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.

It’s no secret that Rolex is one of the most faked brands in the world—we’ve all seen those market stalls on holiday peddling numerous shady imitations—but the fake watch market doesn’t stop there, oh no. And not only are fakes not limited to the arena of Rolex, but also not to the £100, DOA monstrosities that stand out a mile off. Modern CNC technology and the growth of aspiration across the globe has incentivised the manufacturers of fake watches to push their attempts further and further. And this is where we are now, with a fake of the Cartier Ballon Bleu de Cartier that you’d be hard-pushed to spot.

If you want a timepiece that echoes the classic British and French pocket watches of the 18th century, then it’s to Breguet that you’ll need to turn your attention. Simple, yet beautifully executed, plain, yet immediately recognisable, Breguet’s nod to masters like John Harrison, Thomas Mudge and John Arnold has become a style of its own within the wristwatch community. But there’s a new kid in town offering that same look for just a tenth of the price, one Frederique Constant. Should Breguet be worried?

To look at two Formula One cars, aside from the distinctive paint jobs, it would be hard to tell one from the other. Yet these are machines built independently, in secret, by isolated teams working to different principles and ideas. The reality is that each car is incredibly different on a micro level, despite seeming so indistinct at the macro. The same could be said of Rolex’s Submariner and Omega’s Seamaster—two watches that seem so similar on the surface, yet differ in approach so dramatically when seen just a little closer.

If you’ve got your sights set on a classic Daytona 116520, the pre-ceramic model, then there’s probably not much else out there that might turn your fancy. You’re unlikely to be swayed by an Omega, or a Breitling, probably not even a Jaeger-LeCoultre—but what about a Patek Philippe? And not just any old Patek Philippe, but a complicated one in white gold, no less. How does the Daytona look now?

In a time of calculators, computers, smart phones and the internet, the answer to any question is never more than a few taps of a screen or clicks of a button away. Remember when you had to just know who was in a movie, or what that song was? Before then, before all of that, there was a time when complex calculations were only achievable by hand or with a slide rule. It’s a skill that’s been lost over generations, but today we’re going to find out how, exactly, this mess of lines and numbers actually works.

When entering the realm of watchmaking, the first thing a curious novice will discover is that watches don’t all tick. Some do, and those are mainly quartz, but many don’t—they sweep, in a fine, jittery motion, and these are mechanical movements. Quartz is accurate, our novice learns, but mechanical has soul, history and craftsmanship. But there’s another type of movement, one that glides smoothly without a tick or a jitter, as accurate as quartz but with all the hallmarks of mechanical—could it be the best of both worlds?

When you’re a watchmaker with over 1,200 patents to your name, you earn yourself a bit of a reputation. In the case of Jaeger-LeCoultre, that’s being known as the watchmaker’s watchmaker, suggesting not only that the brand supplies other watchmakers with its movements—which it has done to no less than Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Vacheron Constantin, IWC, Chopard, Panerai and Cartier—but has also earned their respect. But is Jaeger-LeCoultre’s reputation built on fixing problems that never existed? Here are three watches to answer that question.