Split Minute Or Split Second?

Like many collectors, I am in the midst of "pre-determining" the next
acquisition. I have put the "hunt" on hold until after the holidays, but I
have found two discontinued models I like. I cannot decide which I prefer.
Perhaps owners of the following (or those with strong opinions!) might chime
in with "pros" and "cons?"

A few weeks ago I acquired a GST Rattrapante 3715.

I like having the split seconds complication, especially given IWC's role in
developing a simpler and more cost-effective mechanism to achieve the
complication (thank you Richard Habring)! I haven't yet determined how I plan
to use this function. Perhaps some suggestions? I imagine it would be a
wonderful complication to use if I were an admirer of sports involving laps
(human, equine, automotive, etc.), but I am not that person. Still, it is a
fun watch to have.

I only recently discovered a limited edition of the 3715, the Jan Ullrich
model, limited to 250 examples. I admit I much prefer it's look (with touches
of red on black) to the black and yellow "standard" issue that I have. But do
Herr Ullrich's "character flaws" (subsequent to the 2004 release of the watch)
contribute to any aversion to owning such a watch? I have never really
considered a watch that was inspired by an individual who has since fallen
from grace, and wonder how that affects a collector's perception of the watch.
As for overlap with my current 3715, I would likely move it on if I were to
decide to acquire the Ullrich model.

The other past model I am considering is the Aquatimer 3723 Split Minute
chronograph. There seems to be plenty of admirers here judging by the mentions
found in past threads. But again, I am at a loss for determining uses for the
split minute. I think I would sooner use the elapsed time bezel to measure
time to the minute? Especially since using the split minute involves
calculating minutes between it's arrested hand and the going minute hand,
which isn't as intuitive as using a bezel that is marked with minute
graduations? And, like many who have or admire the model, I am not a diver! So
any diving applications are "out the window." I like the look, I admire the
unique complication, and I don't (yet) have a "representative" in the
collection from the Aquatimer family.

Would anyone care to share any thoughts? I hope so! At least I'm not asking
for a valuation on the "IWC" that my "rich uncle" gave me!

Firstly, congratulations on the new acquisition. It looks to be an excellent
specimen.

In my limited experience, I find that very few people actually use
chronograph/timing complications for their intended purpose. Even those that
do, don't use them very often. I've even been known to use rotating bezels and
chronograph functions to indicate duration at parking meters....

That being said, I personally don't necessarily feel that you need to justify
or find a use for a certain complication for buying a watch with said
complication. Buy what you love and love wearing what you buy.

On that note, I'm partial to the split minute for the uniqueness of the
complication. There are many "flavours" of split seconds/rattrapante/double
chronograph/doppelchronographs. You just need to pick the one tickles your
fancy.

@Clem is correct - not always, but in this case, he's right... I typically
only use my chrono's to time flights (I fly a fair amount).. Do I need to do
this? No, however, it's become habit.

I have a split chrono pilot (Latinoamerica Edition) and I randomly play with
the split chrono because I like the way it looks and it's oddly satisfying
watching the second hands reset.

There really doesn't have to be a use for these complications outside of the
enjoyment of knowing an incredible mechanical work of art and engineering is
at play on your wrist.

Wear those in good health, sir.

I own both and must say that I use the split minute more than the split second
complication. I do dive with the watch and use the split minute function to
time safety stops. But I have found that it also is useful in another way that
a chronograph cannot help - it can be used to mark a specific point in time.
For example, something takes place and you need to record the time that it
occured.

A couple of years ago, I was thinking in a similar way about benefits of
complications.

My result was => No benefit for me.

- Even the Chrono Complication makes no sense to me and date displays disturb
the dial design.

- But for hiking I use allways watches with rotating bezels for setting time
marks, that is useful and I use it very often.

- And the anti magnetic complication makes sense as well, because of
increased using of permanent magnets for smart phoses and many other tools for
daily usage.

So, my favorite watches are just simple and uncomplicated, like these.

Regards

I knew I could count on some sage advice!

I think because I actually use a chronograph function frequently, I was
looking to justify the use of a split-second or split-minute function. But I
think now it's better to just enjoy a watch for what it is and not feel the
need to justify having the complication. I also love the idea of using the
split-minute as a marker. That idea had not occurred to me.

I do enjoy watches without complications. Sometimes. Heiko, those are a couple
beauties! I have a civilian version of the Ocean 2000 and I do use the bezel
occasionally. I will share the most effective use of a chronograph for me,
which seems to amuse some collectors. When I raise my arm to look at my IWC,
admiring it as I always do (regardless the model), I can convince my 10-year-
old daughter that a task must be completed immediately. "Your room needs to be
clean in ten minutes!" I then click the start button on the chronograph,
ignore her protest, and watch her jump into action as she knows "I mean
business" when I am timing her. Works like a charm! At some point (no doubt
too soon for my liking), she will not respond with the same sense of urgency
as she does now. In the meantime, I enjoy the power of the chronograph!

Thanks to all who have responded, and I welcome further ideas!