WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So my question is just that, what is the max thickness a watch can still be considered an ultra thin? To me, it would be anything 4mm or under. But when I see questions posted for ultra thin suggestions, some provided have been thicker than what I consider thin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,462 Posts
Are we talking about mechanical or quartz? 'Cause, 4mm for a mechanical watch doesn't leave a lot of options. Does it leave ANY options?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,462 Posts
Yeah, that's all I could find when I Googled it. Does anything else even get under 4mm?

So the Op must be asking about quartz, then?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Sorry about not clarifying. I was more interested in mechanical. I know Quartz watches can get really thin, but it seems today's mechanical watches that claim to be ultra thin, to me, aren't that thin. I'm not well versed in this, thus my question.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
40,692 Posts
In that case, 4mm may seem like the upper limit for something to be called ultra thin, but it's all comparative.

A lot of 'slim' mechanical watches are around the 7-8mm mark, so 4mm is very, very thin indeed. It may not seem it if you look on a measuring tape, but I'd suggest going to try on some watches that call themselves ultra thin and comparing them to ones that don't. You will probably observe the difference in how they wear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41,256 Posts
b-) The benchmark would be the Piaget Automatic with the Caliber P12. It's 4.88mm, it took some convincing
at times for customers to believe it was an automatic, even WIS types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I have a vintage AP with a cal. 2003 and love the thinness (4mm). But I guess newer watches would be considered slim not ultra thin?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,462 Posts
I have a vintage AP with a cal. 2003 and love the thinness (4mm). But I guess newer watches would be considered slim not ultra thin?
Well, if your AP is really only 4mm, then for a long time it was literally the thinnest mechanical watch in the world. So, it's no surprise that nobody could suggest a thinner watch when you asked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,424 Posts
So my question is just that, what is the max thickness a watch can still be considered an ultra thin? To me, it would be anything 4mm or under. But when I see questions posted for ultra thin suggestions, some provided have been thicker than what I consider thin.
Max thickness for an "ultra-thin" watch would depend on what kind of watch it is. Logically, a mechanical will be thinner than an auto, a dress watch will be thinner than a dive watch, and so on... It would not be unreasonable to call a 8-9mm thick dive watch an "ultra-thin"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
Max thickness for an "ultra-thin" watch would depend on what kind of watch it is. Logically, a mechanical will be thinner than an auto, a dress watch will be thinner than a dive watch, and so on... It would not be unreasonable to call a 8-9mm thick dive watch an "ultra-thin"
I'm with Quotron - the definition of "ultra-thin" is subjective and changes depending on a watch's category. Here's what Ariel Adams at A Blog To Watch says in an article about JLC's Master Ultra Thin lineup:

A note on "Ultra Thin" for a moment. This is a relatively new term applied to an existing state. Over the last few years thin watches are becoming more and more trendy. They were also trendy in the 1960s, but that is beside the point. So what brands have done–in addition to releasing a lot of very thin watches–is apply the term "thin" to timepieces that are exactly the same, but happen to be relatively thin compared to thicker timepieces.

What is "Ultra Thin?" Nothing. It is just a marketing term and doesn't refer to a specific criteria or classification. It is also dependent on the type of watch. A chronograph can be ultra-thin at 8mm thick, but a manually wound movement at that thickness wouldn't be thin at all. Context is a really important part of understanding what these terms mean. I'd say that anything 9mm thick or under is going to feel pretty thin, and under 5mm thick is going to look "super duper" thin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Well, if your AP is really only 4mm, then for a long time it was literally the thinnest mechanical watch in the world. So, it's no surprise that nobody could suggest a thinner watch when you asked.
It isn't so much that I'm looking for thinner suggestions than what I currently own, just curious what others would consider the thickest a watch can be to be called an ultra thin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,258 Posts
Well the JLC Master Ultra Thin is 4.9mm. For me, it isn't so much the physical measurements but the overall feel of the watch. The adjective "ultra" also to me sounds kind of juvenile, at least for luxury goods. I think most wouldn't consider a double digit thickness thin, but again, it's situational. My NOMOS is 6.8mm and feels thinner to me than some quartz I've tried that are thinner my measurement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
to OP you re asking for maximum thickness... there a lot of "thin" watches:

Here the case (not cal.) thickness:
======================
zenith captain ultra thin: 8.33mm
Blancpain villeret ultra slim: 8.3mm
Jules Audemars Extra Thin: 6.7mm
JLC master ultra thin: 6.3mm
Bvlgari Octo Finissimo: 5.0mm

So nowadays u can call a watch ultra thin if it is <8.5mm =_= .... IMO it's just cheating by saying "it looks thinner than it is"...

Haven't tried the Piaget 3.65mm, it gives up the dome crystal.. hope it wouldn't bend easily!

Still i resist thick ones > 12mm
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,316 Posts
i think 2.97 is the record... but for the OPs question, it's just marketing talk... there's no breakdown of 2.5mm to 4mm, 6mm to 9mm, 10mm to 13mm and so forth and so on. it's just the word used for marketing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,610 Posts
It's a term that has definitely been abused. The Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin Moon is 9.9mm, and the movement it contains is 4.9mm. To put things in perspective, the ETA 2892-A2 is 3.6mm, the ETA 2824-2 is 4.6mm, the Omega 8500 is 5.5mm, and the Rolex 3135 is 6.0mm.

Many of the complicated JLC Master Ultra Thin watches employ the visual trick of a thin midcase, but where the movement and display caseback protrudes well past the back of the midcase.

 
  • Like
Reactions: watchcrank_tx

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,301 Posts
Yeah, the JLC Master Ultra Thin Moon at 9.9mm seemed like a inappropriate name. A 4.9mm movement (even with a moon phase complication) doesn't qualify for "thin" in my book, never mind "ultra" thin. Heck Breguet makes an *Automatic* Tourbillon movement that's 3mm thick. And they only call it "Extra" Thin, not "Ultra".

Personally, any sport watch under 11mm is thin. Under 10mm qualifies for ultra thin in my book. For a dress(y) watch I'd say that anything under 8mm is thin, and 7.2mm would be ultra thin in my book.

Given the current trend (thankfully receding a bit) towards mega-godzilla sized watches, I'm not surprised that a 9.9mm dress watch is called "ultra thin" with a straight face. I personally can't do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Yeah, the JLC Master Ultra Thin Moon at 9.9mm seemed like a inappropriate name. A 4.9mm movement (even with a moon phase complication) doesn't qualify for "thin" in my book, never mind "ultra" thin. Heck Breguet makes an *Automatic* Tourbillon movement that's 3mm thick. And they only call it "Extra" Thin, not "Ultra".

Personally, any sport watch under 11mm is thin. Under 10mm qualifies for ultra thin in my book. For a dress(y) watch I'd say that anything under 8mm is thin, and 7.2mm would be ultra thin in my book.

Given the current trend (thankfully receding a bit) towards mega-godzilla sized watches, I'm not surprised that a 9.9mm dress watch is called "ultra thin" with a straight face. I personally can't do it.
Marketing tells using thing, but to me, I think anything under 5-6mm should be considered ultra thin, 7-9 thin, 10... a watch. Maybe skewed definitions on my part. In the end I guess it's in the eye of the beholder as to what is really an ultra thin watch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
In my subjective opinion, when I see the term "ultra thin" I immediately think about the movement and not the watch case. An "ultra thin" movement is unique in that it requires thinner bridges, thinner moving parts, and smaller clearances, which make it a challenge for watchmakers to repair/service and for manufacturers to develop. So, I consider a movement "ultra thin" when it is around 2mm or less in thickness because these movements take additional skill to develop, service and repair. "Ultra thin" movements usually end up being in watches around 6mm or less in thickness. To me, it is the movement that determines whether or not the watch is an "ultra thin".

Again, in my subjective opinion, no sports watch is "ultra thin" (as far as I know) the way I consider the term. An 11mm thick dive watch is definitely slim for a dive watch but if it doesn't house an "ultra thin" movement, it's a slim watch compared to other divers but not an "ultra thin."
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top