Value is a big part of the discussion here on worn&wound. Often, it’s enough to say that a reasonably priced watch with decent specs and a pleasing design presents a significant value. But for some companies, value doesn’t mean offering just the bare minimum. For these brands, the desire to go above and beyond the fundamentals is what separates them from the pack, and if it can be done without charging the exorbitant prices one has come to expect from the watch industry, then that’s just icing on the cake. If there is any company that has come to embody this ethos in totality, it’s Damasko.
Based out of Regensburg, Germany, Damasko first entered the market in 1994 with a desire to do something new and different. Since its inception, Damasko has set new and exciting standards for both the watch industry and with consumers as to what a small brand could truly accomplish. Led by Konrad Damasko, whose expertise centered on work with fine metal components for the aeronautical industry, Damasko set out on a path to produce watches that were rugged, over-engineered, and simply put, more robust than anything else on the market. Damasko holds numerous patents on everything from their in-house movements and crown design to the very steel used to make their cases.
Today, we’re taking a look at one of Damasko’s entry-level timepieces, the DA36 black. For most companies, an entry-level watch often means making sacrifices for the sake of cost, but such isn’t the case with Damasko. Other than the 3rd party movement, the DA36 boasts most of the revered in-house tech one has come to expect from the brand. As you read the review below, keep in mind that the DA36 black retails for a very reasonable $1,320. What Damasko is able to offer at that price point puts competitors to shame.
(Disclaimer: The watch pictured here is from the writer’s personal collection.)
I review in another industry and the cardinal rule there is never review something you already own. By all means buy a review product you love, but the review comes first.
Thanks for commenting Colin, that certainly might be true in other industries, but I think with watches, ownership sheds a different and important light on the object. Watches, especially mechanical ones, are not like consumer electronics and other commodities, they are very personal and idiosyncratic. They all essentially do the same thing, save a complication here and there, but range widely in style, price and feel. When one first gets a watch, and many other items, there is a honeymoon period of enjoying all the little details and finding out all the little issues. But where some items will be the same in a year or two or ten (if they haven’t been made obsolete), watches age, and you form a relationship with them… and when we review something positively, as is the case with the Damasko, we’re not recommending it for a month’s ownership, but for potentially permanent ownership. So, the value of an honest opinion formed over years is greater than that of a few days or weeks. Of course it is less likely to be outright negative, though that’s not our style regardless, but so long as the review is marked as is this one, I see no issue with it what so ever.
With that said, most of our reviews are of new watches lent to us from brands that we don’t own, as it simply would not be possible to review our own watches every week ad infinitum, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to review watches one can recommend from long term experience more often. In fact, wouldn’t it be great to read reviews of watches bought new, that have broken after years of wear, and that have gone through service, in order to review not just the watch, but its life cycle and the company’s customer service?
-Zach
I concur, I actually really appreciate the “test of time” remarks that can only be made credibly after a significant period of ownership.
Post more reviews of stuff you own! 🙂
I agree, Zack. While all of my reviews have been about watches that I had just purchased, it makes more sense to write a review based on ownership after the ‘honeymoon’ period has ended.
Very nice Damasko, I must say. While I am more of a Sinner, I may have to take a closer look at Damasko.
Great review!
Points taken. Still, it might be a better editorial practice to have another reviewer look at the watch, informed by your experience with it and the manufacturer. But let’s be honest, the treatment we reviewers receive from manufacturers isn’t necessarily what the average customer is going to experience.
All this said, I am grateful for one thing: you can write. So many watch reviewers don’t seem to bother with spell check, let alone a third party proof read. It’s hard to take a writer’s comments on product quality seriously when their own product is so flawed!
I’d say that as long as the disclaimer is there, it’s no problem. Are you by any chance mixing up “reviewer owns the product” vs “reviewer was given the product as payment for review”? Because one of those is, afaik, fine, and the other isn’t (and not what happened here).
Definitely not. Reviewers with an ounce of integrity can’t be bought. That’s not to some are not, they just lack integrity, as do the companies who bribe them. To Somethingnottaken’s point, reviewers who review something they own have an inherent bias toward it because they spent money on it. It’s basic psychology. Most people won’t or don’t want to admit that they shelled out their cash on something subpar. Reviews that end with “I liked it so much I bought it” are different animals.
While I concede the author makes some points I still think owner-reviews in this sort of venue are inappropriate. Just my two cents.
I think there’s value in a review based on several years of experience with a product. And a reviewer who bought the product themselves is arguably less biased than a reviewer who depends on free review samples.
bring back video reveiews
I stumbled upon one of these on Instagram recently, sans Damest coating, and what really caught my eye was the finish of the steel. It just looks so smooth, almost ceramic. I appreciate the Rolex-esque attitude on their case steel. Very informative review!
Thank you!!!!! My next watch will be DA37 black.
It is quite impressive how the black Damest coating has held up over two years of use. I would like to add a black watch to my collection, but the OCD in me wouldn’t be able to live with the scratches that normal DLC pieces attract. Perhaps I’ll need to add the DA46 to my collection – the addition of a bezel makes it look quite cool imo.
Hey Ilya, my Sinn/Damasko say hi to yours. Love the Model 1 crimson.
http://i59.tinypic.com/15psy9j.jpg
The DA47 Black is on my wish list. Since the black dialled Damaskos have weak lume, I prefer the fully lumed white dials (except for the black markings, the entire dial is covered with lume).
I do like the materials and technologies Damasko use, they seem to be the most rugged watches about… I think some of their styling could do with a bit of updating but most importantly for me until they make a sub 40mm watch (and the same goes for a few other brands) I simply will not give them a look-in.
el. Precio. Es. En. Dolares. O. Pesos mx
Got my DA37 and absolutely love it! Thank you for the review.
Ilya, what are the straps in the pictures above? Several of them look awesome on this watch, and I’m just trying to find them online to purchase. Thanks man!
The suede strap is from Colareb, and the rallye strap is from Fluco.
-Ilya
From a typography geek: the Damasko logo on the dial would drive me nuts. Serif typeface—no. Small caps (larger “D”)—ugh. Crunched-up letter spacing—no!