Dr No
[Moderator Omega - Wristscan]
37533
This is a difficult question to answer, Nick, because . . .
. . . other than perhaps the amount of time allowed by management for finishing, I rather doubt there are any significant differences in tooling, technique, or materials between the two marques. Both G O and L & S are modern, up-to-date manufacturers with substantial investments in hardware, and I have no doubt that G O could produce movements as finely finished as L & S if they wished to do so. Parenthetically, a jeweler friend of mine once remarked that Soviet-era Russian diamonds were the best in his experience because the diamond cutters in the Soviet Union didn't care about meeting quotas, and would spend as much time as required to deliver a quality product. I'm sure there are differences, but whether they're significant or not would manifest itself in the inability of G O to produce movements to L & S standards. This is clearly not the case because the two G O tourbillons I've seen were, in my opinion, as impeccably finished as anything I've seen from L & S.
Melvyn has the privilege of owning both a G O Panograph and an L & S Datograph; I've never owned either, but I have recently been able to compare a Panograph and an 1815 chrono (at different times, but only a day apart). In my opinion, the differences in finish were relatively minor; others may have a different - and equally valid - opinion. I would like to hear from anyone who has first-hand knowledge of the watchmaking processes at both G O and L & S regarding differences in technique and equipment between the two manufacturers. Cordially, Art
