Honest Observations About The GPHG And What Needs To Change

I initially wanted to title this article the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the GPHG Awards, but I thought better of it. After all, I wouldn’t want to be thought of as one of the non-supportive voices in the industry – especially on the heels of the 24^th GPHG  Awards last month. Additionally, I don’t want to take anything away from the glory that the winners of this year’s GPHG are enjoying. Every win was well deserved.

But, even though I wrote a complete article about the winners on my column on Forbes, and a detailed article about some of the specific smart picks in multiple categories here on ATimelyPerspective, there are several other interesting observations about the GPHG Awards that I feel need to be mentioned — even if it means going out on a limb here.

As I said in the beginning of this article,  there is an “ugly” side to these awards and typically these concepts are avoided by the press in coverage, lest we be deemed negative or biased against the occasion.

But here goes:

Where are all the other brands? The big brands? Anyone who wants to call this event inclusive, needs to look again. Where are the big names? Cartier, Audemars Piguet, Rolex, Patek Philippe, Vacheron and more. They are all non-existent. In fact, a good look at the final nominations list of 90 watches (many repeat brands) and the astute watch lover will see a host of big names missing from the line up. It isn’t that their watches aren’t good enough to make the final cut. It is because they don’t participate.

But why don’t they participate? Is it because they are afraid of losing – a thought many in the industry have proffered? I don’t think so. Do they just not want to  support an “industry-wide” event? I doubt it. Is it because the GPHG charges fees? That’s a tough call. Naturally, the big brands have the money to pay the fees, but maybe they feel that it equates to a pay-for-play mentality and they don’t want to indulge that idea.

Essentially, brands pay to enter their watches into teh competition and, depnding on if they are nominated in the final rounds, those costs can range from about 800 Swiss Francs to nearly 8,000 for just one watch.

Again, it’s not the amount of money that is daunting to the big brands; it is the concept of paying at all. I mean, there are other ways for GPHG organizers to make the awards profitable. So many ways exist, such as bringing in celebrities or brand ambassadors to capture a more global audience (and the dollars of sponsors in return) that would tune in for the glam. Plus, this would further raise the concept of watchmaking as a superior art in the eyes of consumers. There are other ideas floating around as well. Still, I reached out to about half a dozen of the “missing” brands to discuss the topic, but none wanted to go on the record.

So, it still leaves us questioning the breadth and scope of the event. Sure, you can have an academy that votes; you can have final jurors that decide specialized wins, but if the event isn’t all-inclusive, is it fair to say these are the best?

Are the awards becoming too diluted? If we are truly honoring the “best” of the year, why aren’t we keeping the categories tight? Instead, we keep expanding the categories each year. This year alone, by the time we got done with the “discretionary” awards, 21 prizes were offered up over the course of nearly three hours.

As to those category distinctions or diffusions:  this year, we have a new “Time Only” section. However, we have several other “time only” watches (including a Grand Seiko, Parmigiani and Hermes) in other categories. As a matter of fact, Hermes even entered its new “Cut” – a time-only watch – into the ladies’ category, though it might have been better suited for the Time Only division given its versatile size.

Add to that the fact that the GPHG continues to dilute its larger categories, such as Mechanical Exception, Men’s Complications or Women’s Complications, by adding sub-sects like Tourbillons, Calendars and Astronomy, Chronographs. I get it, the more awards we give out the better. But when are we just splitting hairs? The question is almost like a watch itself … how many subdials can you fit on the main dial?

Next, let’s talk about price categories that honor the more “attainably priced” mechanical watches, with categories for under $3,000 and under $10,000. I agree that having these price breakdowns is essential; without them, more affordable watches wouldn’t stand a chance against the big guns. It’s a smart way to level the playing field. However, I wonder if we risk the potential in coming years of overcomplicating things if the GPHG decides to subdivide even these categories, maybe into steel, new materials or some other criteria, for example.

In short, I wonder, how many awards are too many?

On a final note, I need to be transparent. While I have been on the GPHG  Academy for years (well, maybe not after writing this) and have attended GPHG in person, I have never served on the actual jury. As such, some might say my observations listed herein are “sour grapes.” They aren’t. They are just observations from a veteran journalist who wonders how we can make the Awards even more meaningful and more inclusive so we can truly call them all-encompassing Oscars.

Meanwhile, congrats again to the winners!