No products in the cart.
Every year, this is the moment when everything revolves around the Academy Awards. Of course, the awards season begins much earlier, unfolding across the previous year with the festivals of Cannes, Venice, and Berlin, before building momentum into the new year with the Golden Globes and the BAFTAs—ultimately reaching its peak at the Oscars each March. This year’s ceremony had everything, and everything has already been analyzed, debated, and reinterpreted across social media and international press. Yet beyond the haute couture gowns, the occasionally eccentric black tie tailoring, and the million-dollar jewelry, there is one detail that tends to escape the attention of the wider audience: the watch.
Small in size, often discreet, yet remarkably revealing of the personality and aesthetic sensibility of the person wearing it. And this year, the choices on the wrist were more interesting—and more diverse—than ever. From classic, ultra-thin models crafted in precious metals to bold avant-garde creations with high complications, and even miniature watch-jewels that adorned not only women’s but also men’s wrists. Among them, one could even spot a handful of unfamiliar, previously unseen pieces—watches that have yet to be officially introduced, quietly making their debut and hinting, almost playfully, at what lies ahead.
If there is one unwritten rule surrounding black tie attire, it is that a watch has no place within it. In formal settings—where time is meant to fade into the background and the focus shifts entirely to the occasion—the presence of a watch can be perceived as unnecessary, or even slightly impolite towards one’s host. And yet, the Oscars red carpet tells a very different story.
Looking back at the numerous features that flooded the media and social platforms immediately after the ceremony, one observes that many of the men who choose to wear a watch on such an occasion still follow what could be described as the “safe” path. Slim cases in gold or platinum, clean and balanced dials, refined proportions and discreet elegance. In other words, classic dress watches that do not attempt to draw attention, but rather serve to complete a formal look with quiet sophistication.
There are, however, others—the bold, the eccentric, the deliberately unconventional. Those who approach black tie not as a limitation, but as an opportunity. On their wrists, one does not find discreet dress watches, but true mechanical statements of haute horlogerie: chronographs with a strong visual presence, tourbillons fully exposed to the eye, perpetual calendars with layered and information-rich dials, even minute repeaters—complications that, in theory, have no place in an evening where time is not meant to matter.
And yet, that is precisely what they do. They measure. They measure intention. They measure individuality. They measure the desire of the wearer to shift the viewer’s gaze from the overall silhouette to the detail, from the tuxedo to the mechanics beneath the crystal. A skeleton tourbillon revealing every oscillation of the balance, a perpetual calendar condensing decades of technical expertise into a few millimeters of thickness, a minute repeater silently carrying within it one of the most demanding and poetic traditions of high watchmaking.
In these instances, the watch is no longer an accessory, it becomes the protagonist. It stands in striking contrast to the strict, almost ceremonial framework of black tie, at times bordering on the provocative. It introduces character, tension, and personality into a setting that otherwise promotes uniformity. And in doing so, the watch ceases to be a subtle detail and transforms into the most complex—and perhaps most revealing—element of the entire appearance.
Perhaps the most intriguing trend of recent years is the increasing presence of smaller watches, and even jewelry watches, on men’s wrists. Cases measuring under 36 mm, diamonds that are not concealed but celebrated, slim bracelets that resemble fine jewelry more than instruments of timekeeping.
Watches that, until not long ago, would have been unquestionably categorized as “women’s” now appear naturally and confidently on male wrists, without hesitation or apology. This is not a stylistic provocation. Nor is it a fleeting trend born out of social media. It reflects a deeper, more fundamental shift in how we perceive luxury, identity, and self-expression. The watch is no longer confined to traditional notions of masculinity. It becomes a vehicle for aesthetic choice, for nuance, for individuality. And in that sense, the Oscars red carpet becomes a mirror of this transformation, subtle, yet unmistakable.
At the Oscars, where evening gowns and high jewelry dominate the visual narrative, the choice of a watch remains rare. And precisely for that reason, it becomes all the more significant. This year, only five female stars were observed wearing a watch on the red carpet. Not as a functional object, but as a conscious and deliberate stylistic decision. In some cases, the watch acted as a natural extension of the jewelry, blending seamlessly into the overall composition. In others, it functioned as a quiet counterpoint to the brilliance of diamonds.
What is certain is that when a woman chooses to wear a watch in such a setting, she does not do so to tell the time. She does so to communicate something. About her personal style, her relationship with watchmaking, her understanding of elegance and proportion. And perhaps this is why these few appearances carry more weight than dozens of others.
In an era where most red-carpet appearances are the result of brand partnerships and carefully orchestrated strategies, there exists a compelling counterpoint: vintage. A watch from another era is not simply an accessory. It carries with it a story. It bears traces of time, subtle signs of wear, and a sense of authenticity that cannot be artificially reproduced.
On the Oscars red carpet, vintage watches function almost like cinematic props from a different era of Hollywood. They evoke a time when elegance was less constructed, less calculated, and perhaps more instinctive. It is this very quality that allows them to integrate so effortlessly into the black-tie aesthetic.
There is, however, another category that deserves attention. Upon closer observation, one can identify one or two watches that have not yet been officially presented by their brands, and yet make their first appearance on the wrist of a celebrity.
In recent years, more and more watchmakers have begun to use the red carpet as an informal stage for unveiling new creations. A watch appears, is photographed, discussed, and circulated, only to be formally introduced at a later stage. At this level, the Oscars begin to function almost as an extension—or perhaps a prelude—to Watches & Wonders. A preview without press releases, without display cases, without technical specifications. What they offer instead is something far more immediate: an image, a moment, and the curiosity it generates. And, inevitably, the desire.
On the Oscars red carpet, where every detail appears meticulously controlled, the watch remains one of the few truly personal choices. It may follow the rules, or ignore them entirely. It may be vintage, or not yet released. It may be discreetly elegant, or assert its presence within the brilliance of the occasion. In every case, however, it says something about the person wearing it. Whether it is a spontaneous decision, a carefully curated image, or part of a broader commercial collaboration, the watch always reveals something beyond the obvious. Because in a world where everything is staged, the way one chooses to wear time may well be the most honest statement of all.
