a $2k+ watch.
Looked at some other casebacks on seiya's website and this looks as finished as their ~$300 sarb series.

If you're gonna keep the back relatively unfinished and plain looking, why put a display back?

[Seriously]

Completely plain, rough, unfinished screws jump out at you for a start.

.... and what is that stamped? pared off? mark on some of the heads?

[geoffbot]

Yeah that's pretty bland. They can do good decoration so I'm not going to say it's the seiko utilitarian way, looks like laziness to me.

[Domo]

It looks like a $300 SARB because it is...The 8R chronograph is a modular design, mounted between the top plate and the dial, so all the chronography bits aren't seen. The actual driver is a 6R15, straight from a SARB. Seiko put a display back on almost everything that's not a marine master and I agree a solid one would be nice.

[crownpuller]

Granted, it hardly qualifies as aesthetically pleasing; BUT, at least you can watch the movement of the movement..... Unlike the GS quartz with a display back
Turn the rotor through 180°, and it'll look a lot nicer

[tribe125]

I don't mind plain movements on relatively affordable watches - there's an appropriate honesty about it. Fancy finishing on a low-cost, mass-produced movement can look a bit 'tarted up' to me.

And I like the fundamentalist plainness of the movement in my Rolex.

[Perseus]

I wonder what it would cost them to make the movement better looking. It reminds me of all the ugly Miyota 9015's out there. Can someone please do something with the rotor or put a solid caseback on these things? Here's a Lum-tec I used to own:

[popoki nui]

BUT, at least you can watch the movement of the movement.....
Turn the rotor through 180°, and it'll look a lot nicer

^These. I have only one display back; a Seiko 5. Very plain movement, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying the motion of the balance, and even watching the rotor swing around. Simple things for simple minds, I guess.

I don't mind plain movements on relatively affordable watches - there's an appropriate honesty about it. Fancy finishing on a low-cost, mass-produced movement can look a bit 'tarted up' to me.

^And this.

~Sherry.

[Samanator]

Most watches should never have display backs. Even when they have beautiful movements a display back on a sport watch just does not make sense. Why add another seal to a water resistant (one for the case back and one for the crystal) watch.
This is very nice:


But does it belong on this watch:


I think the Zenith solid case back is more appropriate:



Here is my only exception since it is just too cool to hide:

[Raza]

Looks fine to me.