here is plenty of talk about new watch brands. Their energy. Their audacity. The dynamism of the independents, once again on display at Geneva Watch Days.

Yet one question keeps nagging at me: which of them will reach beyond the circle of connoisseurs? Which will become a household name, familiar even to people who do not know what an escapement is, have never set foot in a watch fair and have never debated the ideal case diameter?

Caught up in the enthusiasm of our encounters, we sometimes forget how small the watch world really is. A brand can be on everyone’s lips at a fair and completely unknown one street away. Earning collectors’ respect is one thing. Making a name beyond that circle is quite another.

Which will become a household name, familiar even to people who do not know what an escapement is, have never set foot in a watch fair and have never debated the ideal case diameter?

Consider two brands, both born this millennium, that have made that leap, with radically different ideas of what a watch should be. First, the inexpensive, short-lived mainstream phenomenon Daniel Wellington. An early embrace of Instagram and influencers brought its watches into the everyday visual landscape of an audience far larger than the watch community. A fleeting success but a very real phenomenon (Timex Group recently acquired the brand and has plans to revive it, so watch this space!).

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Richard Mille, which puts mechanical prowess at the heart of the proposition. Crucially, in a form anyone can understand: a tourbillon on Rafael Nadal’s wrist, worn through the rallies at Roland-Garros. A brand can capture the public’s imagination while remaining beyond the means of almost everyone. Its cultural reach can far outstrip its production figures.

Daniel Wellington and Richard Mille: putting them in the same sentence borders on blasphemy. Yet both gave people outside our world a reason to pay attention. Each, in its own way, opened up new possibilities for the industry as a whole. Each became, paradoxical as it may seem, a way into watches.

Consider two brands, both born this millennium, that have made that leap, with radically different ideas of what a watch should be.

None of this means that every young brand should pursue the same ambition. An independent can find its balance, and its freedom, by catering to purists. Going mainstream is no guarantee of quality. Nor does winning attention remove the need to build something that lasts. If anything, it makes that work all the more necessary.

But for those intent on growing beyond their niche, the question is worth asking: what do they offer that might engage someone who was never looking for them in the first place?

Of the brands coming onto our radar today, the next to break through may not be the one insiders most readily agree on. It will be the one that inspires desire well beyond their conversations.

So, who is your money on?