Chopard

Dear purists,

Out of curiosity....how would you compare a Grand Seiko movement finishing to a Chopard LUC in general? I was told by some friends that the Seiko is actually superior over LUC which i beg to differ....any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

I don't have any picture of the GS movement finishing nor have I seen one with open caseback.

I'm confident the movement finishing will NOT below GS.  However, GS is a very worthy competitor

Just side-track, have a picture comparison between L.U.C and PP by SteveG. 

Whatever we say, it is still you that should check it out. 

Kong

Hi buddy, i was waiting too and i knew there wont be many reply to this kind of question. But i do, honestly and very frankly, think that the LUC movement is nothing lesser than a Patek in terms of finishing, least to say a Grand Seiko. In fact, in the above 2 movement, i actually see the finer side on the LUC. Well its just my very humble opinion and sometimes i think we should not be blinded by brands

Thank you for the side by side comparison, thank you SteveG too Cheers bro.

 

 

Regards

 

First I must say I do not have enough knowledge of GS to compare.
I do have a manual spring drive (among the earlier version) but this is another animal altogether.
From what limited comparison I can make between the SD and LUC - I think the
movement finishing level of the LUC is still higher. The differences stand out even more under a loupe.

Looking at Kong's photo of the PP 240PS and the LUC 1,96 I wonder why the
PP has 27 jewels while LUC 32. Both are "petite second" movement.
What are the extra jewels for? The LUC also seems to have more components and is heavier.
On the finishing level - they sure looked comparable.

Watch72, thanks for the reply.

I've seen the GS GMT....casework is superb.  The dial, hands and indices are very well-finished.
The SD should be as good too.

The picture was by SteveG... indeed the L.U.C and PP finishing level is comparable.  If you sample  a few pieces of them together, the L.U.C is more consistent.

Regarding the no. of jewels...the actual  number required in 1.96 is 29 pcs... the extra during the initial year was for decorative purpose.
Had posted this at here: chopard.watchprosite.com 0

Kong

Kong for the information on Jewels.
So much to learn from this wonderful forum.

Watch72, thanks for continual visiting.
We keep learning from each other.
Kong

I really cant understand why people would craze for Patek so much over Chopard....perhaps its just marketing again, and design. Patek Philippe is no doubt a good watch but having said that, the Chopard should be no where lower than it. In fact i think this LUC movement is far superior over the AP cal 3120....from my naked eye, and my very humble opinion. I do love the AP but frankly i think the movement finishing is a bit lesser than this LUC.

Well just my 2c

 

 

 

Regards

The Grand Seiko is a very nice watch, but not anywhere near the level of finishing of the LUC. They are just in different leagues and different price ranges to match. In my opinion, the Geneva Seal LUC movements are some of the very best finished in the watch industry.

Mike

They are indeed one of the best finished movement around but i dont think the LUCs with and without Geneva Seal have any difference....any thoughts, Kong?

 

 

 

Regards

Regardless with or without Geneva Seal, the spirit and work done on finishing is of the same high-standard.

The subtle extras with the Geneva Seal certified pieces are the dial material is gold, swan-neck regulator and overcoil hairspring.

Kong

Beautiful movement it is.....no other words

Leaving aside the Chopard 1.96 to Patek 240 comparison, I think the finish of my 1.96 is at least as 'fine' as that of
any comparable (serial-production and cost perhaps $US15,000 or less) contemporary watch I have had the
pleasure to handle (but I have hardly seen them all!).  By fine I mean very clean and with obvious consideration to
function and longeveity, with respecting traditonal fine watchmaking finish (such as Geneve Seal) and for sheer
beauty (subjective, obviously).

While I have seen pictures of various Seiko (especially Credor) watches with what appears to be excellent to fabulous,
handwrought and artistic movement finish, these are not serial, mainstream products and are not I suspect the
comparison you are seeking.  Grand Seiko watches are for these purposes of two distinct generations.  The
original GS products of the 1960s ( the ones which had such success at the Observatory Trials), and the current,
post-1998 line.  While the former sported superior functional finish (with many claiming substantial handwork), they
make no pretense of concern for traditional European fine finishing, nor are they particularly artistically oriented
(although I am personally a big fan of this type of finish).  This Cal. 5722B is from 1966:





The current generation of GS, perhaps because of the popularity of display backs, reflects a unique vision of top-of-the-line
production finish, an unabashed celebration of micro-machine capabilities, along with a distinctive nod towards European
sensibilities and expectations. Here is the Cal. 9S54A from 2001:








This attitude is sometimes further demonstrated with Seiko's dialwork.  This is one of the earliest (2002) Credor Spring
Drive watches.  The elaborate dial is not guillocheed, but is rather the product of being impressed with a single cylindrical
die, a fact celebrated at its arrival with the release of an accompanying video detailing the process!  Also, although not actually a
Grand Seiko, the movement displays a similar aesthetic and execution:















This message has been edited by SteveG on 2008-08-22 11:09:25

Hi SteveG

Thank you for sharing the 3 sets of pics of the great Oriental Challenger.

From your pictures, I'm surprised to note that the current generation of GS, there isn't any anglage done but the edges were still needly done.

For the Credor, a bit strange to see the anglage angle changes. The dial, index and especially the hands, impeccable!

One common point, Seiko uses more than 1 shock-absorber besides the balance wheel, also on the escape pinion and centre pinion.
Is there any advantage/s? I wonder.

Kong

GS is finished in what I could consider a traditional functional or technical manner, very neat machine stripes, with simple but clean anglage, while as you mention, for the newer model Seiko has invented their own particular aesthetic.  I am not certain that this finish applies to other (perhaps more recent, or automatic) models, the handwind is a relatively rare beast.  The spring-drive is if anything even odder, very bold and idiosyncratic machine striping and as you observe, anglage obeying some unique aesthetic.

Regarding the additional 'shockproof' mountings, note that on the older GS the entire wheel train uses these mounts!  This subject has been approached several times at the SCWF, my recollection is that it is considered just another way to fasten the jewels (sort of like a self-adjusting chaton), and is not expected to provide any flex.  The jewel you mention on the newer GS, at the escape wheel, perhaps this is different.

It was a great read to me, and nice view on the movements too Cheers.

Regards