Recently, an unspoken revolution has been taking place in the world of watches: women are increasingly choosing models of male design. Love for deliberately elegant watches in a romantic style with rhinestones and flowers is replaced by an interest in massive chronographs, complex mechanisms and steel bracelets. Experts are sure that it is time to revise the traditional ideas about gender collections that divide the world into men's and women's lines!
For a long time, it was believed that women did not need watches at all. The men had pocket watches. For women, even with a tight daily routine, fireplaces or wall mounted ones were enough. The first wristwatches (by the way, created specifically for a woman, according to different versions, either for Elizabeth I, or for Napoleon's sister Caroline Murat), were considered more jewelry, ornaments than an applied accessory. They looked like a bracelet with a spectacular decor, one of the details of which, by light pressing, opened a microscopic dial. They were almost of no practical value, especially since it was considered bad form to check the time according to them, because it seemed to let the interlocutor understand that the person had more important things to do.
The Art Deco era opened up new opportunities for women. The first racers and pilots appeared, women seized power in the creative professions. Relaxed, impetuous Amazons - this is the image of the era. Time has gone by minutes! The war years finally equalized the rights of men and women. Women at the front, women in the labor front - from now on, watches have become a necessity for both sexes. Men, in turn, appreciated the convenience of a wrist accessory instead of a pocket one.
Surprisingly, over the centuries, the approach to the image of women's watches has not changed. Let's look back half a century. The woman is wearing an elegant small watch on a thin bracelet. Inside there is a simple mechanism, outside there is gold, a scattering of diamonds and bright enamels. Modern women's collections are still composed of similar models. Traditionally, it is believed that women's accessories are more decorative and romantic than men's.
The male world is brutality, steel and the realm of complex mechanics. Compare the first selection of watches in this article with the selection below. In the first case, it is a modern androgynous style, in the second - a classic “feminine” version of watch design. Handsomely? - Undoubtedly! But how justified these days, when the concept of "unisex" encompasses more and more areas of life?
We have been studying in general classes for a long time and applying for the same positions. At first, fashion brands began to abandon the division into men's and women's shows. Further more. Now many are already abandoning the division of clothing itself into male and female. And we are talking not only about youth startups, but also market titans like Gucci. Unisex jewelry collections have already become the norm. And what about the sentries?
Until today, it was generally accepted that women did not like large watches and complex mechanics. But the statistics of sales (especially the increased online orders during the pandemic, when the customer finds herself face to face with the catalog, bypassing the consultant) show that this is far from the case. Women began to like large models: 38, even 40 mm in diameter - why not? Women are no longer scared off by mechanical watches, despite the fact that they are elementary heavier than automatic watches (in fact, you quickly get used to it) and you need to take care of them: wind up, clean them. Women now not so much look at the brilliance of diamonds as study the characteristics of watches.
As a result, there is a growing demand for steel and sports women's models, which differ from men's only in size. (Still, you can't argue with anatomy: a woman's wrist is narrower and thinner than a man's). Let's listen to fashionable stylists: watches of male design look very sexy on a fragile wrist!
The watch community in Europe and the USA is actively promoting the idea of unisex watches. Experts and bloggers believe that romantic images were imposed on women by men, because before a woman could do little herself, including buying herself jewelry. This was condemned directly or indirectly. Think about it, back in the 1950s, not two or three hundred years ago!
Today, the woman stands outside the taboo. She can buy herself a watch or choose a model as a gift, but focusing on her taste. Of course, a jewelry watch for the evening is a real gem. Extravaganza of stones, a complex, spectacular image, he does not deviate from the canon. (True, even here more and more female skeletons appear).
But a watch for every day? Or your favorite watch that you can't part with, even while taking a shower? Most often today it is a functional sports steel model or a laconic golden classic for a girl who knows a lot about wrist accessories.
This interest is also fueled by advertising campaigns, which are increasingly moving away from traditional images, bringing to the fore not sexy models, but smart and successful it-girls, to thirty who have already built their own business. What flaunts on their wrists? Rolex classics Daytona and Datejust immodest 40mm, previously only men's size. Or the new 42mm Big Bang Millennial Pink from Hublot, which is said to be one of the first ultra-luxury watches to be devoid of obvious gender. They are distinguished by a brutal case made of anodized aluminum ... pink! The dial opens the complex "stuffing" of the watch, and there - the conceptual chronograph Unico.
Experts are sure that there will be more and more unisex watches. After all, this is at least beneficial to the manufacturer, since there is no need to develop two different lines, but only one can be launched. However, not all women are ready to wear strict Panerai and Patek Philippe, so feminine models will find their audience. Let's remember the post-war years: despite the emancipation, Christian Dior's New Look style comes into fashion, promoting romance and femininity. “Women will always strive for beauty,” said Dior. And can we say that he was so wrong?
