By Brent Robillard
Fears’ first solo high complication is beautiful, compact, and exceptionally expensive. Its most interesting feature may be the debate it opens about how collectors value independent watchmaking.
How much is independence worth?
Fears made my job difficult with the Brunswick 39 Perpetual Calendar. I went into my Geneva appointment ready to scrutinize a £26,950 stainless-steel watch powered by a modular movement. I left thinking about how well the whole thing worked.
The case measures 39mm by 37mm, spans 45.4mm from lug to lug, and rises only 10.1mm to the top of its domed sapphire crystal. Perpetual calendars have a habit of becoming either too large or too dense, and the Brunswick avoids both problems. The cushion case sits close to the wrist, while its broad polished bevels and brushed flanks give the familiar shape more definition. It is the slimmest Brunswick Fears has produced. Should I say that again?
The Silver Mink dial is even more convincing in person. Its frosted, silver-coated surface has warmth without drifting into cream, and the black-gold hands and applied indices give it more than enough contrast. Day, date, month, leap year, and moonphase indications are organized across four registers. Nothing looks squeezed into an available corner. The cyan leap-year indication is restrained, and the black lacquer moonphase provides a visual anchor at six o’clock. This is a complicated watch that remains recognizably Fears, and somehow completely uncomplicated.
I should add some context. I know the team at Fears and have met Managing Director Nicholas Bowman-Scargill on several occasions and had many conversations with watch designer Lee Yuen-Rapati. That familiarity makes fairness here especially important. The price deserves scrutiny, and the watch deserves to be considered as a complete object rather than reduced to a single number on the bottom line.
Advertisement
Erebus Origin 40 Gen 2 Hands-On Review
The number that changes the conversation
The Brunswick 39 Perpetual Calendar costs £26,950 including VAT in the United Kingdom, or US$28,500 before tax. At the exchange rate at the time of writing, the American price converts to approximately C$39,600 before applicable Canadian taxes. So, for me, it’s a $40K watch. That figure places a small British independent alongside (and beyond) some of the most established names in complicated watchmaking.
The movement at the centre of the debate is the Fears-exclusive Dubois Dépraz calibre 55115. It combines a Sellita SW300 automatic base with a perpetual-calendar and moonphase module developed by Dubois Dépraz for this project. It runs at 28,800 vibrations per hour and offers a 47-hour power reserve. The movement carries frosted surfaces, polished bevels, an anthracite finish, and a custom solid 18-carat gold rotor bearing the Bristol Flower. The latter is stunning in person. Once correctly set and kept running, the calendar will account for the varying lengths of the months and the leap-year cycle until 2100.
There is nothing disreputable about that architecture. Dubois Dépraz has spent decades developing complications for other companies, and specialist suppliers are woven into the history of Swiss watchmaking. A proven base movement also brings practical advantages in reliability and serviceability. It must be noted, however, that this is a Sellita in name only. Everything is customized. The technical achievement is easy to see in the finished watch: Fears has fitted a full perpetual calendar and moonphase into a case scarcely thicker than many simple automatic dress watches.
Architecture is still important at this price. A collector spending nearly US$30,000 can look toward Jaeger-LeCoultre, IWC, Glashütte Original, and other manufactures with deep histories of developing complete calibres. Frederique Constant offers an in-house perpetual calendar for considerably less. The comparison is imperfect, since production scale, finishing, design, and brand positioning differ. It is also unavoidable. At this level, the movement becomes part of the emotional and intellectual reason for buying the watch. Thus the debate that appears to be raging in forums and across social media.
What does independent really mean?
The word independent often carries a romantic charge. We picture a watchmaker at a bench making every bridge, wheel, and spring. Most independent brands, including many highly respected ones, rely on networks of case makers, dial makers, movement specialists, and finishers. Independence describes ownership more reliably than vertical integration.
Fears’ authorship is expressed through the completed watch. The company commissioned the module, developed a new case architecture, designed a legible perpetual-calendar display, specified the finishing, and turned work from Switzerland, Germany, and Britain into a coherent Brunswick. That contribution has value. It also costs more per watch when total annual production remains below 1,000 pieces across the entire catalogue. A large manufacture can spread development and tooling across far greater volumes. Fears cannot.
Even so, small scale cannot become a blank cheque. Buyers are entitled to ask how much of the price reflects the complication, the finishing, and the development work, and how much reflects the desire to position Fears at a new level. The usual specification comparison gives an incomplete answer, but it remains a useful one. A gold rotor and hand finishing add cost and character, although they do not turn the underlying SW300 into a manufacture calibre, per se.
Advertisement
The Garrick precedent
Fears has crossed this territory before. I handled the Fears Garrick at Time to Watches several years ago and remember it as a beautiful, deeply hand-finished object. Its 42mm case was made in Garrick’s Norfolk workshop, while the exclusive, manually wound UT-G04 calibre placed its free-sprung balance on the dial side. Frosted plates, polished bevels, screwed chatons, and hand-finished components gave the movement an immediate visual presence.
The Garrick was expensive at launch at £19,500 including VAT, and it now costs £21,000. Its price was easier to understand because the proprietary Garrick movement was the spectacle. Current production is measured in only a handful of watches, with Fears listing a maximum of three build slots per year. Few collectors were ever going to own one. Many came away with a broader idea of what Fears could produce.
In Lee Yuen-Rapati’s own words, “This is us (Fears) flexing our muscles.”
That may prove to be the Garrick’s most important contribution. It raised the ceiling of the brand. It connected Fears to contemporary British handcraft and gave the revived company technical credibility beyond the regular Brunswick range. The watch functioned as a halo product long before Fears formally grouped it with the new perpetual calendar in the Eminence Collection.
A halo with a job to do
The Brunswick 39 Perpetual Calendar makes the most sense through that lens. Fears calls it the flagship of the collection. It is a permanent model rather than a short limited edition, but nobody expects it to become a volume seller. When I spoke to Rapati, he told me Fears does not have the capacity to produce more than 25 per year. Its job is to show how far the Brunswick design can stretch and to place Fears in conversations that previously ended well below this price.
A successful halo product can influence more attainable watches, too. The newly engineered 39mm case is a particularly strong part of this release. Its flatter sides, broad bevels, concave bezel and caseback, and reduced thickness sharpen the Brunswick silhouette. If some of that architecture reaches future time-only models, the perpetual calendar will have contributed more than prestige.
The risk sits on the other side of the same strategy. A halo product must feel aspirational. If collectors perceive too much distance between the asking price and the movement architecture, aspiration can become disbelief. Fears is asking buyers to value design, scarcity, hand finishing, British identity, and the work of coordinating specialist suppliers as highly as they value an integrated manufacture calibre. Some collectors will make that calculation. Many will not.
Specs
| Case | 316L stainless steel; 39mm x 37mm; 45.4mm lug to lug; 10.1mm including domed sapphire crystal; 20mm lug width; 50m water resistance |
| Dial | Silver Mink; lightly frosted surface coated in pure silver; black and cyan printing; black-gold-plated hands and applied indices; moonphase at six o’clock |
| Movement | Fears-exclusive Dubois Dépraz 55115; Sellita SW300 automatic base with perpetual-calendar and moonphase module; 28,800vph; 47-hour power reserve; hand-finished; solid 18-carat gold rotor |
| Functions | Hours, minutes, day, pointer date, month, leap-year indication, and moonphase; perpetual calendar accurate without correction until 2100 when kept running |
| Strap | Walnut Brown matte ostrich leather with Fears Blue Alcantara lining and stainless-steel pin buckle |
Fears Brunswick 39 Perpetual Calendar
Advertisement
A bridge, or a bridge too far?
Can independent watchmaking command manufacture-level pricing without manufacture-level movement architecture? Yes, under the right conditions. The finished watch must offer something the larger manufacture cannot, and the buyer must value that difference more highly than ownership of the calibre itself. Design originality, personal contact, low production, handwork, and cultural identity can all carry real value.
The Brunswick 39 makes a strong aesthetic case. I liked it in Geneva. I liked its proportions, the clarity of the dial, and the way the complication felt fully integrated into the Fears design language. I would happily wear it. I would not buy it at £26,950. Let’s be honest. I can’t. Somewhere around £18,000 to £20,000, the combination of a bespoke Dubois Dépraz module, extensive finishing, and genuinely excellent design would feel far more persuasive. Again, if I were playing in that league. I’m not. This is not a watch made for me. It is a watch made for people who already own several five figure timepieces—people who have not before now looked at Fears. At the current price, the premium for the Fears name, its independence, and its small-scale production is substantial.
My suspicion is that the Brunswick 39 Perpetual Calendar will be both a bridge too far for many enthusiasts and a bridge to a different perception of Fears. The Garrick did not require widespread ownership to raise the brand’s profile. This watch may do the same on a larger stage. It has already moved the conversation around Fears from attractive British watches into high complications, movement architecture, and the meaning of value in independent watchmaking.
That conversation may be the first measure of a successful halo product. Sales will provide the harder one. The Brunswick 39 Perpetual Calendar is an impressive watch with a difficult price, and both parts of that sentence deserve equal weight. Whether collectors follow Fears into this bracket will determine if it becomes a bridge to the company’s next chapter or a bridge too far.
But perhaps the most important detail in the debate is this: after less than one week, all 25 watches in the first run are allocated. You cannot argue with that.
Advertisement
Check out The Ultimate Watch Buying Guide
About the author
Brent Robillard is a writer, educator, craftsman, and watch enthusiast. He is the author of four novels. You can follow him on Instagram.
Off The Cuff articles are full-length, hands-on reviews of the watch in question and represent the opinion of the author only. All photos are original, unless specified otherwise. If you would like to have your watch reviewed on this site, contact us here.
Please understand that using any links to products on this site might result in us making money.