Glashütte Original

Hi guys in Basel,

Any idea what is the list price for the Moritz LE watch in WG and RG? Guess there is no option for manual winding at this point. Nice watch.

 

 

. . . "nice watch" strikes me as the understatement of the year ;-) . . . granted, I've only seen photos so far, but the 1878 Limited Edition might be the most perfect three-handed dress watch in my experience. I'm hoping that a steel version is in the works for the not-too-distant future . . . cordially, Art

would imho be a perfect daily wearer, those blued hands look so stunning on pictures, and would look very nice with a steel case. Would be perfect with manual wind and a display back. I'm aware that I just described a Dörnbluth, but they are just a tad too big for my wrist (I am seriously wrist-challenged).

Any info on the size of the LE?

Thanks

Jon

No message body

. . . although I would prefer a small seconds version of the cal 49 manual winding movement as well, I'll take this new iteration of the cal 100 if it's offered in brushed steel and not have any regrets ;-). The 1878 Moritz Grossman is listed at 40 mm, same as the current Senator line. Btw, I'm a fan of the Dornblüths as well, and have tried on no less than six of their watches . . . they all worked for me, especially Roger's 04.0, but the 99 series never overpowered my slender wrist. Have you actually tried one on, or are you just assuming that the nominal 42 mm case size is simply too large based your experience with other similarly sized designs? You might be pleasantly surprised, especially with a black dial version . . . cordially, Art

base my assumption on my experience with similarly sized cases. I frequently wear a 42 mm Omega Speedy, but the sportier case of a speedy allows a larger size. For me the limit for a more classical watch is 38-40 mm, but I plan to visit Madrid during the summer and will pop in to the Dörnbluth AD there to give one a try. One of my biggest horological regrets is not buying a 04.0 when they were available, but I hadn't graduated yet and significant purchase would severly deplete my wine, women and song - budget

 

Looking forward to seeing some reallife images of the Moritz LE

 

Best

Jon

 

. . . as it came down to a choice between a rose gold Karree perpetual or the 04.0 . . . I simply didn't have the wherewithal for both, and passed on the 04.0 . . . at least Roger has one that I can see in the metal now and again.  As for laying down guidelines regarding the nominal size of a watch, my feeling is that there are other factors that contribute to the sense of size, including color (darker generally appears smaller), proportion (thicker leading to an overall smaller impression), and finish (brushed/matte appears smaller) . . . a watch like the Senator Navigator actually works on my wrist despite it's nominal 44 mm diameter because other factors mitigate the diameter of the case . . . cordially, Art

...three-handed dress watch in my experience.."  That's a big call Art - there'd be a few contenders in that bracket, wouldn't you say? (However, kudos for the premise implicit in your statement, to the effect that a dress watch may even have three hands: there are those for whom that not unreasonable notion is anathema!).

May I visit here for a little while? Perhaps now might be an appropriate time to invite you to expand further on your contemporary leaning towards simpler watches. It seemed as fair a bent as any until, that is, you rolled out the heavy artillery on 29 February. How could so much precious metal, so many date wheels, moon faces and leap year indicators, be in the hands of a man whose self-professed tastes are for the simpler watches? Is the new gospel indicative of a sea-change (so that all those magnificent QP's are an embarrassment to you now, much like the flared jeans and lurid body shirts which once we proudly sported but which now attract moths in the back of our wardrobes)? Is there a Jekyll and Hyde dimension to your collecting? Are your tastes  'simplifying' or 'maturing'?

Care to share?

Yours nosily (and with immense respect),

 

Cheers,

pplater.

. . . although I didn't fail to notice that you omitted the qualifier "might" from the quotation ;-) . . . still, it was admittedly out of character, as I'm normally conscious of overreaching statements and refrain from making them. Perhaps this is one of those occasions where a picture is worth a thousand words - this photo was taken earlier this morning to greet Koji to our forum (forgive the blurriness of the two gold perpetuals - the better the camera, the more difficult it is to take a macro shot that's perfectly focused with regards to depth):

. . . you'll notice that the perpetuals haven't been worn lately . . . in fact, the perpetual that was last on my wrist was the gold Senator, which I wore for three days last week; prior to that, it had been three months since I'd strapped that one on. There are, indeed, two divergent strains of thought in my collecting experience (and, btw, I dislike that word, as I don't consider myself a true collector); when I first started indulging in my passion for horology some seven years ago, I was of the opinion that the watches that were worth spending marginal dollars on were the magical perpetuals, which transcend mere mechanics with their ability to track the calendar like an analog computer. My preference for the aesthetics of handsome Teutonic deck watches combined with the inarguable value offered by Glashütte Original was the driving force behind my acquisition of four G O perpetuals in as many years. It's one thing, however, to have a single perpetual that is worn with regularity and maintained on a winder compared to four; the wear and tear on the unworn perpetuals is needless, and leads to premature servicing - kindly refer to this thread from last year:

glashutte.watchprosite.com . the cause of which, undoubtedly, was having been in continuous operation for over three years. Now, of course, I knew this all along, but it took a stern lecture from ei8htohms at our gathering last November to drive the point home: long-term operation=problems. Within a few weeks, I had dismounted all of them off their respective winders, but now they were merely speculative, and not actual, perpetuals. Therein lies the rub: when at rest, perpetuals are capable of performing acts of horological magic, but it's rather like having a ticket to a magic show rather than being at the show. It is at this point that my other predilection - for German deck watches - has come into play . . . after acquiring four perpetuals, I no longer have the desire for another. Just last weekend I discovered a silver dial steel Karree perpetual that's been long discontinued in a local store, and that I would have jumped on last year . . . I thought about it for a few hours, but then came to the conclusion that acquiring it would be an act of superfluity, and dropped the matter entirely. To make a long and tedious story short, I've come to the conclusion that for myself, further exploration down the Road of Perpetuals is simply an exercise in snugness - comfortable, to be sure, but not a worthwhile end in itself. This is why I've decided to concentrate from here on out with watches that I would want to own on aesthetic and horological grounds, namely, simple German three-handed deck watches. That, pplater, is a matter of personal aesthetic judgment, and I'm remiss in having stated it so boldly . . . perhaps I should issue a disclaimer that I have an irrational preference for exquisitely constructed watches that don't breach the undefinable line between the craft of watchmaking and the art of watchmaking, hence, Glashütte Original and Dornblüth being two of my three favorite manufacturers (Omega being the third). Most cordially, Art

... a manifesto as any other, Art, and explicated with your trademark clarity and precision. In your debt....

 

Yours appreciatively,

 

Cheers,

pplater.

not sure when I can see a real piece in person.

 

Cheers

Tim

. . . your confidence is heartwarming, and I hope to see one on your wrist someday ;-) . . . regards, Art