Issue 184: 2025 Year In Review
Who's had a good year, and who needs to come back stronger - or not at all - in 2026?
Hello and welcome back to The Fourth Wheel, the weekly watch newsletter that gives you an honest appraisal of the industry. If I had to put one word to 2025 it would be relentless; the pace of new releases and brand launches has never seemed faster, while behind the scenes the combination of tariff changes has kept everyone on their toes. We’ve seen bankruptcies, redundancies, write-downs and management buy-outs; mergers and acquisitions, the formation of new groups, the revival of old brands and plenty of changes at CEO level. Brands have closed their doors and legendary figures have passed away. New retail concepts have thrived. Young watchmakers have debuted and built up waiting lists almost overnight. Boundaries have been broadened and new horizons broached; we’ve seen remarkable achievements in traditional watchmaking and 21st century technology, sometimes in the same watch. And Casio produced a G-Shock you can wear on your Crocs.
The one thing 2025 hasn’t been is boring. Turmoil and stress, both in the world economy and in the horological supply chain, are provoking all kinds of reactions. The majority of new watches have been politely received, some rapturously, but from where I’m sitting it is clear which brands have had a year to forget. Paying subscribers can enjoy the whole unflinching report card, and my latest Big Theory Of What’s Happening at the end.
The Fourth Wheel is a reader-supported publication with no advertising, sponsorship or commercial partnerships to influence its content. It is made possible by the generous support of its readers: if you think watch journalism could do with a voice that exists outside of the usual media dynamic, please consider taking out a paid subscription. You can start with a free trial!
Here’s a little taste of what you might have missed recently:
2025 In Review
Let’s get into it, but what better way to start than with an important caveat? Watchmaking takes time, and one of the major issues in the industry today is the apparent requirement to bring out something brilliant every year, or even every month. When I talk about a brand having a weak year, product-wise, I am mindful of the context in which they operate. Some companies should have bankable hits every year; others will take several years between masterpieces.
In no particular order, this is the official Fourth Wheel verdict on 2025’s race leaders and back markers.
Good Year: Breguet
I started the year writing about the Marie Antoinette; I was surprised and frustrated that Breguet hadn’t grasped the opportunity represented by its London exhibition. But since then Swatch Group’s most prestigious brand has signalled that it is, if not back, then certainly heading in the right direction. I wrote previously about Gregory Kissling’s impact - it may be true that Breguet’s plans for its 250th were underbaked, but there is no way this suite of complicated watches wasn’t already close to completion when he took over. He gets the credit either way, a GPHG Aiguille d’Or in his first year as CEO and a slew of positive headlines. There’s much more to do, but for now at least the brand is back in our good books.
Good Year: Kari Voutilainen
Watchmaking’s Mr Modest continues to rack up the awards, but it’s other developments that earn Kari a place on this list. His involvement in Urban Jurgensen is the most obvious one - the brand itself is a fascinating experiment in selling low-volume artisan watches with the tactics of a luxury titan, but whatever your view on the marketing strategy, nobody’s criticising the watchmaking. He’s also continued to improve business behind the scenes, recently appointing Angélique Singele CEO of the Voutilainen business. And he even snuck out an entirely new design, which I bet half of us missed - although naturally we really had our fingers crossed for a shaped movement to match.
Bad Year: The MoonSwatch
Of course, for anything with Speedmaster in its DNA, the risk of overdoing it with the limited editions was always there. I don’t begrudge Swatch for still making MoonSwatches long after the in-crowd has moved on - that’s a commercial reality. My problem is the ever-more-convoluted versions. Mission to Mars has a ring to it. Mission to Earthphase Moonshine Gold ‘Beaver Moon’ edition does not. Today, the MoonSwatch epitomises one of the biggest problems with modern watchmaking: watches you won’t care about in a couple of years’ time.
Good Year: Stone Dials
If you trade in semi-precious stones, I hope you’re milking this moment for all it’s worth. But please, remember, it is only a moment.
Bad Year: Fossil
The massive US watch company, which splits its business into licensed watches for the likes of Armani and Michael Kors and its own brands, including Zodiac and Skagen, filed for debt restructuring (in England, thanks to a quirk of corporate law), a move that WatchPro described as “the least bad option”. Fossil, whose share price has cratered since 2015 (hey, is that when the Apple Watch launched? It is!) was said to be seeing positive signs from a turnaround plan, after losing $104m on revenues of $1.15bn in 2024. The restructure buys it some time, but question marks will remain over its long-term future. With most of its assembly in Asia, the tariff landscape won’t be helping. I’d like to see Zodiac survive, but I think even the most passionate watch geeks would agree there are so many other brands in its sector that they can’t all make it. I suspect the brand is a tiny fraction of the overall company, so unless it’s saved by some angel in waiting, it may just end up being a victim of circumstances.
Bad Year: Carl F. Bucherer
Gone, and surprisingly quickly forgotten, thanks to Rolex’s ruthless axe. I had speculated that some of what CFB had worked on might survive, but in hindsight it should have been clear that Rolex isn’t the type to carry passengers. One has to wonder what has become of it all: the IP, the movement tech, the archive. Mothballed in a Biel basement I suppose. Still quite fancy one of those worldtimers.
Good Year: Frederique Constant
Speaking of worldtimers… the Frederique Constant Watch Angels limited edition still lives, sans rent as they say, in my head. I’m not a huge FC fan, but I have to admit the brand seems to be hitting the mark over and over. The Bamford Watch Dept collab, the new perpetual calendar, the Classics Premiere - it’s all decent stuff. The Elements Collection takes the prize for “Daftest Anniversary Celebration”, however: the brand is marking 37 years of age. But hey, apparently 37 is a ‘sexy prime’ number, so what am I saying? Go crazy.
Bad Year: Patek Philippe
That’s right, I went there. Let me be clear: I’m not saying Patek Philippe has suddenly experienced a collapse in quality.
