Small(ish) Panerais: So close yet a bit far

At SIHH 2013, Panerai released the much critically acclaimed 42mm Radiomir 1940 (PAM00512) which makes this the perfect time for me to talk about the brand from the perspective of a pragmatic watch owner. I still hold that 38 +/– 4 mm is the tolerable size for men's watches, anything smaller than 34 is probably much too feminine and anything over 42 is trying a bit too hard. This is, of course, a general guideline and despite being well in the range, the slight increase in size by Lange in the new Datograph (up to 41 mm from 39 mm) and Patek to its various models (to 40 mm) warns me of an alarming trend across the board: Upsizing.

This dangerous trend is the reason I really appreciate a brand like Panerai (who is often credited to have started this large watch craze) releases something for the pragmatic and aesthetic man such as myself. There are currently two common 40mm models out there: The Luminor Marina and the Luminor 241 Power Reserve. The Marina's dial resembles a white plate placed on a stainless steel counter for me so the 241's hobnail dial and power reserve appeal to me much more. My favorite often overlooked feather of the 241 is its magnifying bubble, which is placed inside the crystal unlike Rolex's protruding cyclops.

Panerai 241 

The 241 had one problem, it used a modified ETA movement (chronograph-less 7750). The new Radiomir 512 solves this problem and incorporates their pleasant 999 in house caliber with a micrometer adjustment. If you haven't watched Panerai's How It's Made videos, you should do so now to get an appreciation of Panerai's very mechanical approach to watchmaking.

ETA 7750 (Panerai's is much more pleasing to look at and has no chronograph layer)

Panerai's Hand Wound Cal 999 is much prettier (but not free sprung)

Hopefully they'll be out at the dealers for me to try in the metal, but meanwhile, shrink on Panerai!

Saturday nights with George Washington

Pallet lever, shock protection jewels, set-lever, pallet fork, click spring, and bridge for pallet fork.
Copyright 2013 Horolograph

The importance of COSC, featuring Seagull 1963 Reissue

Over 1 million COSC certificates are issued annually, mostly to Rolex, Omega, and Breitling. While buying my first watch proper, I took chronometer certification very seriously and demanded it. Not surprisingly, with my budget, I ended up with a Breitling. While it was quite accurate, it didn't meet my somewhat haute horologerie expectations. I was then shocked to find that most of what Patek, Vacheron, AP, JLC, and other respected brands produced were in fact not certified. Later I learned that pretty much any well made movement was capable of being adjusted to COSC specifications. 

Below is a sample COSC certificate (courtesy of Dell Deaton):

It basically certified that the movement (not the entire watch) has been tested in the 5 specified positions (mostly at STP of 23 degrees C) and also with dial up at 8 and 38 degrees C. The accuracy requirements over 24 hours are -4/+6 seconds in 24 hours.

So certification must be a good thing right?

Well I'm about to demonstrate how a sub 300 dollar seagull 1963 reissue (with caliber ST-19 based on the swiss Venus cal. 173) has been adjusted by me to better than COSC rates. It might have taken a good 30 minutes to do but the results are (All results measured on a Timegrapher 1000 accurate to 1 second/day, near full wind, rate in seconds/day, amplitude in degrees, and beat error in milliseconds):

Without chronograph running

With chronograph running

Both of the rates average out to a very accurate chronometer grade watch. But we need to remember that this is by no means meant to be a chronometer. The movement is of reasonably high quality but designed to be manufactured at minimum cost rather than maximum precision.

So what's the conclusion? COSC certification is a nice thing to have, but certainly not worth the premium frequently charged. We still have to rely on the integrity of the manufacturer to use quality parts and oils and craftsmanship.

Studies and photos of Jaeger LeCoultre Caliber 849

If you're a watchmaker, the tech sheets and oiling charts can be found here:

http://www.phfactor.net/wtf/Jaeger%20Le%20Coultre%20Tech%20Sheets/1151_JLC%20849.pdf

Since I'm a movement nerd, naturally, I wanted to know everything about that little caliber residing inside my new Master Ultra thin. After scouring the internet, old catalogs, magazines, and JLC's press archives. I've dug up the following information and photographs. The two full reviews of the 849 movement are done by Walt Odets of Timezone (although actually of the 839 movement) and ei8htohms of PuristS (now PuristSPro).

TimeZone 839 Review
PuristS 849 Review

Please note that the macro photos are my own work and are free to use with proper credit:

Recto

Verso

Basic information:
Released in 1994
123 parts
19 rubies
Four bridge configuration
21,600 vph
1.85mm high
9''' (20.8 mm diameter)
KIF shock protection
Flat hairspring (Nivarox 1)
35 hour power reserve on one barrel
Other features: 2 armed stepped balance wheel, chamfered heat blued and polished screws, Cote de Geneve finish, Master Control 1000 hour QC, polished jewel and screw sinks.

Based on Caliber 839, which is based on caliber 838 (18 jewels, 121 parts, 3 bridge configuration)), which has its roots in the JLC ebauche for VC caliber 1003/AP 2003 (both 18 jewels, 1.64mm high, 18,000 vph, flat hairspring, 9''', 35 hour power reserve).

Used in (current as of SIHH 2013):
JLC Master Ultra Thin (33.4 mm, 4.2 mm high, measured by me to be closer to 34 mm by 6 mm due to domed sapphire, sapphire case back), Master Ultra Thin 38 (38 mm, 6.31 mm thick), Master Ultra Thin Jubilee (180 anniversary, 39 mm, platinum only, solid case back, 4.05 mm thick). Additionally, it is used in a variety of cases based on the first two mentioned, often with high jewelry design.

Below are scans from the 2002/2003 JLC "The Manufacture's Book of Timepieces"

Jaeger LeCoultre Servicing/Overhaul

The new york times published an article three years ago about the servicing cost of watches titled The Watchmakers' Time Bomb. As a collector, it's certainly not news that servicing is a costly but necessary evil. There's really no good answer as to how much servicing should cost, it's anyone's guess. With the increasing number of in-house movements left and right with few shared parts, manufacturers can charge whatever they want for service and get away with it. Standard rates are sometimes published, but parts are always additional. Having just sent in a JLC Master Ultra Thin for service, I've listed the options below (prices are quotes assuming no parts required)

JLC in Le Sentier: 300-800 dollars, includes polish, new gaskets. 120 dollars for refused estimates. Has access to all parts, price range probably reflects replacement of crown which they JLC likes to do to "ensure water resistance."
Time: 7-10 months

Independent #1: 395 dollars, includes polish, new gaskets, new mainspring if needed. Free estimate.
Time: 2 weeks

Independent #2: ~1000 dollars, includes polish, no replacement of gaskets. Free estimate.
Time: ~2 weeks

Independent #3: "We suggest you send it to JLC due to the delicacy of the movement" - At least they're honest

Independent #4: 295 dollars, +50 for polish, new gaskets. Free estimate. "We do not go crazy on the polish like JLC does"
Time: 3 weeks

I think it's a no brainer that I went with the last choice. The independents are all extremely well reputed and dependable, but access to parts can be problematic. Although JLC is the subject of this example, other high end watch brands have a similar problem.

All photos courtesy of JLC