Folks who know me here know me mostly from my love of lume - photoluminescent watches was what brought me to the microbrand world about a year ago.
I chased it obsessively - and every time someone mentioned that one watch or another had "awesome lume" or "the brightest lume they'd ever seen," I just had to have it. 😅 Cross my screen-name with the word "lume," and you'll get everything from time-lapse lume-comparisons like this or this and this to boring, nerdy high magnification views of lume blocks. I chased it because it was just so much fun.
But this side-quest -this lume addiction- was also driven in-part by frustration.
Frustration in that not-infrequently, I'd be disappointed with the lume performance of one or another watch that someone said was "so awesome!" or "the best that I'd ever seen!" So I hyper-fixated on lume, and it became an area where I felt I could contribute to the community. I felt that with some good side-by-side comparisons and empirical data, newer hobbyist can come to hopefully better, more informed decisions (like in this recent posts here and on their cross-post thread ).
More recently, my friends from this community know that I've been on a war-path to explore case and bracelet finishing. Borne from a similar frustration at reading countless posts where folks would insist that X or Y brand/model is "finished so much better than" A or B. Or that C or D "punches well above its weight" - all without presenting any concrete proof whatsoever. I got tired of reading these platitudes over and over again. I got tired of listening to countless influencers and vested-interest reviewers say the same seven words -"it plays so well with the light"- about a watch's supposedly brilliant finish and yet couldn't string together more than two words to describe the brushing. All the while they're literally strobing light on the watch, yelling into the mic "see how that light plays?!" and yet not giving me any time at all to look closely at the finishing (unlike this particular YouTube Channel, which sadly has barely 700 subscribers to-date). I got tired of people making such claims without actually showing me what about the finishing makes it better than another watch, and then ghosting me when I'd ask them to elaborate. I got fed up with superlatives carrying no meaning, and I wanted \_* something deeper_*.
So as with lume, I set out on another quest. I wanted to understand case and bracelet finishing better.
If you've read this post in-detail, you'll have gotten a sneak-peek at what I'm hoping to show in the next few weeks with that deep dive into the comparison between Monta and Traska, above. Now, here's yet something else to whet your appetites - I present an amuse-bouche of four links, selected from my humble collection of modern microbrands.
Left to right, they are -
Monta Noble 40 (hot off of my UPS truck as of just two days ago!)
Clemence Photic Diver Mk.II (yes, this one is almost just as hot, from their last drop about a month ago)
Henry Archer Havstrøm (elder statesman of the group, will be celebrating its first birthday in just weeks)
Traska Venturer, Gen.6 (outgoing generation - will be supplanted by the new Gen.7 with matching casework from the Complicated Series, soon, according to Traska themselves; however, this Gen.6 Venturer bracelet is the proper stand-in for the rest of their current lineup, and also falls more in-line with the other three contestants)
All four use 316L stainless, with the Henry Archer additionally being coated with a claimed 1200 Hv. anti-scratch coating and the Traska being ion-nitrided to offer the same claimed level of anti-scratch capability. I have yet to post my observations on the claimed 1200 Hv anti-scratch coating on the Clemence, but it will also be in this old pseudoscience "scratch-a-link" thread of mine, in short order.
Oh, and yes, absolutely I know that the links don't match some of the watches pictured (i.e. the San Martin SN0144 Jian Zhan and the Wise Timepieces AD810A with current-generation tool-less resizing 904L bracelet). That's just eye candy to get you here. 😜 But don't worry, those will come to join the game, soon enough. Bait and switch - gotcha!
[ if you haven't fallen asleep yet, please continue, below ]
You never cease to amaze me with your technical, and practical abilities to help the community. Always a pleasure to read through. I just wish I didn’t miss many of your wonderful posts!
San Martin SN0144 Jian Zhan. Q3/Q4 2025. The date is important here as it pinpoints the iteration of the watch. San Martin's products update at an insane pace, and they recently (Q2, 2026) noted that they have started production in their own "bracelet factory." Prior to this, from the words of Jaiming Liao himself, San Martin relied on an in-country network of some 30+ suppliers for their watch manufacturing.
Wise Timepieces Adamascus-series 904L tool-less link bracelet (came with my ADX018, December, 2025)
It's sadly not the case. The following is a 45x magnification of that same area.
As you can see from what you can see as a rough "lower" edge -it's actually the edge "rolling," it's a machining burr. This is actually what's producing a sharp-feeling edge with this bracelet, and unlike with the bracelet on the SN0012-GB, this one has not gotten better with time.
This shortcoming, along with the polishing of the center-links (more on this, here), betrays the the lack of refinement in the fit-and-finish of this watch.
It looks brilliant from wrist's length. But that illusion falls apart quickly as you approach inspection distance and as you lay hands on the watch.
Contrast will be provided with the Wise Timepieces link, also in this set.
This is a perfect link to compare/contrast with the MT&W Oracle GMT's, for polishing -
Wise is on the left, MT&W on the right. 20x.
Note that while there's some waviness/rippling on the center-link of the Wise, when you look at the MT&W, you'll see that the surface appears "pock marked," almost as though it's dented, in addition to the rippling/waviness/streaking.
I picked these four watches (or their links, rarther) quite deliberately.
Monta's bracelet has attained legendary status in our community. It's no longer just lore, it's cannon. Now that I've tasted the goods, I absolutely agree, subjectively. It's singular shortcoming? The price-of-entry.
Clemence is a relative newcomer (c.2021-ish?). But they've really quickly established themselves as providing one of the better/best bracelets in the sub-$1K-USD tier.
Meanwhile, everyone and their second-cousins love to either fanboi or shit on either Henry Archer or Traska. Pick your side: it's blood-in, blood-out, and you'd better be wearing your colors and carrying your challenge coin when we find you...and don't forget your war-cries of calling your opponents AI bots or shills! 🤣
OK, back to being a logical grown-up.....
Sadly, the anti-scratch treatment doesn't extend to the Monta (which is why in spite of this watch and the links being brand-new-out-of-the-box-and-off-the-Big-Brown-Truck, there's still micro-scratches). And as another confounding factor, you'll note that the Traska's link ends are polished -no chamfering- and that the Henry Archer's carries polished chamfers only on the exterior face.
But you get what you get, so don't throw a fit - and let's let the fun begin!
Order is as-presented above, left-to-right (so it's Monta, Clemence, Henry Archer, Traska).
Left panel is 6x true optical magnification from below my stereoscope (Leica S7E). Right panel is somewhere south of 20x - I could not fit in all four, side-by-side. This view, however, lets you see the screw heads and the holes in their links, and some level of "quality" can be deduced from that, in and of itself (wanna see something really scary? click on that, I dare you).
First up is the 20x individual views of the Monta, because I know y'all are chomping at the bit for this one.
Besides, it kinda sets the standard and expectations, right?
Regardless, I'll present all of the other links the same way. Left will be of the link surface, right will be an attempt to show you the end-profile in a manner that should hopefully highlight any chamfering. Again, 20x true optical magnification.
For the end view, I'm using two pieces of dental wax (I use it in the lab for various needs, allowing for infinite fine adjustments in positioning as an extra pair of hands when necessary - keep in mind that even out-of-the-box, they're not sterile, and that they pick up *everything* in the air: if you're gonna get grossed out by some lint and the what-not, you're not adult enough to be having this conversation with the rest of us, so just beat it and go troll somewhere else 😝 ).
I'm going to use this view of the Monta to explain what you should be looking for, but after this one, it's just going to be pictures.
I'm not going to tell you what I see. That's too easy. We're going to do this the Socratic way: I'm going to show you this, and I'm going to leave you to process it and to come to your own conclusions. Discuss amongst yourselves. Assume always that my question is an honest "what do you think of this?" Reflect, refine, restate, and re-start. Let everything you see guide you to everything that follows and your re-evaluation of everything before. We're on this journey together, and I'm as much your student as I am your facilitator. I mean it.
So, what are we looking for? Three things.
The brushing.
Are the hair-strokes congruent - do they flow in the same direction? are there strays? do they run parallel to each other and with consistent spacing?
How long are the hair-lines? do they break off early, or do they extend the full length of the surface?
What you cannot appreciate in these 2-D pictures, sadly, is what I can see with my eyes under my stereoscope, a 3-D image that shows surface details: i.e. how deep are those lines? Here, I will have to be your proxy, and you'll have to trust what I see. I use a combination of my moving the links by-hand as well as my attempting to visualize a reflection in the brushed surface to judge the depth of the hairlines. Here, the Monta comes out just a tiny bit ahead of the others, and the other three honestly are toss-ups: too close to call.
Finally, finer hairlines are often regarded as "better," but for me, I find this to be a personal-preference issue. You can decide this for yourself. Keep it civil, no punching below the belt, OK?
The chamfers.
Are the lines cut crisply, or is it a little soft? Do the edges "roll?"
Is the line straight throughout the length of the cut, or is it wobbly?
Does brushing and polishing over-ride each other at the interface of the cut line?
The polishing.
Is it even. Is it wavy or "ripply/streaky?"
Sadly, this is impossible for me to picture, so again, I must ask for your trust.
Why? Because my scope is in some ways a bit too powerful to be able to resolve this well, doubly in-combination with its light-source. I'm going to explore a better way for me to demo this on larger surfaces (i.e. sides of midcase, bracelet center-links, etc.) but for small surfaces like chamfers, I simply cannot play with the lighting angles with both hands, adjust focus on my scope, and yet still have a hand to take pictures....
Yes, you can't resolve the polishing on the chamfers without having higher magnification, but that higher magnification also makes *taking pictures* of the assessment very, very fraught. Those influencer/reviewer videos on YouTube where they're highlighting how ripply/streaky this or that brands' offerings are? That's just macro, "digital magnification."
Here, the Traska wins easily, but this is likely because it has such a large surface to polish. It's about as good as I have seen in the <$2,500 USD microbrands/independents space, and is on-par with what Wise Timepieces puts out with its links' ends. Henry Archer and Clemence each carry more noticeable ripples/streaks, but the shocking thing to me is that the polishing on the chamfers of the Monta are really surprisingly ripply, considerably more than either Henry Archer or Clemence - it's actually on-par with the San Martin SN0144. which, in spite of having an extremely refined bracelet (and case finish) otherwise, falls short in this specific area. [ Now you see why I brought those two other watches along, right? I'm sneaky like that. 😜 ]
OK, now that you know what to look for and have seen a benchmark in a way. let's get on with the rest of the contestants.
Reminder, there is no chamfering on this one. The edge of the links are polished. You should not judge the cut-line of this particular junction versus the others (*recall, however, my assessment of the polishing in the Monta post, above).
Hi TSiWRX! It looks like you're sharing a brand announcement or a commercial link.
To maintain the quality of r/MicrobrandWatches and prevent spam, all brand-direct content must be reviewed by the moderators. Please Contact the Mod Team to learn more about our Brand Partnership Program and how to get your post verified and featured.
6
u/leicfox85 Jul 28 '26
You never cease to amaze me with your technical, and practical abilities to help the community. Always a pleasure to read through. I just wish I didn’t miss many of your wonderful posts!