I love the watches that JLC produces. My favorites are from its Master Ultra Thin collection. But I always felt that they got their indices slightly wrong, especially on the Small Seconds. Lets look at the previous model, and then we'll take a look at the current iteration.

Name:  jlcmutss1.jpg
Views: 103
Size:  54.2 KB

Okay. So, what's up with the tiny indices at 3 and 9? Why aren't they the same size as the ones at 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11? Obviously the index at 6 needs to be smaller because of the small seconds complication, which I think is well integrated. And the double-index at twelve doesn't really bother me because it balances out the one at 6 and most of what's going on in the dial exists in the vertical plane anyway, so it gives the dial some balance. But, what's the reason for 3 and 9? Side note: These same small indices are at 3 and 9 on JLC's perpetual calendar because of the subdials, which works great. Let's look at their current model:

Name:  jlcmutss2.jpg
Views: 115
Size:  46.7 KB

Whoa, JLC. I said they needed to be a bit bigger, but now yous is actin' all crazy. They all seem to be different sizes. Going clockwise, 12 and one seem the same, but they continually increase in size as they reach the case sides. 2 is a bit bigger, 3 is the big daddy index, and then back down to 4, and even a bit smaller for 5. 6 is its same cute self. I don't know how I feel about this choice. Is it unique? Certainly. Is unique a good thing in the watch world, especially when slight and classy? No doubt. But, and this question may be more important, does it distract and take away from the sheer simple beauty of the watch? Verdict's still out.

So what does the IWL community think?

Does it look better? Worse? Just different?

Am I correct in all of my statements because I have a keen eye for design?

Do I have to find something better to do with my time than contemplate horologic minutiae of watches that I don't even own? I'd like to hear some thoughts on the matter.