nwk00
585
Ok here is my take
Jul 24, 2019,06:39 AM
I will just describe them.
Using the MG Vintage as a reference(because I have experience with the Atum/Benu model),
1) there are gold chatons around the jewels, with screws to hold them down. This is simlar to Lange but MG went one step further. The chatons are raised instead of flat, which to me feels more luxurious. MG also bothered to heat flame them to a purplish/brown hue to differentiate themselves from the rest of the industry.
2) triple band snailing finishing on the rachet(?) wheel.
3) black polish winding wheel
4) hand engraved balance cock with details that are very dense. They are also longish which makes them elegant looking.
5) the letters on the movement are hand engraved.
6) I believe the balance wheel might be in house but not am not 100% sure.
7) I don't see any rounded corners, meaning extra effort has been deployed to mask the work of machines.
If you look at the UJ,
1) Right away I see the rounded interior angles of the scalloped balance bridge.
2) The rubies have no chatons around them, still functional but not as luxurious looking as the MG
3) No handengraving of any kind of decorative patterns.
4) Letters on movement are machine made.
5) Balance wheel looks very conventional.
I don't think MG makes better watches from a functional perspective, they are probably comparable, given modern watchmaking standards. It just feels like the people at MG spent a lot more time manually sculpting the watches than UJS. The UJS just looks plainer in comparison. I don't think Czapek is comparable to MG as well.
I do think there are other issues to consider when we make our selections besides finishing. Case and dial designs, technical details etc. Manual finishing does not determine functional quality but if I can have both I will always go for it. BTW I also have a UJS on order
.