If you’ve ever seen a movement without it’s watch, and it’s got a date, you’ll know that the display consists of a large disc with the numbers 1–31 written on it that incrementally rotates every 24 hours. Fairly simple to understand, and also a little tricky to see—hence the big date complication. But how on Earth does the big date actually work?

There’s no point dragging this out; mechanical watches are not better than quartz—quite the opposite in fact. Quartz is objectively, categorically—and by a considerable margin—better than mechanical. It’s as simple as that.

When astronaut Neil Armstrong climbed out of the lunar module and stepped onto the moon’s surface for the first time, he was immediately instructed to scoop up a handful of moon dust and stuff it into his pocket, just so they'd have something in case the mission was suddenly aborted. Well here's your chance to own some of that dust, and it'll cost you just shy of £4,000—oh, and you get a watch thrown in with it for free.

By now you’re probably well aware of Omega’s significance in the field of space exploration, from the first in space on the wrist of Wally Schirra during the Mercury missions, all the way up to the X-33s worn on board the International Space Station. This is the latest in a long line of watches designed for elite pilots and astronauts—the Spacemaster Z-33. But how on Earth does it work?

Back in 2013, you could have walked into a Patek Philippe boutique and purchased this 5131J for £45,000, but if you wanted to buy one now, you wouldn’t get much change from £100,000. Why is this little world timer now worth double?

You may think that all Cartier watches are all small, rectangular and dressed with Roman numerals, and for the most part you'd be right, but just because that's the rule doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. This is what happens when the famous French jeweller lets its hair down: the Cartier Rotonde de Cartier Central Chronograph.

If you’re looking at buying your first premium watch, or even if it’s not your first rodeo, it can be a bit daunting trying to find the one that’s right for you. You may have an idea of what you want, perhaps even a brand or a type of watch, but there are still a whole load of pitfalls to trip up on when you finally take the plunge and enter the market. Never mind what you do want; here are 5 kinds of watches you should most certainly avoid.

This watch has over 650 parts. That’s five times as many as a typical movement, twice as many as the average car engine, all crammed into a space small enough to wear comfortably on the wrist. But it’s not the number of parts that makes this watch a grand complication, it’s the way they’re put together. Let’s find out why.

A few years back, Patek Philippe introduced a watch from which the world’s press collectively recoiled: the Calatrava Travel Time 5524G. At 42mm and in white gold, it’s a big, heavy brute of a watch, a far cry from the elegance and reserve we’ve come to know of Switzerland’s most prestigious watchmaker. It’s safe to say that no one really gets why Patek Philippe made it, but I can tell you that the brand itself does, and here’s just the thing to prove it: the Patek Philippe Aquanaut.

The steel and gold used to make watches are sourced from the ground and refined into a raw material, which is then shaped and finished into the final product. All pretty standard, pretty normal. But what if you could grow your watch instead?

It’s about time we got these two side-by-side, and now that time is here. The crux of this debate is simply going to revolve around the following: this GMT-Master II costs £6,800, the Tudor £2,790. The Rolex is almost two-and-a-half times the price. But it’s also the older sibling, the original, without which Tudor wouldn’t exist at all. So, the question is simply this: if you can afford either, which one should you pick?

I’ll get right to it: this is perhaps the cleverest watch I have ever seen. No exaggeration. There are more complicated, more technically advanced, more expensive watches out there, but for sheer engineering brilliance, this one takes the crown. Welcome to the H. Moser & Cie. Endeavour Perpetual Calendar.

At Baselworld earlier this year, Rolex finally put us out of our misery by releasing a stainless steel version of the ceramic red and blue GMT-Master II, a colour combination previously only available on the white gold 116719BLRO for a rather expensive £25,600. But now that flagship model has been watered down into a stainless steel watch for the masses, how will Rolex differentiate the most expensive GMT-Masters from the rest?

If you’ve got a lump sum of around £5,000 burning a hole in your pocket, and you’re looking to get yourself your first watch, you’re probably thinking about some kind of Rolex, or Omega, or perhaps a Breitling. £5,000 doesn’t get you that far any more—you’ll get one decent watch, and that’s about it. Or is it?

It doesn’t take much looking to find a sizable group of people who claim that the moon landings never happened. They believe the historic moment when Neil Armstrong first set foot on that grey, powdery surface was faked. If you find yourself erring towards that mindset, then I want you to take a closer look at something that just might sway you: the A. Lange & Söhne Datograph Perpetual.

You know what they say about form following function, that designing a tool should be considered first with operation and usability, and secondly with aesthetics—well, seems like the folks at the Saxony watchmaker Glashütte Original didn’t get that particular memo, because here we have the Glashütte Original PanoInverse—and it appears to have been built backwards.