I like the second one a lot, especially how the upper and bottom numerals face the floor and the left and right ones face towards the center, and to allow for that there has to be a sudden flip from 3>4 and 8>9. But the indices are not playing by the square-clock rule and unlike the cartier one form a regular oval shape.
I like how the upper one had to find a way to make clear which indice represents the numerals - it really shows the problem in projecting the circular movement of the hands into a rectangular (thanks, that’s the right word) shape.
It think most analog clocks/watches will give you an old-timey whiff much more often than not, just because there is a more new-timey alternative. I went looking for some watch faces for smart watches, but couldn’t really find any interesting one. Most are either digital numbers or a round clock on a rectangular display.
Neither of those interest me like the Cartier tank, which I find really ugly watches to be honest. It’s just this double outlined rectangle(-ish shape) which is unevenly split into 60 boxes that I like (seen below on the first, third and fifth watch).
By far the best, but still off. These three were loaded in the same order as i post them:
I dig the square clock, and am now sad that the numbers can’t be put into the corners on a real clock. Unless they’re shifted from the usual position.
Cartier found a work around quite some time ago and maybe they weren’t even the first to design a square ‘clock’:
(The roman numerals are nice, but notice the ‘circle’ between the numerals and the hands, almost like the circle from the ai)
That one is pretty good, though the Roman numerals are rather busy and uneven.
This one is closer, though now I have to wonder if all non-square rectangular clocks have an old-timey whiff for me, or it’s just the border here:
This is also impressive:
I like the second one a lot, especially how the upper and bottom numerals face the floor and the left and right ones face towards the center, and to allow for that there has to be a sudden flip from 3>4 and 8>9. But the indices are not playing by the square-clock rule and unlike the cartier one form a regular oval shape.
I like how the upper one had to find a way to make clear which indice represents the numerals - it really shows the problem in projecting the circular movement of the hands into a rectangular (thanks, that’s the right word) shape.
It think most analog clocks/watches will give you an old-timey whiff much more often than not, just because there is a more new-timey alternative. I went looking for some watch faces for smart watches, but couldn’t really find any interesting one. Most are either digital numbers or a round clock on a rectangular display.
Neither of those interest me like the Cartier tank, which I find really ugly watches to be honest. It’s just this double outlined rectangle(-ish shape) which is unevenly split into 60 boxes that I like (seen below on the first, third and fifth watch).