Antoine Preziuso
If we consider the elements, one by one, it is perfect. But if we take it as a whole, I see a problem. The association of the galuchat and the great originality of the stone setting that evokes the granulation of the bracelet is wonderful. But that's a piece in itself. The tourbillon, taken separately, is lovely and a perfect example. But mixing it with the bracelet, representing a totally different aesthetic approach, destroys the effect of the tourbillon. The quality of the tourbillon and the visibility of its movement disappear under the weight of the ornamentation. Each element taken separately is highly original and well made, but together, the combination just doesn't work. Having said that, we all know the excellence of Antoine Preziuso and know that he is capable of producing, and will continue to produce, pieces that are purer and more vibrant than this example.

Arnold & Son
In the case of this brand, which has produced some very nice products such as, for example an excellent flyback chronograph, we get the impression that a tourbillon was not really quite justified in this particular timepiece. Obviously, collectors want tourbillons, but that alone is not enough to justify their presence in a watch. In and of itself, the tourbillon is quite lovely. The frame and bars are well executed and the movement is chamfered and quite well hand crafted, but the case is a little too big. The white dial, the rose gold and cut-out of the frame orifice do not work well together. It doesn't make a good marriage. The triple-zone function is perhaps interesting, but it is an addition, which is not really necessary. The tourbillon is very nice in itself but the encasing is not up to its level.

Audemars Piguet
We find here the touch of Renaud & Papi that is already visible at Richard Mille, notably, in the hands that show the remaining power and the working reserve in the barrel. Technically, the finishing is excellent, but aesthetically, it is not very inspired. It is a sort of hybrid. Here also, it is too trendy. Having said that, Audemars Piguet can allow itself this type of fancy since it is a venerable company that has made, and will continue to make, truly great classics.

Blancpain
From its debut, I have always liked Blancpain's classic tourbillon. Very fine, delicate and well balanced, I find it aesthetically pleasing. It was one of the very first and since has become timeless. It is still very nice, but combined in this model with chronographic functions, with an overcrowded dial, large numbers and a stone-set bezel, well, frankly, it is too much. It's a shame. This poor tourbillon has become so engulfed in everything around it that it has nearly disappeared. Its simple beauty has been lost. Also, by its very nature, a tourbillon is not sporty. But, it is a model among many others, testimony to the general confusion that surrounds the tourbillon today. Blancpain certainly has good commercial reasons for wanting to bring it out but that does not mean the brand will no longer make its magnificent and purely classic model. We must be patient.

Chopard
Technically, this tourbillon is very interesting and successful with a working reserve of eight days and a movement endowed with the Poinçon de Genève (Geneva Seal). It is also one of the rare tourbillons with an oscillation of 28,800 vibrations/hour. But, unfortunately, it is a disappointment from an aesthetic point of view. The rectangular form of the bars, with their strict mechanical severity, clashes with the rest and degrades the watch by destroying the purity that it had before. It is a total contrast with the dauphine hands, for example. The combination is not convincing.

Daniel JeanRichard
Why would Daniel JeanRichard propose a tourbillon? I wonder because this brand, whose diverse offer I appreciate very much, is not positioned in this category. Moreover, I find that the hybrid aspect is too much a mix of types. In spite of the excellent execution of the tourbillon itself, the relationship between the shape of the case and the device is odd. The colours and style do not match and the bar seems to be an added element. In sum, the whole is made up of an assorted variety of elements and lacks homogeneity.

Daniel Roth
As is usual, the case is very nice and gives a strong identity to the watch. It is an in-house movement, which is to be saluted. But the style resembles a little too much that of Breguet. The shape of the bar is not at all convincing. The dial is too large in relation to the opening of the tourbillon. It is very classic, rather pure but it lacks spice and fantasy, but we get the impression that we have seen it before.

Franck Muller
Has Franck Muller succeeded in creating a watch that many watchmakers dream of? Perhaps, but because of not having the opportunity to examine it closely, I cannot answer this question. His idea is clever. He knows perfectly well that the tourbillon is only really applicable to pocket watches which are carried in a vertical position. Undoubtedly, he was inspired by the ancient gyroscope-mounted marine chronom-eters when he created this tourbillon that rotates on the horizontal and vertical axes. Is it the Grail? Unfortunately, I don't know. But at least he has made it, and that is already saying something. In passing, we might mention something of similar prowess created by Thomas Prescher of the ACHI, which is a pocket watch equipped with a double-axis tourbillon. As for the Muller tourbillon, while waiting to learn more, I would give him the Grand Prize for Art and Experimentation.