I didn’t get into watches the way most collectors do.
There was no childhood fascination, no early obsession with movements or complications. For most of my life, watches were simply objects — functional, replaceable, forgettable.
That changed the day I inherited my grandfather’s watches.
There were four in total. Each one carried weight, not just physically, but emotionally. They represented time in a way I had never considered before. But among them, one stood apart. Its design was different. Its presence was quieter, yet somehow more powerful. The dial read: Vacheron Constantin.
I had never heard of it.
Curiosity turned into research, and research quickly turned into admiration. The more I learned, the more I realized that this wasn’t just another watch brand — it was a philosophy. A way of approaching watchmaking that felt more complete, more balanced, and in many ways, more honest than anything I had seen before.
As I continued my journey, I began to notice something strange.
In conversations about high horology, the so-called “Holy Trinity” — Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, and Vacheron — was no longer being treated as it once was. Increasingly, collectors and enthusiasts were replacing Vacheron with Rolex, as if popularity had become a substitute for heritage.
To me, this shift feels fundamentally misguided.
Because if you take a step back and look at what defines true high watchmaking — history, craftsmanship, innovation, and depth — Vacheron doesn’t just belong in the conversation. It may very well represent it better than anyone else.
Unlike many modern brands, Vacheron Constantin does not rely on a single model to carry its identity. Its catalogue is vast, cohesive, and deeply rooted in its own archives. Collections like the Patrimony, Traditionnelle, and Historiques are not just products — they are continuations of a 270-year legacy.
Compare that to Audemars Piguet, a brand with undeniable history, yet one that today feels overwhelmingly centered around a single design: the Royal Oak. It is an icon, without question — but an icon that has become almost too dominant. One can’t help but wonder what AP could achieve if it looked backward more often, reviving the depth of its past the way Vacheron so elegantly does.
And then there are complications — an area where Vacheron is almost never given the credit it deserves.
In recent years, the brand has quietly produced some of the most complicated watches ever made, including the Berkley Grand Complication and the Solaria. These are not marketing exercises; they are technical statements. And yet, they rarely dominate the conversation in the way releases from other brands do.
Why?
Part of the answer may lie beyond the watches themselves.
Today, buying from Patek Philippe or Audemars Piguet often comes with barriers — long waiting lists, purchasing histories, and in some cases, experiences that leave collectors feeling more like clients in a system than enthusiasts sharing a passion. It’s a reality many collectors have quietly acknowledged.
Vacheron, in contrast, still feels accessible in a way that aligns more closely with what collecting should be about: appreciation, not qualification.
This is not to say that one brand is objectively better than another. Each brings something unique to horology, and each has earned its place in history.
But if the idea of the “Holy Trinity” is meant to represent the pinnacle of watchmaking — not hype, not scarcity, not market dynamics — then perhaps it’s time to look more carefully at who truly embodies those values.
Because sometimes, the most important pillar is the one people have slowly stopped noticing.
And in the case of Vacheron Constantin, that would be a mistake.
One Response
Great piece Abraham. A little glimpse into the life of those watches and how time represents you differently. Love the fact that you get such amazing timepieces that will later be passed from generation to generation or L’Dor Va Dor as we say to your next of kin. Glad to know you and have seen them personally. 😉