or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, Baume & Mercier and more)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, Baume & Mercier and more) - Page 131

post #1951 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post
 I thought the movement in the Traditionelle Small Seconds was on the smaller side of things, but it certainly did not bother me.

I haven't looked at the Tradititionelle Small Seconds in some time.  However, I don't recall thinking the movement looked too small for the case.  You may want to take another look at the Hodinkee article comparing the VC, Lange and Journe...just for some perspective.  There is a photo showing the backs/movements of all three together.  While the metal section of the VC case back isn't the narrowest on the market, its the case diameter is the size as a PP 5296, but the VC movement's diameter is larger 28.6 rather than 27mm.  Anyway, no right or wrong, if you feel the movement in the VC would be too small for you that cool...I just think there are many watches out there that are worse small movement to case size ratio offenders than VC (or the 5296...just used that for comparison sake). 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkotsko View Post
 

Changing the conversation up to something more ubiquitous... 

 

Always a pleasure to see another RO.

Mine says hello  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim_horton View Post

Those are all great pieces. I had been specifically looking for dress watches without a seconds hand, though, which narrowed the field a bit (and I wound up not getting anything.)

Lots of possibilities for dress watches without seconds hands, a few additional pieces to consider the Piaget Altiplano, Cartier Tank XL, VC, JLC Master Ultra Thin, AP Jules Audemars, etc. 

post #1952 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

I haven't looked at the Tradititionelle Small Seconds in some time.  However, I don't recall thinking the movement looked too small for the case.  You may want to take another look at the Hodinkee article comparing the VC, Lange and Journe...just for some perspective.  There is a photo showing the backs/movements of all three together.  While the metal section of the VC case back isn't the narrowest on the market, its the case diameter is the size as a PP 5296, but the VC movement's diameter is larger 28.6 rather than 27mm.  Anyway, no right or wrong, if you feel the movement in the VC would be too small for you that cool...I just think there are many watches out there that are worse small movement to case size ratio offenders than VC (or the 5296...just used that for comparison sake). 

 

Always a pleasure to see another RO.

Mine says hello  

 

 

Lots of possibilities for dress watches without seconds hands, a few additional pieces to consider the Piaget Altiplano, Cartier Tank XL, VC, JLC Master Ultra Thin, AP Jules Audemars, etc. 

 

 

Hey guys, what's the number of this AP RO? 41mm with blue textured dial? Trying to aim for this in about 3 years after finishing grad school

post #1953 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by troika View Post


Hey guys, what's the number of this AP RO? 41mm with blue textured dial? Trying to aim for this in about 3 years after finishing grad school

15202
post #1954 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by troika View Post
 

 

 

Hey guys, what's the number of this AP RO? 41mm with blue textured dial? Trying to aim for this in about 3 years after finishing grad school

The one in Dino's picture is the 15202 and is 39mm. The 15400 is 41mm.

post #1955 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post


15202

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DLJr View Post
 

The one in Dino's picture is the 15202 and is 39mm. The 15400 is 41mm.

 

Thanks guys, gonna start researching this further on. Currently thinkin about this or a coke gmt. A gmt is my fav complication, but I love the rugged simplicity of the RO...

post #1956 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino944 View Post
 

I haven't looked at the Tradititionelle Small Seconds in some time.  However, I don't recall thinking the movement looked too small for the case.  You may want to take another look at the Hodinkee article comparing the VC, Lange and Journe...just for some perspective.  There is a photo showing the backs/movements of all three together.  While the metal section of the VC case back isn't the narrowest on the market, its the case diameter is the size as a PP 5296, but the VC movement's diameter is larger 28.6 rather than 27mm.  Anyway, no right or wrong, if you feel the movement in the VC would be too small for you that cool...I just think there are many watches out there that are worse small movement to case size ratio offenders than VC (or the 5296...just used that for comparison sake). 

 

The Traditionelle Small Seconds is a 29 mm movement in a 38 mm case and the (new smaller) Saxonia Thin is a 28 mm movement in a 37 mm case, so it's a wash.

 

There are far worse offenders like the Patek 5196 (already mentioned) or VC Patrimony, which has a 21 mm movement in a 40 mm case.

 

Out of interest, which comparable dress watches in the 36/37/38 size range do have "appropriately sized" movements, if that was to be the deal breaker? 

post #1957 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Male View Post

The Traditionelle Small Seconds is a 29 mm movement in a 38 mm case and the (new smaller) Saxonia Thin is a 28 mm movement in a 37 mm case, so it's a wash.

There are far worse offenders like the Patek 5196 (already mentioned) or VC Patrimony, which has a 21 mm movement in a 40 mm case.

Out of interest, which comparable dress watches in the 36/37/38 size range do have "appropriately sized" movements, if that was to be the deal breaker? 
Very interested in the responses
post #1958 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Male View Post

 

Out of interest, which comparable dress watches in the 36/37/38 size range do have "appropriately sized" movements, if that was to be the deal breaker? 

FWIW, I don't mind movements which aren't "appropriately sized" assuming it isn't obvious on the dial and they use a solid case back. For me, it's more an issue of being able to see it and that visual irking me. Just find it visually unappealing.

post #1959 of 3928
Same here. And I hate to just say ,"out of sight, out of mind", but there IS an element of truth to that.

For example, I've really always favored this version of the Altiplano (38 mm), as mentioned before ... but it has their 430P movement in it, which is "only" 20.5 mm.




That wasn't really a personal deal-breaker for me, but ultimately I went with a different watch.
post #1960 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega Male View Post

Out of interest, which comparable dress watches in the 36/37/38 size range do have "appropriately sized" movements, if that was to be the deal breaker? 

Same here. I agree generally that oversized cases with smaller movements is less than ideal but it seems like we may be cherrypicking.

I have a Nomos Tangomat GMT which has a 31MM movement in a 40MM case. From reading the last few pages, that seems like perhaps an acceptable differential although the small seconds subdial is somewhat close to the center. I have a couple of sport watches with 10-11MM differentials which I would assume would be bad, but they are oyster cased watches (GMTII and Explorer) so I'm going to assume most would give them a pass. Is that because of the nature of the oyster case or because they're Rolexes? I would point to the nature of the Oyster case and the fact that it has functional advantages, but those don't apply to Rolex Cellinis with their 10MM+ differences in movement to case size.

Then Mafoo posts a number of alternative $15k precious metal watches but a few of them (VC and JLC) seem to have just as large a gap between case and movement size.
post #1961 of 3928
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith T View Post

Same here. And I hate to just say ,"out of sight, out of mind", but there IS an element of truth to that.

For example, I've really always favored this version of the Altiplano (38 mm), as mentioned before ... but it has their 430P movement in it, which is "only" 20.5 mm.




That wasn't really a personal deal-breaker for me, but ultimately I went with a different watch.
There is some design sense to making an ultrathin movement smaller - the wider diameter the movement, the more of a problem there is with flex for the ultrathin bridges. Making the movement smaller makes for more relative rigidity.
post #1962 of 3928
Good point, dopey.

Then of course, at the complete opposite end of the scale....here's my far more "casual" two-hander:





Which, despite a rather pedestrian movement, obviously came equipped with a display back. Go figure.

(Granted, Panerai has done their best to dress it up a bit happy.gif ).
post #1963 of 3928


yep, nod[1].gif
post #1964 of 3928
Single red 1680 with a t19 domed plexi in place of the top hat. One of my favourite vintages 👍🏻



And vs a 1665 DRSD....which still remains my favourite vintage diver

post #1965 of 3928
The tough part of the question is those sizes. If we went to 39mm I'd put the Chronometre Bleu, Ferrier Micro Rotor 39, and Moser Venturer Small Seconds on there to name a few. Putting a hard stop on 38mm is tougher for watches in that group that I really enjoy. If you said 37-39 as opposed to 36-38 it would be easier.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread - Part two (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Audemars Piguet, Jaeger LeCoultre, Baume & Mercier and more)