Do we still need to be gendering watches? Part 1 - a woman's perspective

My blog posts are usually relatively straightforward, typed out just hours before I want to post it in a newsletter. But this one feels different. It feels bigger. So I’ve decided to turn it into two parts - the first written by me from a woman’s perspective, and the second half written by a male guest writer.

So, without further ado, shall we get started?

The history of wristwatches takes us back to 1810 when Abraham Louis Breguet created what is believed to have been the first ever wristwatch for the Queen of Naples. While gentlemen were content with their pocket watches, it was the women of the 19th Century who wore the first wristwatches. Then, in 1904, Louis Cartier created a wristwatch for his friend, pilot Alberto Santos-Dumont. It was decided that while flying, it might be easier to read the time from his wrist.

Many of us are familiar with those early, time-only vintage watches. Usually 34mm – 36mm, steel cases, silver dials, mechanical movements… designed for men. And while the likes of Patek Philippe were squeezing growing numbers of complications into gents 36mm cases, women’s watches were equally impressive in their own way. The Jaeger-LeCoultre Calibre 101 movement was launched in 1929 and is still the world’s smallest mechanical movement at just 14mm in length, 4.8mm in width, and 3.4mm thick. Often used in gem-set ladies' watches, this iconic piece was worn by Queen Elizabeth during her coronation in 1953.

But then things took a turn. Maybe it was the quartz crisis in the 1970s that led to more quartz watches. Followed by a belief that, for men, the bigger and heavier the watch, the more expensive and better quality it was - my mind goes to the Breitling Avenger A13370 with a 48.4mm steel case and weighing over 153g. And then a belief that women couldn’t understand, or wouldn’t care for, mechanical movements. Even F.P. Journe created the Élégante, a quartz watch "that women would enjoy and embrace, focusing on elegance, comfort, and practicality”. For many years there has been a "pink it and shrink it, (and add a quartz movement)" approach. If he wears a Breitling Avenger with a 7750 ETA automatic movement, she can wear a Breitling Colt Oceane in a 33mm case with a quartz movement and diamond bezel.

It was Breitling where I first started my relationship with luxury watches when, in 2006, I got a job with the brand as a Customer Service Advisor. After 6 months, I was offered a staff wear-watch and was drawn to a Navitimer Montbrillant after quickly learning the importance of the Navitimer, along with a brief history of mechanical watches. As the smallest of the Navitimers at the time, the 38mm case fitted my wrist well, while the expansive crystal still proudly displayed a slide rule and chronograph. As it happened, the Montbrillant wasn’t available straight away and I wore a diamond bezel quartz Starliner for a few months. It was the first luxury watch I ever wore, and I enjoyed the way the diamonds caught the light (check out my first ever wristshot below!). But that novelty was quickly replaced when I was finally able to wear my mechanical Navitimer.

Years passed and my career saw me moving from Breitling to Bremont, where I swapped my 38mm Montbrillant for a 43mm ALT1-C/PW. For a brand that only made mechanical watches, and at that time none with diamonds and sizes starting from 37mm, I didn’t need to go for such a large watch.  But I loved the look of it, and the size didn’t bother me. Furthermore, I felt like it was a talking point, and I was proud to tell the story of Bremont and my role there.

But tastes change, and I only recently swapped my large Bremont for a slim, 35mm automatic Omega Constellation.

So, what do women want? Well, you’d have to ask women. Do they buy what they want? Or do they buy what they’re told they should want? Are they wearing their partner’s watches (albeit with an oversized bracelet), or being inspired by celebrities in glossy magazines? Are they copying their mother’s classic style or pushing the boundaries of unisex dressing? When they walk into a shop, are they only being offered “women’s watches”?

A quick example – while wearing my 43mm Bremont, I visited a watch shop with a male friend. My friend asked to try on a mid-size Longines and, without looking at my wrist, I was asked if I would like to try on a small, quartz, diamond watch.

Shop assistants shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, but instead be starting a conversation – what do you like? What’s your style? What do you want your watch to do? Do you want me to choose a selection for you to try? Do you want me to include some curveballs?

Women are spending more on luxury watches than ever before. In 2024, Deloitte and Watch Femme published an extensive 33-page report titled Deloitte Swiss Watch Industry Insights 2024: Spotlight on the female market (link here).

Their key findings included the following:

-        Women are increasingly purchasing watches for themselves, marking a shift in market dynamics.

-        Both gender-free and vintage watches are becoming popular, especially among younger generations

-        The in-store experience does not always meet the needs of female consumers; many feel uncomfortable in traditional retail spaces

-        There is no single female consumer profile. Women’s preferences vary widely across generations and markets.

-        The female market remains under-researched, with limited data and a lack of female collectors, CEOs, experts or watch journalists as role models.

The report also mentions how, with more financial freedom, more women are considering buying watches for themselves, as opposed to having been bought one as a gift, most likely by a man. There’s a strong emphasis on brand image and loyalty, meaning that marketing needs to continue to be an important factor for brands to consider.

Going back to Breitling, they appear to be leading the way when it comes to unisex marketing. More than any other brand, I’m seeing advertising campaigns with male and female models wearing a variety of watches. Despite the website still listing Men’s and Women’s watches, when you click on Women’s watches, you get a great selection of mid-size mechanical watches, many of which are also found on the men’s page.

This led me to look at how many other brands are filtering by men's and women’s watches. Searching on the websites of 30 different watch brands, half of them have removed that filter entirely, instead allowing you just to filter by size.

However, approximately 50% of female watch sales are in-store as opposed to online, and this needs to be considered. Raise your hand if you’ve ever been browsing sunglasses, picked a pair to try on and then found you’re in the [insert opposite sex] section. The embarrassment! I’ve seen the same with watches when a client asked to try on a mid-size dive watch and, to his horror, saw that it had a small label underneath with the words “Ladies watches”. To put it literally, it’s time to remove the label.

Watches are amazing little machines, strapped to our wrists, that not only tell the time, but externally tell people something about us. And internally, they can tell us something about ourselves, be it a special memory or a reminder of our successes. They can be 28mm or 48mm, black or pink, simple or complicated.  They can be masculine and feminine. They can be open to interpretation. But they don’t need to be gendered.

Lastly, we’re seeing an increase in the number of men wearing smaller watches, opting for something that slips under a cuff as opposed to making a bold statement. Therefore, as I bring my ramblings to a close, I invite you, the reader, male or female (however, my analytics tell me that you’re likely to be male), to share your views in the comments below. I’ll also be looking for a male contributor to write the second part of this article, so please drop me a message if you’re interested.