JLC Master Ultra Thin Jubilée vs. 1907 Enamel

amanico · 2020-05-11T02:24:39Z

Compare JLC Master Ultra Thin Jubilée vs. 1907 White Gold Enamel. Which ultra-thin dress watch is the best? Explore collector insights.

amanico

WPS member · Jaeger-LeCoultre forum

14 replies3134 views7 photos

Nicolas (amanico) delves into his quest for the perfect Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra Thin, comparing the MUT Jubilée and the MUT 1907 White Gold Enamel. His detailed analysis weighs the pros and cons of each reference, focusing on case design, thinness, dial aesthetics, and price, inviting the community to share their preferences for these elegant dress watches.

14 collectors discussing this on the WatchProSite forumJoin the Conversation →

Finding my Jaeger Lecoultre Ultra Thin watch is a work in progress for some years, now.

The easy way would be to find a MUT 34 in platinum with its superb grey blue dial or a steel black dial.

I am fine with the 34 mm case, the Cal 849 which I really love, but in 2013, I started to have my heart beat faster when I discovered the MUT Jubilée.

Better than the MUT 34? THAT is the question!

There are some big pros for the MUT Jubilée:

- The " couteau " ( knife shaped ) case, which is truly spectacular and which I prefer to the MUT 34 case:

- The thinness is better with the MUT Jubilée with only 4, 95, versus 5, 75 mm for the MUT 34!

- The minimalist dial, more sober than the MUT 34, purer, too, maybe?

- The solid case back, which I think is a very smart choice. The Cal 849 is a very good movement, but in the MUT 34 it seems lost, so you can imagine how it looks in a 39 mm case!

The MUT 1907 in white gold has the advantage of its enamel dial, which is absolutely stunning, in terms of warmth and depth.

The leaf hands are sublime!

There is a price to pay: It is 1 mm higher than the Jubilée, due to its enamel dial... 5, 05 mm are better than the 5, 75 mm of the MUT 34, still!

It also has its solid case back.

I've been told by Jaeger Lecoultre than the choice of a solid case back was dictated by the height, which would have been slightly more important with a see through case back...

Now, the cons:

- The case size of these 2 MUT ( Jubilée and 1907 ). With a 39 mm diameter, I find it a tad too big. For me, the ideal size would be 37 or maximum 38 mm.

- The dial of the Jubilée is a bit flat. While the case is spectacular, the dial, in comparison, is, somehow, a bit... Shy?

- The hands of the Jubilée... I would have preferred the leaf shaped hands of the white gold enamel 1907 which are truly magnificent.

- The 1 mm thicker white gold enamel 1907, but we saw the reason behind that.

- The price of the white gold enamel 1907. At more than 30, 000 Euros, it is not really what I call a bargain. While the Platinum Jubilée was an impressive good deal at 13, 500 Euros ( from memory ). The difference in price is hard to justify.

All in all, weighting the pros and the cons, I would say that the MUT Jubilée and the MUT 1907 have my preference, here, and that, despite its extra millimeter, the 1907 white gold enamel is my favorite for its dial and hands.

Now, I have to be patient, and I need a bit of luck to find one more reasonably priced, as it is its biggest inconvenient, in my opinion.

What about you?

Best,

Nicolas

Key Points from the Discussion

The 34mm Master Ultra Thin is highly regarded for its historical significance and perfect proportions, with some collectors finding the 39mm size of newer versions a departure from the ideal ultra-thin concept.
The Jubilee model is favored by some for its size, especially for larger wrists, and its dauphine hands are preferred for a more contemporary style.
The Jubilee is seen as a more affordable option, offering similar engineering at a fraction of the price compared to the enamel dial 1907.
Concerns are raised about the extreme thinness of the watches, with some collectors questioning their perceived fragility compared to other thin models they own.

The Discussion

K-

K-Lo

May 11, 2020

I am afraid I would go for the more affordable piece, same engineering at a fraction of the price. You pay such a price for enamel, maybe if money was no object for me, I would think differently.

K-

K-Lo

May 11, 2020

I just am not sure about it being too thin. Would have to handle it myself I guess. My Octo already feels fragile and my prior 15202 also seemed to be to be teetering on being too thing.

K-

K-Lo

May 11, 2020

To more “other” complications than thinness many times.

jml_watches

May 11, 2020

Hi I've always been struck by the Ultra thin, especially the 34. I think that is mainly due to a tear down of one that I read - I know the W Odets one is still up on TZ from eons ago, but I'm also sure there was one here - when the site used to do full blown in depth reviews of watches , in the same vane as the one mentioned earlier. So I wouldn't be worried about wearing one as a routine watch. Having some smaller vintage watches 34 isn't that small, even some of my more modern watches - my Mem

amanico

May 11, 2020

Thank you for your superb answer, my dear JML.

Jim14

May 11, 2020

as you may know, I have the jubilee which was a no brainer for me because of its size. I have a larger wrist, and, like all my watches, I wear it. Also, I prefer the dauphine hands as they are more contemporary which is my ‘style’. And to weigh in on the ‘feel’ of the watch, it does not feel brittle or precious in the least when on the wrist.

Continue the conversation

This thread is active on the Jaeger-LeCoultre forum with 14 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.

Join the Discussion →

JLC Master Ultra Thin Jubilée vs. 1907 Enamel

Key Points from the Discussion

Continue the conversation

More from this Forum