Criticism and watch journalism have always been on edge with one another. One could argue that there is a great dependency between the writing press and the watch brands. Even at WatchTime, many of the brands we cover also advertise with us, so we better be nice to them, or not" We are indeed, but the general conviction among myself and my fellow editors and contributors is that when constructive criticism is in place, it should be given. It not only ensures correct representation towards the most important people in the WatchTime universe, you as our readers, but it also helps the brands to become even better than they already are.

As Editor-at-Large, nobody tells me what to write. While this may seem to be the privilege of a senior position, it is not, as nobody here has to write something they don’t want to. While we come from different walks of life and have a wide variety of interests, we all share a deep passion for watchmaking. We strongly believe that you need to read this passion in what we write, so when you don’t feel passionate about the subject, you shouldn’t write about it. So perhaps it says more about the watches we don’t cover than the watches we do.
While it is crucial to remain critical, so is to give credit where credit is due. When I started writing about two decades ago, there were still some watches that didn’t live up to their expectations. The industry has grown bounds and leaps every since. When I lo...