I confess that dial is a lot more attractive in your pic. This is quite something - we're definitely out of kopping season for you, but now you're into steel sports watches instead of precious Patek complications, I guess we can look forward to more frequent vicarious indulgence. Go Frilly! I would like to add that I predicted this diver-fest, and also that one day you will have a Panerai. Either way, you keep bringing the meat to this thread.
Breasts are for babies. I am also unmoved by the pneumatic Ms Upton. But I don't know who yours is either. Anyway, perhaps as gentlemen we can respond to the misogynistic horrors of the last couple of internet days by raising our standards a little. I'd be quite happy to look at watches, really. Here are some now, with an exam question:
"The TWATterati have expressed disapproval of the modern IWC range for several reasons, and even the popular Portuguese range has faced criticism. Discuss why."
Further recent evidence for comparison (Click to show)
The case shape of the (top) Portuguese chrono is awkward - wider at the dial than at the back, and as a result, slopes to catch your shirt sleeve and wedge it underneath, so it looks like you're showing your watch off. The "classic" case, shown on the second and third watch, is larger and thicker but a softer shape. Neither of these things probably has any relation to IWC's status in TWAT. They are just practical things I noticed when looking at some.
The latter two watches also have the "newer in-house movements", allegedly. I've heard various bones of contention about IWC, including suggestions of dishonesty about how "in house" they really are. I'd like to know more about that from the more advanced creatures here.
But for my part as a simple tyre-kicking caveman, I say this: that awkwardly-shaped chrono above is still very beautiful and distinctive to me, and I would rather like one. Is this wrong?