Purchasing new hardware? Read our latest product comparisons

Pierre DeRoche TNT Royal Rétro 43 shows that six second hands are better than one


July 11, 2014

The TNT Royal Rétro 43 has six second hands instead of one

The TNT Royal Rétro 43 has six second hands instead of one

Image Gallery (3 images)

How can an upmarket analog watch compete in a digital world? Pierre DeRoche’s answer is its TNT Royal Rétro 43, which is based on the idea that if one second hand is good, six is better. Instead of one hand taking the tiresome journey around the entire dial, the TNT Royal Retro 43 has six; each measuring a 10-second interval before passing the job off to the next in a neat bit of mechanical choreography.

The TNT Royal Rétro 43 revives the Royal Rétro movement, which was created five years ago and is billed as "the essence of Pierre DeRoche." In this case, the movement has been tweaked to bring down the size a bit, so the watch is 4 mm smaller than its predecessor.

The watch boasts a mechanical 25-jewel automatic movement and an engraved oscillating weight. The half-dozen second hands are held up by six chamfered and satin-finished seconds bridges. Each second hand has its own retrograde gear train and a strip-spring return to snap it back to zero after it's done its task.

This is all set in a 43-mm titanium case with black PVD treatment, sapphire crystal with anti-reflective coating on both sides, a sapphire back, and an alligator leather strap. The whole thing is water-resistant to 100 m (328 ft).

The TNT Royal Rétro 43 comes in a limited edition of 201 units and costs US$25,000.

The video below shows the Royal Rétro movement in action.

Source: Pierre DeRoche

About the Author
David Szondy David Szondy is a freelance writer based in Monroe, Washington. An award-winning playwright, he has contributed to Charged and iQ magazine and is the author of the website Tales of Future Past. All articles by David Szondy

Why? Just Why?


Slowburn, Why not?


RIGHT ON, SLOWBURN! Looks as if the Accounting Department found a lost inventory of widgets on a back shelf and gave a designer the task of finding a way of using them up. A huge amount of complexity for no actual timekeeping benefit. To have a unique timepiece should not equal difficulty of reading the thing once you are wearing it - Or is the object just to buy them and keep them in a safe somewhere?

The Skud

@ xdigitor It makes the watch harder to read, less reliable, and more expensive without adding any improvement in accuracy.


As Slowburn so eloquently puts it: "Why? Just Why?"

My watch cost 40 złoty - about £8.00. It keeps excellent time and if I lose it, or it eventually gives up the ghost, I will put its replacement on instead (which I have already bought). On top of all that, the dial is infinitely more easily read than the one on this watch.

I cannot imagine wearing a US$25,000 item on my wrist. There are a number of people out there who would not value my wrist as being anywhere near as valuable and remove it, together with the watch, rather than fiddle with the strap.

Mel Tisdale

I wish somebody would reintroduce a cheap, self winding, waterproof, balance wheel watch. Say 1950s technology.


No matter it's cost, it's still insanity. All those impacts of all those little arms returning to position over the years. No, I don't like the design.

I'm still a cave-being, loving Citizen's Eco-Drive design.

Dan Lewis

I disagree with fellow posters. I see a work of art. If they were $24,950.00 less expensive I would most definitely purchase---too bad, over my budget.


It is a nice looking watch, but being the type of person that doesn't have $25,000 to spend on anything, let alone a watch, I can think of a lot of things I'd rather pay money for.

Gabriel Jones

@ Slowburn For the same reason a dog licks his balls. . . because he can.


I can appreciate a fine machine just for the machine's sake, but like Dan Lewis I don't like this design. Not elegant, just fussy, even a kludge. Like it was the first clunky design of a second hand before some genius said "I know! Let's use just one second hand!"

Post a Comment

Login with your Gizmag account:

Related Articles
Looking for something? Search our articles