skyeriding
900
I'd humbly suggest the sapphire sandwich model for a few reasons:
Aug 24, 2019,06:53 AM
1. The practicality of scratch-resistance over hesalite.
2. The sapphire has a clear caseback with the Cal 1863 - which is essentially a visible and "better finished" Cal 1861 of the hesalite model. The main differences being Cotes de Geneve of the bridges, and a metal instead of a Delrin plastic brake for the chronograph.
I'd like to emphasize this point because it may be one of the nicest finished chronographs in its price segment. It even has some rounded polished anglage of the bridges which is rare!
3. As much as hesalite is a historical design, the movement inside isn't the "original" cal. 321 and thus the dial is mismatched to the movement. Thus I'd argue if we are already deviating from the original design, I'd push a little further for the sapphire model with the other reasons above.
If we deviate even further from the original, the FOIS or CK2998 is also a nice option because the dial has proper second markings which matches the movement (three marks per second to match a 3Hz movement). But this comes with a solid caseback...
The disadvantages of sapphire:
1. Sapphire is brittle over hesalite, which is why it didn't go to space (shattered fragments floating around isn't a good idea). However, I'd argue that as a collector, any strong impact which hesalite can survive that sapphire can't, is still strong enough to potentially damage the movement anyway.
2. The aesthetics of hesalite which is domed is generally preferred over the boxy sapphire. This is a personal preference and no one can change your mind over it. Personally I prefer the boxy look...
Sapphire model:
Regards,
skyeriding