amanico[JLC Moderator]
341842
Polaris 65: FINALLY!
Jul 15, 2012,00:08 AM
After so many years of hunt, I found it.
To be honest, I didn't find it, a good friend of mine did it for me, which is one of the many evidences that this Community is great...
And as a good thing never comes alone, another friend of mine found the Tribute To Polaris 65, too!
They won't replace all the watches I lost, but you can imagine how happy I am, and how I feel after such great gestures...
Back to the Polaris 65, I mean the Vintage, there were some remaining interrogations about this watch.
- First, are the baton hands correct?
Now, we can say that on the LeCoultre Polaris 65, both hands, Dauphine or Batons, were used.
- The second question is more delicate: On the Polaris '65, does the case back have to show the 16 holes we ALWAYS see on the Polaris '68, or not?
My first reaction was to say that yes, the case back was common to the Polaris '65 and ' 68.
But now, I start to seriously wonder.
Why?
Because I saw several all original and untouched Polaris '65 ( even a few complete, box and papers! ) coming with the " plain " case back, as well as the " 16 Holes ".
So, I exchanged my observations with some long time collectors and with the Heritage Gallery, and there is a strong possibility that both case backs are correct.
From what I've been told by the Heritage Gallery, the 50 protos from 1963 came without " 16 holes " case backs, so the first Polaris '65 may well have " borrowed " them.
The '65 case back, without the 16 holes:
The '68 Polaris, with the 16 holes:
- The Key Points for an authentic Polaris '65:
* The signature on the movement HAS TO match with the signature on the dial. When the Polaris is a Jaeger Lecoultre, the movement has to be signed Jaeger Lecoultre, while the movement has to be signed Lecoultre when the Polaris is a Lecoultre.
Another precaution would be to check that the movement number is compatible with the production year, too ( circa 1, 7xx xxx ).
* The inside case back MUST BE stamped " 65 ", and MUST NOT BE stamped " Jaeger Lecoultre ", as no Polaris came with a Jaeger Lecoultre signature inside the case back.
The date is an important detail, as I often saw some Polaris '65 coming with a 68 case back. This is definitely not correct, and we can suspect a reassembled watch ( Polaris '68 with a '65 dial ).
Why there are so many reassembled Polaris'65?
Because they are much rarer than the Polaris '68!
1214 Polaris '68 were made ( 1967 / 1968 and 1970 ), while only 500 Polaris'65 were released.
* When the Polaris '65 is a Lecoultre, you will see " Memovox " written close to the alarm triangle, on the alarm disk, which is not the case on the Jaeger Lecoultre Polaris.
This is a detail shared with the Polaris 68, though.
- That being said, what about some pictures of this beauty, now?
The only visible difference between a Polaris '65 and its '68 sister is the dial, as the case, the crowns and the huge plexy are exactly the same.
But should I really say " Only "?
Indeed, the radicaly different dials give a very distinctive look to these 2 Polaris.
What are these differences?
* A deep black and glossy dial with a matt alarm disc on the '65, while the '68 is totally matt, with no mismatch between the dial and the alarm disk.
* Long and thin NON LUMINOUS silvered baton indexes on the '65, while the '68 has large and LUMINOUS greenish tritium indexes.
* Tritium dots on the Alarm disk of the Polaris '65, versus rectangular luminous indexes, each 5 minutes on the '68.
* Applied 6 / 9 / 12 on the '65, versus luminous painted numbers on the '68.
* Anodized triangle on the '65, versus a luminous one, on the '68.
* Cherry on the cake, gilt writing and alarm indexes on the '65 only.
The two sisters:
The Polaris '68 is a bad boy's watch, powerful, charming, with a strong character, as a Diving watch must be.
The Polaris '65 is playing a different register: More elegant, it looks like a big Black E 855, less tool watch than the '68, dressier.
Curiously, the full alarm dots make the dial look smaller than it is, in the real life, as its visual is more " centered ".
It is curious that, for a diving watch, the long five minute indexes are not filled with a luminous material...
But what you loose it functionality, you win in elegance. Which is exactly the contrary with the Polaris '68.
One last detail, which will require some attention, is about the lugs, which have a huge bevel, reminding that the Polaris is naturally a toolwatch, as you can see here:
One picture I dreamt to take, since the Tribute To Polaris 65 was revealed: The Tribute To Polaris and the Polaris 65, all together, in a family gathering:
Do you see how empty and full dots give a different perception of the dial, which looks bigger on the Tribute?
We can also observe how close the Re Edition is, from the original.
Let me close this review with a festival of wrist shots on its original tropic strap, or on a Nato.
In both cases, a big presence, a huge pleasure, a feeling which is hard to put in words...
Let the pictures do the speech:
A last one, my favourite:
Much less known, but certainly not less desirable, than the Polaris '68, this version is, to me, an important watch in the JLC history.
Looking forward to reading your comments and thoughts,
Best.
Nicolas.
This message has been edited by amanico on 2012-07-15 00:16:21 This message has been edited by amanico on 2012-07-17 14:40:13