Why exhibition casebacks aren’t always a selling point

Tom Austin

There’s something undeniably appealing about the idea of transparency in watchmaking. The ability to peer beneath the surface to see the mechanics in motion, to understand how things work, is all part of what draws us to mechanical watches in the first place. For decades now, the exhibition caseback has been treated as a kind of reward: flip the watch over, and you’re given a glimpse of the magic. But, like any overused magic trick, used too often, the wizardry fades. Because while the original idea was to showcase exceptional craftsmanship, today’s reality sometimes falls short.

Exhibition casebacks have almost become standard on watches, even with unremarkable movements; often mass-produced calibres with minimal finishing and no visual intrigue to speak of. And yet, brands continue to frame them as a value-add, as if seeing something ticking inside is enough to justify the transparent window.

The result? We now have a trend that’s more about marketing than merit. And in some cases, it’s not just unnecessary, it’s actively worse than a solid caseback. I’m sure there are marketing executives who would argue that this is what the general watch-buying public prefers, and that when there’s a mechanical movement involved, the majority of people don’t care about some of the finer details; they want to be able to see it. But that argument misunderstands the point entirely. As watch enthusiasts, just because we can see the movement doesn’t mean we should – in fact, there are plenty of cases where having a closed caseback is preferable.

Not all movements are worth displaying

Let’s get one thing straight. I love mechanical watches as much as the next person. To me, there’s nothing better than having a tiny machine whirring away on your wrist, a marvel of physics and precision engineering on a minuscule scale. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no quartz snob; like many of us, I collect both mechanical and quartz watches, but without a doubt, mechanical watches capture my love and interest the most.

However, the fact that I also love quartz watches tells you that I also appreciate a watch’s design for what it is, not just for what lies beneath. First and foremost, though, I believe most people initially enjoy watches for their appearance, then how they make them feel when worn, and then, perhaps, for their craftsmanship. And some brands do indeed follow that process when presenting watches to us.

This means that, especially from the more entry-level perspective, fine craftsmanship in the movement can take a back seat at times, and we end up with some really cool watches that have more industrial, mass-produced movements inside. And that’s absolutely fine, because not everything needs to be a Lange 1. Often, as long as it’s reasonably accurate and it’s robust enough to last, then we’re happy. What we don’t necessarily need are swathes of ETA 2824s, Miyota 8-series or Seiko NH35s on display. We all know what these look like, and quite frankly, none of them are visually exciting.

Yes, some brands take the opportunity to dress them up with a custom rotor or some basic decoration, but it begs the question, why? Is it trying to be something better than it is? Is it customisation for the sake of it? What does it add to the visual appeal of a watch to be able to see a basic, entry-level movement? It’s like showing the drivetrain of a Tesla – it’s hardly going to evoke the emotion of a titanium and carbon-fibre-clad handbuilt V12, is it?

That’s not to say that just because a movement is common or cheap doesn’t mean it’s not worth finishing nicely. There are plenty of watchmakers who can turn basic movements into works of art, like Furlan Marri’s treatment of the Peseux 7001 in their Disco Volante or how Jochen Benzinger can turn a humble Unitas 6497/98 into a work of art. That’s not what I’m talking about here. I also appreciate that for many watch buyers, the novelty of simply seeing a movement – regardless of how commonplace it or its finishing is – is still worth the price of entry. But in many such cases, all it does is add unnecessary bulk and thickness to a case, and can actually detract from the overall design aesthetic of the watch, as Buffy explains here.

Cost-cutting in disguise

You’ve finally made it, you’ve reached that point in your watch-collecting journey where you can finally get that real gold watch you’ve always lusted over. It feels so reassuringly heavy on your wrist… Yet you flip the watch over and see there’s a piece of transparent sapphire crystal where there should be a slab of gold. While I’m by no means saying that all precious metals with exhibition casebacks only have them because brands are trying to save weight or costs – you’d like to think that if a brand’s making gold watches, they’re also putting movements that are halfway worth looking at in their watches anyway – a sapphire crystal is significantly cheaper than adding 5-10 grams of gold or platinum.

Panerai in particular has drawn particular criticism for this. The Luminor Chrono Goldtech PAM1111, for example, was marketed as having an exhibition caseback, but collectors quickly discovered that the sapphire crystal was so heavily tinted and obscured that the movement inside the solid gold case was all but invisible. Perhaps this was Panerai attempting to conceal the fact that its P.9200 calibre is actually a ETA 2892 with a Dubois-Dépraz chronograph module, rather than a true in-house movement, or because they wanted to save a bit of money by not having a solid gold caseback. Conversely, it’s good to see that most of Rolex’s precious-metal lineup still has fully enclosed casebacks – for now, that is.

Your chiming watch shouldn’t come with a view

Ditching exhibition casebacks isn’t just about hiding boring movements. In some cases, even the heavy-hitters of haute horology are better off concealed, and not just for aesthetic reasons. At the upper echelons of watchmaking, we enter the world of chiming watches – minute repeaters, sonnerie au passages and the like. These complications don’t just rely on mechanical mastery and beautiful finishing; they depend on something else that you can’t see: resonance. Solid casebacks, often in precious metals, act like resonating chambers, helping to amplify and project the sound produced by the gongs. Think of it like a musical instrument; the case doesn’t just contain the movement, it becomes a part of the acoustic system. Sapphire, by contrast, is dense and acoustically inert, and as such, it tends to dampen sound rather than carry it.

So while an exhibition caseback might offer a stunning view of the hammers and gongs at work – and to be fair, watching (and listening to) a minute repeater mechanism chime is a true pleasure – it often comes at the cost of volume and clarity. Which begs the question, what’s the point? There’s a reason traditionalists prefer the interchangeable solid backs for watches like Patek Philippe Grand Complication minute repeaters, because unlike sapphire, metal doesn’t kill the music. Watches like the IWC Portugieser Minute Repeater, for example, suffer from an underwhelming ding due to a lack of resonance in the case.

Conversely, there’s a reason why the widely lauded Christopher Ward Bel Canto is made from titanium and features a closed case back, because the caseback and case material help propagate the sound of its sonnerie au passage. For some reason, we’ve come to automatically assume a closed caseback is a cheap, boring option when, in reality, it should be treated as a much more specific detail.

Sometimes, less is more, and that’s not a bad thing

There’s a certain romance to a solid caseback. These days, when everything is laid bare, there’s something refreshingly confident about a watch that chooses not to show it all – a bit of mystery is cool. A solid caseback is also a canvas for brands to showcase their storytelling capabilities, and leaves room for elements such as edition numbers, themed engravings, or other nice details, like Longines’ old-school hand-enamelled medallions.

We’ve broached this topic before, and it’s been met with mixed opinions. For some, it’s a flat-out nope, mechanical watches MUST have a see-through caseback, while others are leaning more towards wanting brands to do it with purpose, as in, if you’re going to show the movement, you better make damn sure that movement is worth looking at. Don’t make the exhibition caseback and afterthought; it needs to be part of the overall picture.

It isn’t just about aesthetics; brands have a real opportunity here to be more thoughtful about how they treat the reverse side of a watch. It doesn’t always need to be transparent to be meaningful, and brands should pay more attention to this rather than just giving in to what they think people want. For many, buying a particular watch can be a once-in-a-lifetime thing with a solid caseback that can be commemorated with something special, allowing room for a watch to be personalised with a bespoke engraving. Going in this direction may even mean that people enjoy owning their watches more in the long run.