foversta
[PuristSPro Moderator]
20814
This or that?
First version of the 1966 Minute Repeater Annual Calendar:
Or new one?
The first version looks more contemporary while the new one plays a more classic tune with its guillochage on the center part of the dial and the applied figures.
I tend to prefer the first version for its purer approach.
And you?
Fx
This or that?
First version of the 1966 Minute Repeater Annual Calendar: Or new one? The first version looks more contemporary while the new one plays a more classic tune with its guillochage on the center part of the dial and the applied figures. I tend to prefer the ...
I would be happy with any of the two....
But if I would get to choose, I would go for the new one! Because of the more classic look and more beautiful decoration. I am a big fan of pure design, but the applied numbers on the new version... Lovely! :) Thank you for sharing these two, Fx! Best Blo...
Frankly,
I would drop the annual calendar and only enjoy a pure classic minute repeater as just shown in the forum by chronosRM. Great to see the comparison on your wrist, they are still incredible pieces, even out-smarted by its simple cousin. CC
For me, neither of those. MR, simple MR, for me, please.
The MR is a hell of a Watch. These complicated MRs are not my taste at all. The complications ruin the dial. IMO... Best, Nicolas
First one for me, please.
Just not as busy. ( But I am sure all of you knew which way I would go given the choice. So very predictable...)
Hmmmm
The older version is sort of obscure and odd... People will ask, how do you tell time on it. What does it mean? The newer version has a more jewelry look to it, and somehow seems less mysterious, but also more busy. My verdict: reconsider this model altog...
