Piaget today announced the re-make of the classic (real) Polo and from what I see I think it is a step in the correct direction -- and the only way to clear the brands biggest mistake (*klikk.)

However, some things appear to be worse than with the original -- the movement... well, I see that quartz is not the most sought-after but why automatic? Maybe I missed something but I never really understood the idea of automatic winding. Do you want to fire (set time) and forget about the precision of your watch? Then use quartz. Or do you want to keep a close relationship to it? Then use a manual winding. In this size of the case the power-reserve could be 120h (5 days) easily. Is there anything more close and emotional than turning the crown gently every day in the morning to start the day?

But automatic is not only a higher complexity (more parts) than quartz or manual (so more things can go wrong) but also always a doubt whether the arm-movement of the wearer was enough over the last days to keep it powered -- especially when it is not the only watch and was worn in 3 days of the last week, only. So, you always check, move your arm -- even more you nervously shake it -- and compare the time with another device. Wow, great idea! Haaaa.

The automatic movement also leaves traces to the case design: I am not commenting on the 38mm diameter -- I can see some reasons for that, although the bracelet appears too thin, imo -- but the case is 2mm too thick. Make it a manual watch, remove 2mm in thickness and you get an overall harmonic appearance with case-thickness and corresponding bracelet-thickness. And the emotional connection with daily (weekly, if you want) winding on top.

Ah, and please get things straight and remove the glass-caseback. The movement is not very spectacular and beautiful at all with the closed bridges. Who had the idea of that? A car has a windshield to allow the driver to see the road -- sure as a watch has a crystal to read the time. But there is not a single car with glass around the engine, if I am not mistaken. And there are reasons for that. And there are engines that are more beautiful -- just thinking of the crown of Mercedes Benz engineering, the M120.

And last but not least: Great to see a clear dial without numerals; without day, date and (even worse) an Automatic-print. But it was also a chance to make the dial even clearer. It was a chance to get rid of the (oversized) PIAGET-print as well. Why dont you even use chances that are obviously on the table, Piaget? It is an unmistakable icon, everyone knows it is a Piaget -- why not stating this: "You know who made it, or at least you should." And on top it could be worn left or right hand -- just change the clasp-direction. Nice, huh!? Anyway, I simply dont get it and now I am curious to see the designers in charge. Haaaaa!

Skip the print, Piaget. Make the other changes I mentioned above and you get a nice and noteworthy watch without compromises. In the current way you missed the chance.

Ad 20240206: Two more things. 1. The double deployant-clasp adds to the unnecessary complexity and profile of the watch. What exactly was wrong with the classic Polo clasp? Minimalistic, integrated and functional. It is probably one of the major misunderstandings of our time that people think new is always better. It is NOT! Instead, when you plan to replace something -- no matter what: laws, rules, clasps, methods and cultures -- then a quick check if the "update" is superior is required. Otherwise you might have a darker future than the present. So, and 2.) there is enough space to hide the crown at least half into the case -- this would not only make it more correspondent to the classic with the crown on the back (Piaget cal7P) but also more symmetric.

Ad 20240206: Of course there are cars with visible engines. But spoken frankly, these Ferraris never reached the class of a 348 or 355. To stay in the car-picture, let me put it like this: It is not impossible to do it, but every car loses attractivity with a see-through engine-hood.