Incidentally, Dino, to me it's always important that she looks just as good from the back. I'll take this one over Cindy...:)
I do understand this sentiment. We've written before about not wanting to compromise for anything, given the stratospheric price points of some timepieces. I do think part of the nature of whether you think something represents a "compromise" or not is certainly personal and subjective (which you always allowed for).
For example, the 3970 has been criticized for not quite having an ideal "size to height" ratio. That it looks "too fat" because its case size is 36mm but it is relatively "tall" at 12.9mm (chronograph movements usually add a bit of thickness). It has even been called a "hamburger watch." Yuck, who would want to own something like that?
Here is a picture of the "hamburger watch" - at an angle to hopefully show its relative thickness versus its "small" case size.
For me, however, I think it's absolutely perfect. It's one man's "fat" versus this man's "perfection." I will happily stay "married" to this piece until it's time to give it to my daughters.
To continue the supermodel analogy, this young lady was "roundly" (sorry for the pun) criticized when these pictures came out:
"OMG - she's fat," others crowed. "No way she should be modeling on a catwalk!" - others said.
Sports Illustrated and thousands of other men - including myself - disagreed. Twice on the cover of SI Swimsuit Edition!
Again, if her "look" ain't your cup of tea, that's all good. From my perspective, she looks mighty fine.
To use a watch analogy, I'm quite impressed by the lovely balance of the subdials and lugs, and the finishing looks first rate.
Thank you Dino - at 38mm it is quite oversized for a vintage piece - and fairly unique. I will be meeting with the owner on Tuesday to look it over, and also a contemporary Omega piece that he is tempting me with as well.