【INDUSTRY IN-DEPTH REVIEW】Can an Industry Evangelist Be an Effective Jury President?

Wei Koh has spent decades championing watchmaking. The question is not whether that contribution is valuable, but whether it aligns with the role of presiding over the watch industry's most influential jury. Wei Koh serves as president of the 2026 Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Genève (GPHG) jury.

1. A significant voice in modern watch culture

Any discussion of Wei Koh should begin with recognition of his achievements.

As founder of Revolution and The Rake, he has become one of the most recognisable figures in contemporary watch media. His writing, interviews and events have introduced countless collectors to independent watchmakers, revived interest in overlooked brands, and helped make high-end horology more accessible to a wider audience.

Few people have contributed more to promoting enthusiasm for mechanical watches.

That enthusiasm is precisely what makes him effective.

Readers and viewers do not turn to Wei Koh because they expect detachment. They turn to him because they expect passion, advocacy and an unmistakable sense of excitement about watchmaking.

That is not a criticism.

It is a description of the role he has successfully built over many years.

1. Advocacy and judging are different disciplines

The question raised by his appointment is not one of integrity.

It is one of function.

The skills required to promote an industry are not necessarily the same as those required to judge it.

An advocate seeks to celebrate achievement, encourage participation and broaden appreciation.

A judge must do something different. A judge must compare, rank and exclude. Every winning watch implies that other watches did not win.

Awards derive their value not merely from recognising excellence, but from making distinctions between different forms of excellence.

That is why judging can be uncomfortable.

At some point, a panel must determine that one creation deserves higher recognition than another, even when both are impressive.

The challenge for any awards body is finding individuals who can balance admiration for the industry with a willingness to draw those distinctions.

Whether an accomplished industry ambassador is ideally suited to that task is a question worth discussing.

1. Perception matters as much as procedure

Modern watchmaking is a relatively small world.

Brands, retailers, media figures, collectors, auction houses and industry executives frequently operate within overlapping professional networks.

That reality does not imply impropriety.

In fact, expertise often comes precisely from long-term involvement within those networks.

However, prestigious awards depend on more than fairness alone. They also depend on public confidence that fairness exists.

The 2026 jury consists of 24 members and is chaired by Wei Koh. Half of the jury is drawn from the Academy while the remainder is selected by the jury president under the established rules.

For that reason, transparency around voting methods, recusal procedures and evaluation criteria remains important regardless of who serves as president.

The issue is therefore not whether any individual can be trusted.

The issue is whether the structure inspires confidence among those who may disagree with the eventual results.

One further detail belongs in that discussion, and it is factual rather than speculative. Wei Koh is a co-founder of Legare, the watch brand he launched with Guillaume Tetu, the founder of Hautlence. Legare is not among this year's 84 nominated timepieces, so nothing here suggests the prize has been influenced. But a jury president who co-owns an eligible brand is a different kind of overlap from a journalist's advertising relationships, and it is the kind that recusal rules are least equipped to handle.

The answer offered is that Legare will not be entered while he chairs the jury. That answer concedes the conflict it is meant to settle: a rule would bind the office, whereas a promise binds only the person who makes it, for as long as he chooses to keep it.

1. The challenge faced by every major award

The debate surrounding the GPHG is hardly unique.

Film awards, literary prizes, architecture competitions and sporting honours all face similar criticism. Observers often ask whether juries reward technical excellence, originality, reputation, visibility or narrative.

Usually, the answer is some combination of all of them.

That does not make the awards meaningless.

It simply reflects the reality that excellence is rarely measured by objective data alone.

Watchmaking presents a particularly difficult challenge because craftsmanship, finishing, innovation, wearability, historical significance and emotional appeal can all influence a judgement.

Different jurors may legitimately value different qualities.

The strength of any award system therefore lies not in removing subjectivity altogether, but in convincing observers that subjectivity has been applied carefully and consistently.

1. What stronger legitimacy might look like

If the goal is to strengthen confidence in the GPHG, several reforms could be considered.

1. Greater use of blind evaluation where practical

Removing or reducing visible brand identifiers during portions of the assessment process could encourage focus on the product itself.

1. More detailed explanations of winning decisions

Published reasoning would help observers understand how jurors reached their conclusions.

1. Clearer category boundaries

Reducing overlap between categories could minimise strategic ambiguity and improve comparability.

1. Expanded transparency around governance

Clear disclosure of selection processes, recusals and voting structures can strengthen confidence even when opinions differ.

1. Continued diversity within the jury

A wide range of professional backgrounds helps ensure that no single perspective dominates the outcome.

None of these suggestions imply that the current system lacks integrity.

Rather, they reflect a broader principle: prestigious awards become stronger when observers can understand not only who won, but why.

Closing

I will still watch the ceremony on 7 November.

The Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Genève remains the most visible prize in contemporary watchmaking, and visibility creates influence. Its decisions shape conversations, attract attention and contribute to how excellence is defined across the industry.

The real question is not whether the award matters.

Clearly it does.

The question is whether the processes behind that importance are as compelling as the watches themselves.

Because in the end, the credibility of any award depends not only on the quality of its winners, but also on the confidence people place in the judgement that selected them.

So: can a man with a magazine, a brand and a stake in the industry credibly referee his competitors?

#GPHG #日內瓦鐘錶大賞 #WeiKoh #Revolution #高級製錶 #腕錶 #深度分析