… that didn’t grow up into a swan.
Look at it.
Sometimes you want it to work, but it’s not quite there. Even your favourite brands get it wrong.
So this is an A258. I know very little about the A258 as a model (and the internet even less). This one is from around 1954/1955, with a three-piece chrome and steel dust-proof case. The crown is not right: it’s a Smiths dress crown, but it’s not borne of this watch. The watch itself is in quite good condition mechanically, but the dial and handset are very “distressed”. Not quite sure what’s happened here, it looks like it’s been stored in a swamp. The movement is the 27CS , a 17 jewel hand-winder with sweep second; one of the noisiest movements I’ve ever had the pleasure of owning (but it sounds great). Case diameter is about 31mm, strap size 16mm.
So why am I moaning?
Well I’m not entirely sure what this is…
I could have paid £650 for a non-beaten up one of these, sure, but I quite like the £80 trashed version as well. It has character (1 point).
It’s an obscure model (1 more point).
It’s a vintage Smiths (1 point, and a smug congratulatory pat on the back).
Keeping time (1 point and another pat on the back). It’s actually running a little fast, but that’s fine, I can live with that.
The dial – er… other than the wear, what is going on with this?
The numerals – evens is always good, but the angle and font kind of make this look cheap. Logo is bang on, it’s era-appropriate, and I love the ink logo, but it doesn’t really go with the rest. The lack of any outline or lining, or contrast, sort of washes the numerals out. They look too soft. The orientation of the numerals makes the 10 too big and ruins the symmetry. That 8 is a hate crime. The gold circular minute track looks like a crumb trail. It’s too busy, which doesn’t make sense as there is little real estate taken up here and yet the watch is migraine-inducing.
The handset – very worn, and a very odd shape (syringe). As the “pointy bits” (technical term) blend into the numerals and outer ring, they look waaay too stubby. The sweep seconds hand is (and I cannot believe I’m saying this) too thin, and the arrow is really bugging me. I believe the arrow might have had lume, but that’s long gone.
And yes, the triangles… what in the name of Timefactors is all that about. They are actually lumed, as are (were) the hands; I tried multiple times with the UV torch to get a pic, it’s well and truly dead, which I’m not mad about, but is a very interesting thing to behold… Lumed triangles, so is this some sort of field watch? I have absolutely no clue. The orientation is peculiar, and the larger triangles at 12 and 6 are very off-putting.
It’s definitely an ugly duckling, which might be why no one wanted it. Am I therefore stuck with it? Probably. Does it work as a package? Similar to the Edox I moaned about the other week, possibly not. I usually say Smiths watches are well designed, but this one is not. Mis-matched elements and a random selection of triangles make for busy minimalism, and that’s not something that’s easy to pull off. Perhaps it gets points for achieving the impossible?
It actually looks good on a red rubber strap, so again, how it’s managing to pull off the impossible is borderline miraculous.
Oh well… let’s hope it has a nice personality.
The Escapement Room 
This analysis shows that you’ve really been thinking about this. Excellent job of expounding on things that others see but cannot pinpoint and put into words. The only thing I have to add is that the 12 & 6 o’clock triangles are totally out of the circle shared by the other smaller triangles.
LikeLike