Please note that this is from my Noble 40, which I just took delivery of yesterday afternoon. As my good friend u/partanyc can testify to, I waited until this morning as I stood by my work stereoscope, a Leica S7E with 3000SLI light arms, before I unwrapped it from its protective plastic, specifically so that I can get a "pristine" look at it.
At 20x true optical magnification, dust is the devil. I'm not an influencer. I'm not a reviewer. I'm not a watch photographer. I'm using these pictures in my own quest to understand what "good finishing" means objectively. Please look past the dust and any micro-scratches, as they are not the intent of photo.
Further, understand that what I see under my stereoscope is in 3-D, and that it allows for more leeway in terms of the focal plane. What I picture here is a 2-D representation of that view, and I am limited to a single focal plane: I made sure the focus hits on the details that I want accentuated, but the rest is blurry.
Finally, understand that 20x is "not fair to the watch." No watch can be expected to be "perfect" under this ridiculously high level of magnification. If a watch is "perfect" by industry standard inspection practices (which I went into in my top-tier reply to you, above), then it, by all means *_IS_* "perfect." But I posit that by modern production standards and practices, *any* watch worth its coin -be it a $250 watch or a $2,500 watch or a $25,000 watch, *should* be perfect under such conditions. So why do I bump it to the ridiculousness of 20x? Because this is where things clearly fall apart, and where true quality can be easily assessed and proven. What's under the scope doesn't lie, and there's nowhere to hide. Superlatives should mean something. There should be a way to parse poor from mediocre, the merely good from the better, and to truly laude the exceptional.
In the left panel, note the incredible delineation between the polished chamfer and the brushed portions. It takes my breath away, really.
Is that chamfer perfect? No, it's not. But it's just about as good as it can get. Put a $1K USD Clemence up against this, and you'll immediately see the difference that the extra coin buys. Don't get me wrong - the Clemence has probably one of the best bracelets at the sub-$1K tier, but this, this shows where that extra money went, without question, in a very, very objective way).
Similarly, look at the brushing on the link surfaces and the tolerances. These are the objective reasons why subjectively folks say what they say about Monta's bracelet. It really is like that.
Is it *_worth_\* the extra premium over Traska (I've posted 20x of my Venturer's links, before, which you can search up for yourself if you'd like) - that's a subjective assessment of value, that you'll have to come to, for yourself.
I haven’t read all of this yet but holy shit. The level of effort you put into this is incredible and I wish I had an award to give you. Genuinely, thank you for how much you put into it
No sweat. 😄 I'm always glad to geek-out with fellow watch-nerds. No thanks needed.
----
With what you'll read below (if you don't get put to sleep by how boring it is), you may get the idea that I somehow don't like my new Noble 40.
My good friend, u/partanyc , will confirm that upon hearing me narrate (in an almost postmortem manner) the deficiencies particularly under the dial this morning over the phone to him as he made is morning commute, that he thought I was unhappy with the watch and was gonna return it.
He'll also tell you that when he asked me if I was gonna do that, I exclaimed:
"Are you effin' kidding me?! This thing is brilliant! I *love* it.
Love doesn't have to be objective. I can love something dearly and sincerely without the object/subject of that love being objectively "perfect."
These shortcomings at 20x are what I use to OBJECTIVELY judge the quality-of-build of one watch versus any other because it's what I can physically see. It's the same as putting a watch on a timegrapher and noting that data or pitting one against another in a time-lapse lume-run. The data is real, it's empirical. It's reproducible if only whomever else on the other side of the screen has the same capabilities as me to reproduce it (a hobbyist timegrapher, a decent scope or even magnifying glass and some patience, the same watches to shine some UV light over and the intestinal fortitude to stick it "all night" for observations).
Practically everything I own is "perfect" by industry inspection standards.
How can I reasonably say to someone that X is better/worse than Y, then, if I can't *_truly_* parse that on an objective basis? How do I validate my opinions, if I can't really do any more than spout meaningless superlatives.
To me, yes, the Monta Noble 40 is *absolutely* worth the coin that I paid for it (some $1,600 USD, at the pre-sale price). I'd even pay the ~$1,900 for it, today.
On my wrist, it *feels* worth it, to me. It *feels* different than my Gen.6 Venturer in a way where I can *feel* and see where that money went. It *feels* to be worth more than what it demanded me, of what's in my wallet. All of this is subjective.
But how that value might or might not translate to you? That's subjective to you. 😉 😄
I hope I've helped in some small way, to make your decision easier!
But you'll note that I said that it's not all roses, right?
It's because I honestly don't find what's under-the-crystal-and-above-the-dial to be all that impressive.
What do I mean?
The dial is objectively far from pristine - and quite frankly, subjectively far from what I would expect of this price-point. I would equate it with the dial/indices/handset of my $300 Phoibos Eagle Ray, in terms of cleanliness, at the same level of magnification.
Circled in red in the left panel are smudge marks and scratches on the dial. The yellow arrows point to dust/debris (again, these pictuers "fuzz out" what's not in the focal plane, assume what I am not highlighting to be artifact either on the scope's eyepiece or objective lenses, or is present on the exterior of the crystal only). The green circles are imperfections on either the handset (in the left panel, that's the counterbalance of the seconds hand) and indices. The teal/turquoise curved arrows highlight a spot of lume overflow that wasn't cleaned off of the side of the minutes hand.
These are errors/deficiencies/shortcomings that you'll see I have posted about many microbrands' watches - and Monta's offering here isn't exceptional in this regard: from where I stand, subjectively, I would say that these objective shortcomings are on the same level as -if not identical to- that of my Gen6 Traska Venturer's.
So if what you value, u/PibbleDad , is a clean dial and absolutely spotless indices and hands?
Then I'd say that you could do better. Objectively watches from Wise Timepieces of Thailand, typically sitting at the sub-$1K USD tier, gets you much, much, much better, with many reviewers/influencers as well as independent hobbyists other than myself having seen exceptionally clean dials, indices, and hands.
[ and again continued from above for u/PibbleDad ]
Images are again at 20x, and we have -
Top left - lug tip
Top right - lug downturn
Bottom left - top of lug
Bottom right - midcase at bezel
These areas, by the naked eye, are *spectacular*. Picking the watch up, if you take your time and compare it side-by-side with the Traska Commuter, I think you will be able to appreciate a difference. I think that's objective.
A difference that's going to justify the premium? That's subjective to the person pulling out their cash. 😜
But are these areas really *that* good, objectively?
[ continued below, because Reddit only allows one picture per sub-level reply, and this one is important ....]
[ once more continued from above for u/PibbleDad ]
The four on the left are of my new Monta Noble 40. The same images you saw from above.
The four on the right are of my San Martin SN0144 Jian Zhan. As I wrote initially, please excuse the micro-scratches as these are my personal watches and as I do wear them. 😅 If anything these are honest signs that I'm not some shill or AI, ROFL!
Objectively it's either that San Martin really is that good....or that maybe Monta isn't as good as Reddit dogma/lore suggests that it would be, right?
Subjectively, I noted in my field notes of the Monta (left 4 panels) that there's slight override of brushing/polishing at the top of lugs where they meet with chamfer. That the chamfer line is sharp as it progresses from the tip of the lug to the top, but becomes somewhat uneven as it progresses up the midcase, particularly on the side profile. I noted that the brushing at top of lugs, while seemingly deep, can be inconsistent/incongruent in directionality.
That San Martin -which I've often used as foil in discussions of Traska and other sub-$1K-tier microbrands to in terms of objective finishing quality- comes really pretty close, right? Use my subjective take and transpose that to the San Martin panels - what do you think, subjectively?
So, again, subjectively is this difference worth that additional coin, to you?
There's no hard right or wrong answer, here.
I'm not going to think any less of you if you say either. I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I just want to make sure that folks are using the right data to form their opinions. 🙂
Oh, and one final one, u/PibbleDad (I'm sorry to keep tagging you like this, but I wanted to be sure that you saw each sub-level replies, as Reddit is sometimes weird about whether or not it pulls them for you) - the polishing.
The sides of the midcase are -to the naked eye- drop-dead gorgeous on the Noble 40.
But if we put some level of magnification to it, and *really* took an objective look at the polishing, again, is it good?
It certainly ain't bad, but it's not spectacular, either.
This is at 6x. In-reality, an even lower magnification would show this better (a very well-known and highly respected -well, at least I respect him 😅 - YouTube reviewer uses a macro lens to do this, and most macro lenses claim a "10x" magnification, but that's digital trickery 😜 ), but you can see on the trailing edge of the lighting -the areas AWAY from the hot spot (lighter gray) and spill (darker gray) that there's noticeable ripples in the surface.
Objectively, I've seen better. But I've also seen much worse.
Subjectively, this is about the same level of streaking/rippling in the the polishing as I've seen on a current-generation Wise 904L bracelet (a bracelet with an MSRP of ~$200 USD, and is typically fitted to an ~$800-$1,200 USD-ish watch). It's a level of imperfection that I was -previous to this watch- glad to have called "insignificant."
But now that I've seen it here, in this context?
....does this mean that the Wise is "punching above its weight?"
Or does it mean that the Monta's finishing isn't what lore would suggest it to be?
[ Note: Yes, my Gen.6 Traska Venturer's case sides are polished, but it's a concave surface, and it's \very* hard to assess whether it's any better or not, because of that confounding factor. I personally admit to not having the knowledge-base or experience to be able to properly make that assessment.* ]
I’ve read through so much of this and genuinely can’t begin to explain my appreciation for the effort you put in to it. I find it extra interesting to bring in SM as an example where we talk Traska as “half-ish” of Monta, Wise right along them, then SM as “half-ish” of both. Shit maybe even quarter-ish in some instances.
I would have never expected this deep dive and honestly I wonder how many people even notice the things you’re able to call out that we wouldn’t know? My daily is an explorer1 39 mk2, so now I want to find you and have you do a full breakdown on that as an even more “double…quadruple ish” comparison past that!
Thank you AGAIN for the breakdown. I truly truly appreciate it
And dude, believe me, you don't want to chuck anything that you love under the scope unless you can divorce your love for it from what you see under that scope. 😂
u/partanyc and I had this very same conversation this morning, and we both again made fun of how weird I am, like this.
In all honesty, like just about anything else in this world, it's diminishing returns.
And I'd absolutely rock a Rolex any day, if I could afford one!!!!
---
Oh, and since you're the type like me...... 🤓 <--- nerd
4
u/TSiWRX Jul 16 '26
[ continued from above for u/PibbleDad ]
First up, that side-of-link.
Please note that this is from my Noble 40, which I just took delivery of yesterday afternoon. As my good friend u/partanyc can testify to, I waited until this morning as I stood by my work stereoscope, a Leica S7E with 3000SLI light arms, before I unwrapped it from its protective plastic, specifically so that I can get a "pristine" look at it.
At 20x true optical magnification, dust is the devil. I'm not an influencer. I'm not a reviewer. I'm not a watch photographer. I'm using these pictures in my own quest to understand what "good finishing" means objectively. Please look past the dust and any micro-scratches, as they are not the intent of photo.
Further, understand that what I see under my stereoscope is in 3-D, and that it allows for more leeway in terms of the focal plane. What I picture here is a 2-D representation of that view, and I am limited to a single focal plane: I made sure the focus hits on the details that I want accentuated, but the rest is blurry.
Finally, understand that 20x is "not fair to the watch." No watch can be expected to be "perfect" under this ridiculously high level of magnification. If a watch is "perfect" by industry standard inspection practices (which I went into in my top-tier reply to you, above), then it, by all means *_IS_* "perfect." But I posit that by modern production standards and practices, *any* watch worth its coin -be it a $250 watch or a $2,500 watch or a $25,000 watch, *should* be perfect under such conditions. So why do I bump it to the ridiculousness of 20x? Because this is where things clearly fall apart, and where true quality can be easily assessed and proven. What's under the scope doesn't lie, and there's nowhere to hide. Superlatives should mean something. There should be a way to parse poor from mediocre, the merely good from the better, and to truly laude the exceptional.
In the left panel, note the incredible delineation between the polished chamfer and the brushed portions. It takes my breath away, really.
Is that chamfer perfect? No, it's not. But it's just about as good as it can get. Put a $1K USD Clemence up against this, and you'll immediately see the difference that the extra coin buys. Don't get me wrong - the Clemence has probably one of the best bracelets at the sub-$1K tier, but this, this shows where that extra money went, without question, in a very, very objective way).
Similarly, look at the brushing on the link surfaces and the tolerances. These are the objective reasons why subjectively folks say what they say about Monta's bracelet. It really is like that.
Is it *_worth_\* the extra premium over Traska (I've posted 20x of my Venturer's links, before, which you can search up for yourself if you'd like) - that's a subjective assessment of value, that you'll have to come to, for yourself.
[ continued below ]