ArmisT
8819
Nice comparison shot👌🏽 That is quite a difference in salmon hue between the original and newer version, unless it’s a lighting effect.
The original seems more striking and attractive, in the picture at least.
L.U.C. 1860 Dials
Had a chance to photograph these three side-by-side today. The lighting was challenging, but we can see the difference. Left: Steel, "Revolution" (limited) edition with golden dial. Center: White gold, original 1860/2 (c.1998) with salmon dial and date Ri...
It's a tie between the middle one and the one on the left...
... which I think looks decent on this bracelet. ...
Nice comparison shot👌🏽 That is quite a difference in salmon hue between the original and newer version, unless it’s a lighting effect.
The original seems more striking and attractive, in the picture at least.
I suppose it is also the effect of Guilloche
the original has less dense Guilloche and the Hour ring is polished in contrary to the new.
Very interesting comparison, which
gives some objective consistence to the very subjective feeling I had that the new regular 1860 is a little too dark. When trying it on I wasn't fully convinced, but couldn't really say why. Now I know better. Thanks! And, of course, one can only regret t...
For me the winner is in the center...
While I'd prefer no date I think just dropping the date w/o adding a 6 o'clock stub marker leaves a lot of empty space below the subdial.. And I am not a fan of the new asymmetric gulloche pattern that is centered on the Chopard logo. Much prefer the orig...
Excellent points!
I'd been thinking the same thing about the new no-date dials but I hadn't previously noticed the case difference. The current one looks a little blocky, doesn't it?
thanks for sharing...I have seen in metal the Steel Salmon re-edition but not the other two.
I tend to like the Revolution edition though...not sure I'll change my mind when I see in metal. The salmon is nice but I feel the Revolution edition is a tad dynamic. Best, mahesh.,
