Prepare to be captivated by a timepiece that defies convention and challenges the status quo. The Owl from L’Atelier Bernard is not just a watch; it’s a bold statement in the world of independent horology, blending avant-garde design with a forgotten mechanical marvel. But here’s where it gets controversial: in an era dominated by sleek, minimalist designs, this watch dares to be unapologetically unique, leaving some to wonder—is it genius or chaos? Let’s dive in.
Independent watchmaking is experiencing a renaissance, thanks to a new wave of creators pushing boundaries. Among the most intriguing recent releases is The Owl, a six-piece limited edition that’s already sold out. Crafted by the dynamic duo Bernard Van Ormelingen and Bernard Braboretz in Fleurier, this watch is a masterclass in contradiction. Its unconventional aesthetics clash—or perhaps harmonize—with equally unconventional mechanics, making it a standout in the crowded field of emerging independents.
And this is the part most people miss: The Owl isn’t just a watch; it’s a manifesto. With no traditional dial, it showcases an inverted movement that’s a riot of colors and textures. The interplay of gold and dark blue against warm grey and copper tones is mesmerizing, even before you notice the meticulous finishing. Dominating the design are two large, symmetrical barrels that eerily resemble an owl’s inquisitive eyes. But the real surprise? The use of a duplex escapement—a mechanism largely forgotten in modern times. Bold move? Absolutely. We’ll unpack this later.
The movement itself is a study in contrasts. Highly refined elements, like the lavishly engine-turned barrels, sit alongside more rustic finishes, such as the coarsely grained mainplate. This intentional juxtaposition gives the watch a playful, almost rebellious tone, reflecting the youthful energy of its creators. Even the crown placement at 12 o’clock—a bullhead-style reinterpretation—challenges tradition.
The stainless steel case, with its angular lugs inspired by the Cornes de Vache, is a modern abstraction. While not typically my style, it works here. The case slopes downward, revealing the side view of the unusual oscillator through a cylindrical, domed sapphire crystal—a clever design choice that adds depth.
But let’s talk about the duplex escapement. For the uninitiated, this mechanism is a relic of pocket watch history, largely overshadowed by the Swiss lever. Invented in the early 18th century, the duplex is a frictional rest, deadbeat tangential impulse escapement. It’s efficient but has a drawback: the constant pressure of its locking teeth acts as a friction brake, dampening the oscillator. So why use it? Because The Owl isn’t about perfection; it’s about personality. L’Atelier Bernard’s version includes a safety implement to prevent galloping, a phenomenon that can bind the escapement. Paired with a free-sprung balance beating at 1.5 Hz, it gives the watch a unique, slowed sense of time.
Here’s the controversial question: Is the duplex escapement a nostalgic nod or a practical choice? Some might argue it’s outdated, but in The Owl, it feels deliberate—a way to stand out in a sea of uniformity. The watch runs for 45 hours on a full wind and keeps time to within +/- 3 seconds per day, which is impressive for such an unconventional mechanism.
Finishing-wise, The Owl strikes a balance between haute horlogerie and raw craftsmanship. The grained surfaces, concave bevelling, and gold inlaying showcase Braboretz’s skill, while the parachute shock absorbers add a utilitarian touch. The guillochage on the barrel drums, executed on a rose engine, is nothing short of breathtaking—a seamless, feather-like pattern that ties into the avian theme.
At CHF150,000 before taxes, The Owl is an ambitious debut. But it’s also a breath of fresh air in a world saturated with Geneva stripes and perlage. Will it polarize opinions? Absolutely. Is it worth it? That’s for you to decide. What’s undeniable is that L’Atelier Bernard has created something truly unique—a watch that challenges, intrigues, and inspires. Now, the question is: Do you think the duplex escapement is a stroke of genius or a step backward? Let’s debate in the comments!
