The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Brei

[Keith T]

Classy pair!

 

[Dino944]

Here's something a little different. It's a one-off piece by Canadian watchmaker Al Jenski (Archer Watches).

At 42mm, it's on the large side for a dress watch, but here the size is determined not by fashion or trend but by the dimensions of the movement, which as you can see, quite completely fills the case. it's a welcom change from so many display-back "portholes" where there is a huge disparity between the large case and the small movement ticking away inside.

Very interesting watch. Thanks for sharing some photos.

 

[Bill Smith]



Here's something a little different. It's a one-off piece by Canadian watchmaker Al Jenski (Archer Watches). It features a lovely guilloche dial and elegant blued hands. I have since had a stylized capital "A" etched onto the previously blank medallion. In the vast majority of watches in this configuration, you will find the ubiquitous ETA / Unitas 6497/8 hand-wind pocket watch movement. This one does feature a re-cased pocket watch movement, but in this case it is the lovely vintage Hamilton cal. 917. The level of finish on what was, in its day, a workhorse caliber puts a great many contemporary movements in far pricier retail categories completely to shame. Al is very careful about movement regulation, so this piece runs as accurately as most of my contemporary pieces, and better than some. In any event, comfortably within chronometer specs. At 42mm, it's on the large side for a dress watch, but here the size is determined not by fashion or trend but by the dimensions of the movement, which as you can see, quite completely fills the case. it's a welcom change from so many display-back "portholes" where there is a huge disparity between the large case and the small movement ticking away inside.

Roger, now you're giving the secret away to everyone.

 

[in stitches]

RogerP - really nice. would love to see a pic of the dial with the "A" on it.

 

[RogerP]

Thanks gents.

Stitchy - I'll try to snap a pic this weekend.

Hey there Bill!

 

[in stitches]

i look forward to it.

 

[no frills]

So it appears I have gotten the wife a proper (mechanical) Patek...........




... on a bracelet, as she prefers. And a relatively larger (versus typical ladies models) case size at 36mm...

Pure coincidence that I like perpetuals and that our wrist sizes are relatively similar. Oh no, I'm not going to be borrowing/wearing this at all. It's really her watch, seriously....

 

[dddrees]

Excellent,Congrats.

Looks like you need to take that baby out on a test drive, just to make sure everything is working like it is supposed to.

 

[in stitches]

lol, keep on keepin on, baby.

 

[no frills]

Excellent,Congrats.

Looks like you need to take that baby out on a test drive, just to make sure everything is working like it is supposed to.

Thanks. It seems only proper, 'no?

But seriously, the wife adores it. How could she not.

 

[no frills]

lol, keep on keepin on, baby.

inorite...

But here's the thing: I've stated my clear preference for the 3940 versus the 5140. I feel that the relative proportions of the case size and subdial letterings for the 3940 work better than the 5140 (photo from Mech at PuristSpro):




I think the larger letterings work for the 5040 (which I have too), but because of the unique tonneau shape:









But what really comes across as a bit "off" to me about the 5140 is that squished up "27" in the date/moonphase subdial:




Which, interestingly enough, does NOT show up in the 5136/1J, despite the smaller case size (36/37mm versus the 5140's 39mm) and the larger letters in the other subdials:




I know I may be acting a bit unnecessarily nitpicky about this, and if someone wants to give me a 5140P for free I'm happy to own it.

Just wanted to share my nitpicky thoughts with you folks.

 

[in stitches]

I agree.

 

[no frills]



I agree.

Aw hell I just noticed the "5" is squished in the 5140 too aside from the "27." - nitpicky frilly

 

[Newcomer]

Interesting. See, I actually prefer the 5140. Although I do love the 3940, the 5140 feels more balanced in regards to the north-south, and east-west orientations. I find the "north" of the 3940 to be a little bit stark and empty.

This is probably going to sound really stupid, but perhaps some numbers can help me? I feel like with the 5140, you have a "2" on the west, and a "2" on the east (with "1" being the standard unit of measurement. It is just supposed to be a proportional analysis). Additionally, with the north you have a "1" with the bigger text, and the south a "3" with the bigger moonphase. I feel like the north-south and east-west are balanced, even though the south of the dial is more occupied than the north.

As for the 3940, I will give east and west a "2," and the north maybe a ".75" and the south a "2.5."

I don't think this made any sense. But I swear in my head it sounds good. Also, I find the "busy"-ness of the moonphase in the 3940 to be a bit overwhelming in lieu of the simplicity of the other subdials.

This is, of course, picking the pickiest of nits.

 

[Moloch38]

I'm looking to buy my wife a new watch for our anniversary and have been drawn to the MoP dials and some with diamonds on the bezel. I would prefer an automatic watch rather than a quartz in the 3-5K range. I mostly have been landing on Omega DeVilles. She has a small wrist so 22/27/32mm I think would be best. I would appreciate your suggestions/recommendations.