Joined
·
1,576 Posts
I prefer the 3-6-9 layout for it's symmetry, but the odd placement of the date does deter from the look (if there is a date). The 6-9-12 layout is good for me on watches that have a day-date complication at the 3 as it balanced the dial somewhat. I don't either has an advantage from the readability standpoint as each layout will have some problems with readability as some times in the day.
I think Omega gets it right with the bi-complex look at the 3-9, the hours and minutes elapsed being on one subdial at the 3.
Frankly though, I think all chronos should have a central minutes and seconds hand showing elapsed time with one of the subdials just showing hours. This is clearer, allows for a 60 minutes elapsed minutes counter, and a more balanced dial showing elapsed hours and running seconds.
The Sin EZM10 was one and the Damasko DC86 is another.
I think Omega gets it right with the bi-complex look at the 3-9, the hours and minutes elapsed being on one subdial at the 3.
Frankly though, I think all chronos should have a central minutes and seconds hand showing elapsed time with one of the subdials just showing hours. This is clearer, allows for a 60 minutes elapsed minutes counter, and a more balanced dial showing elapsed hours and running seconds.
The Sin EZM10 was one and the Damasko DC86 is another.
