Girard Perregaux

Five years, already: Basel 2014: 1966 rose Gold Blue and Vintage 45 XXL Steel Blue.

Five years have passed, when we discovered this blue pair, one round, the 1966 in rose gold, the other rectangular, the Vintage 45 XXL Blue, in steel.

My preference went for the Vintage 45 in steel. First because it is a white metal, then because of the absence of date.

You?

Best,

Nicolas

login to reply

I prefer the vintage 45

By: Izhik : March 2nd, 2019-11:34

the special texture of the dial blue, the applied Arabic numerals, the little red accentuation in the seconds sub-dial...a simple watch but with a nice presence...I like it.

Thanks for commenting! 1 - 0 for the Vintage 45. [nt]

By: amanico : March 2nd, 2019-11:38

V45 for me. [nt]

By: Brandon Skinner : March 2nd, 2019-13:14

2-0 for the Vintage 45. Thanks, mon ami. [nt]

By: amanico : March 2nd, 2019-13:19

45 XXL

By: J K : March 2nd, 2019-13:35

I'm a huge fan of 1966. However, in this particular instance rose gold with blue dial and white date doesn't really work that well. 45 XXL in white metal works better. Cheers JK

3-0 for the Vintage 45. Thanks for your feedback, JK. [nt]

By: amanico : March 2nd, 2019-13:38

Date, and white date background especially, is a complete disqualifier IMO

By: vitalsigns : March 2nd, 2019-17:44

V45 for me. It is independently a very nice watch.

4-0 for the Vintage 45. Same here for me. Thanks, John. [nt]

By: amanico : March 3rd, 2019-04:54

XXL is a bit on the large side, while the white date disc is a no-no (matching blue would have been much better). [nt]

By: Cru Jones : March 3rd, 2019-04:10

So, is the vintage 45 the winner for you?. [nt]

By: amanico : March 3rd, 2019-04:55

Yes, it may be large, but it’s special and size isn’t a “fault” in and of itself, while the white date disc on the beautiful blue 66 is something I can’t unsee [nt]

By: Cru Jones : March 4th, 2019-12:32

No message body

5-0 for the Vintage 45. Thanks, Cru Jones. [nt]

By: amanico : March 4th, 2019-23:39