In the world of horology, the term 'microbrand' has become a bit of a lightning rod. It's a label that, for some, carries a sense of pride and innovation, while for others, it's a term they'd rather leave behind. But why is this seemingly innocuous term causing such a stir? Let's delve into the heart of the matter and explore the complexities of this divisive term. Personally, I think the issue lies in the fact that the term 'microbrand' has become too broad and too easily associated with mass-produced, generic watches. What many people don't realize is that the microbrand movement was initially a celebration of small, independent watchmakers who took creative risks and embraced the spirit of innovation. Brands like Studio Underd0g, Baltic, and Christopher Ward were pioneers, carving out a niche for themselves in the watch industry by offering something fresh and exciting. However, as the market has evolved, so has the definition of a microbrand. Today, the term is often used to describe any small watch company, regardless of their commitment to innovation or independence. This has led to a situation where many successful smaller brands feel they've outgrown the label, while others are still grouped under the same umbrella as Kickstarter projects. From my perspective, this raises a deeper question: is it time for the watch industry to rethink the term 'microbrand'? Perhaps 'small independent' or 'indie' is a more useful description, as it acknowledges the defining characteristic of independence, rather than the size of the company. However, I also wonder if the term 'microbrand' isn't hurting brands at all. If collectors still associate the term with passionate people making interesting watches outside the industry's biggest players, maybe the term isn't such a bad thing. Either way, it's an interesting discussion, and I have a feeling it won't be the last time the watch industry finds itself debating what a microbrand actually is. Now, let's shift gears and explore some of the fascinating watches that have captured my attention this week. MB&F's M.A.D.Gallery continues its 15th-anniversary celebrations with a mesmerizing kinetic watch winder by British artist Martin Smith. The Solar Orbiter is a masterpiece that blurs the line between sculpture and horological accessory. Standing 60cm tall and built from more than 300 handcrafted components, the Solar Orbiter quietly rotates a watch while incorporating playful references to Smith's earlier M.A.D.Gallery works. It's a refreshing reminder that not every horological talking point needs to be a new watch. Shinola, on the other hand, is telling a new story with its first-ever brand campaign, Set the Pace. Fronted by Succession star Nicholas Braun, the campaign explores our increasingly complicated relationship with time itself. It's an interesting shift for a company that has largely relied on the strength of its products and Detroit identity. Finally, let's talk about the first new-reference Rolex Daytona Rainbow, which has just gone under the hammer in Australia. With a retail price of US$324,700 and a secondary market value that's already reached A$395,000, the sale of this watch will provide the first real indication of how collectors value Rolex's latest Rainbow Daytona in the open market. It's a sale that plenty of collectors will be watching with interest. In conclusion, the term 'microbrand' may be divisive, but it's also a reflection of the diverse and dynamic nature of the watch industry. Whether we choose to embrace or abandon the term, one thing is clear: the world of horology is constantly evolving, and there's always something new and exciting to explore.
