Some like to see the movement in action.

Some prefer a solid case back.

Totally a personal preference.

 

Some collectors are interested in watches because of the mechanical Aspect of it, so see it is appealing.

For me? Doesn’t matter either way. If I like a watch I will buy it regardless of caseback.

 

Being educated as an engineer, seeing an impressive movement is one of the primary attractions for me and others I know. ESPECIALLY chronographs.

For instance, IMO, the Speedy is a waste without an open back. I wouldn’t have one without it.

To each his own, but I do not understand why anyone would want a watch with a georgeous movement like that WITHOUT the ability to see it!

 

I'm on your team O.P! I don't see the value in an automatic open case back as you only ever see the rotor as you turn it! However, I own an inexpensive Chinese manual wound chronograph which has a great visual Venus movement equalling many high end makers in terms of beauty. They're made to draw in buyers rather than offer any real benefit IMO.

 

I own an inexpensive Chinese manual wound chronograph which has a great visual Venus movement equalling many high end makers in terms of beauty.

 

we likes cogs and wheelies...

 

Personal choice....

 

I get why most Seiko 5s have them. 5s are often people's gateway to mechanical watches, and if everything you've owned prior had a battery in it, it's probably cool to be able to see the rotor swinging around, and the winding system working. I don't get why Seiko bothers to use them on high-end Presage range SARX watches. The 6R is not a pretty movement. At all.

They could be made at least 0.5mm thinner, probably more than that, if they had steel casebacks, which seems like it would more desirable to SARX owners than being able to see the ugly 6R back there.

I'm glad my two current Zodiacs have steel casebacks. Not because I necessarily don't want to be able to see the STPs in there - those actually have a pretty nice level of decoration from the factory. It's because the STP balance is loud. So loud that I could hear my old ZO9204 with its display back ticking away at arms length. The steel back dampens the noise enough that you have to hold the watch at least relatively close to your ear to be able to hear it.

 

I get why most Seiko 5s have them. 5s are often people's gateway to mechanical watches, and if everything you've owned prior had a battery in it, it's probably cool to be able to see the rotor swinging around, and the winding system working.

I had a Seiko 5 with display back. I bought the watch for the watch face, not the display back. And after I wore the watch, I realized I dislike the feel of the display back. That glass sticks to my skin, which stainless case back won't do. Not sure if sapphire display back on better watches also have same feel or not.

 

It's just kind of cool.
And connects you more to the watch.
You can see it in action, once in a while
before putting it on or after taking it off.
As others have said, it doesn't affect the decision to buy the watch or not.
Just a nice plus.

 

Ditto.

 

Many of you are saying “personal choice,” which I understand 100% and do not discount anyone else’s preferences.

However, am I wrong in thinking that it’s another risk point for damage and/or water ingress? I figured it would be the same risk as the main crystal, which is a common failure point for water resistance.

 

Seems unlikely to get damaged while it's pressed against your wrist. Water ingress typically happens through the crown or case back... rarely the crystal gasket.

 

I don't get it either.

 

WIS: I want a well finished and decorated movement, côtes de Genève, perlage on the rotor, yada yada yada

Same WIS: I don't want to see it.

 

A well-cared for watch has no risk of water ingress. It gets serviced, it gets tested.

Now if you go swimming with your used watch with unknown service history, yeah that crystal may not keep water out if it hasn’t been maintained to spec.

 

Depends on the movement for me. Watches like GS or Zenith with intricate in-house movements are fascinating to look at and study. Also most hand wind movements are just plain cool without the rotor. But, as mentioned above, if I like the watch enough it really doesn't matter either way.

 

I'd rather have an interesting solid caseback than an exhibition one. I don't spend much time with the back of the watch either way, so it's not a deal breaker.

 

For a genuine tool watch where robustness and reliability is the priority, I'd agree with you - a glass insert in the case back is just another potential failure point - either the crystal itself or the seal. However, movements - even cheap ones like ST19s - look great. I wouldn't buy a manual-wind watch without an exhibition back.

 

It's just neato keen.

 

I'm not sure I have a preference on the case back if I like the way watch looks & it works within the case specs I'm looking for. I will agree as mentioned earlier, Seiko was my start into mechanical watches, so the exhibition case back on my SNK807 just drew me into watches more.

With that being said, something like the Zenith Chronomaster Original, I'm going to want to see that movement.

 

I prefer a solid caseback. In fact, one of the reasons I got a Sinn 656, rather than the newer 556A, was for the solid caseback... which meant that for the same WR, I got a watch 1mm thinner, with better anti-mag.

Exception to the rule was a 4502-7001 King Seiko. Came with OG medallion caseback - cool in its own right - but I really like looking at the 4502 movement.

 

Does a solid caseback really provide more magnetic resistance? Unless there’s a shield plate underneath, stainless steel doesn’t typically block a noticeable amount of magnetism.

 

As I get older, I don't care one way or another if there is an exhibition case-back. But when there is...

 

Point/Counterpoint: Even Entry-Level Watches Deserve Display Backs

Let your ébauche freak flag fly.

www.hodinkee.com

 

more high-end watches should be made out of clear plastic like those swatches. just my 2 cents

 

I don’t understand why a tool watch can’t have a display back. It’s not like it’s any less robust than the front of the watch. Several of mine have one - Omega, Oris, Lum-Tec, Mido. I enjoy seeing the movement. It always amazes me how all those gears and a couple of springs work so well together.

 

Depends on the movement. The nicer ones should be displayed, imo.

 

I'm agnostic about it. I've never had a display caseback leak. They don't get damaged - how could they, they're flush to your wrist? If a movement looks especially nice, I guess it would be fun to look at, but you obviously can't see that while you wear it.

 

It's nice when you have an adorned mvt.

 

The other aspect of this is there's no such thing as a tool watch anymore. Watches are superfluous and obsolete as tools, and are purely decorative today. Not saying you can't use one as a tool if you want to be hipster about it, but there are better cheaper tools available now for everything a watch can do. That's not why people wear them anymore.

 

I agree MOST people don’t need to use a watch anymore, but SOME still do.

Case in point, my work takes me into many “sensitive” and/or “secure” areas. Phones have to be left outside of these areas, and this includes any smartwatch. Are there clocks in these areas? Usually, yeah, but they aren’t always easily visible, so I do need a watch if I want to keep track of time, and that watch needs to also be durable if I want to wear it all day performing other duties of my job. For people like me, watches absolutely are an essential tool, whether it’s a cheap Casio digital, or an expensive Rolex Submariner.