pplater, I like this thread very much, and I agree in with you in many ways. I tend to enjoy "classic" watchmaking, and I agree that "...what was once the norm in modern watch aesthetics has been gradually shouldered aside to make way for the flood of cash-magnets."
Your post, as I see it, is really about quality. In describing those watchmakers "who do – and do only – what watchmakers before them have done,” you are, I submit, missing half of the picture.
I wonder if you've read Robert Pirsig? Pirsig's quest to understand quality lead him to a bifurcated sense of quality that is simultaneously "classic" and "romantic".
PuristS by definition might favor classic quality, and I believe that’s what you’ve touched upon -- an objective sense of knowable, repeatable quality. In watchmaking, that likely amounts to simple, proven, accurate design.
Romantic quality, however, is much more subjective. It's not about form following function. It’s about beauty that’s less quantifiable, maybe less demonstrable, but it's equally valid, equally knowable, equally real. I won't suggest which makers, which models stand for classic or romantic quality, but I'll bet we'd all agree on many. Though there is no doubt some divergence of opinion, I suspect PuristS would also largely agree on examples of watches that are neither, but are instead merely part of that "flood of cash magnets". I suspect we could do the same with architecture, painting, automotive design, and countless other mechanical and artistic pursuits.
Thanks for giving us something to think about!
Best,
Jed