patrick_y
[PuristSPro Moderator]
33705
Any difference in construction?
Are the moonphase discs versions both manufactured on a evaporation technique in a vacuum?
Thanks.
Discovered something interesting to share on the Nautilus 5712/1A - another variant?
I posted this on one of the PP forums out there... Heres something interesting to share with everyone: Hi fellow Patek enthusiasts, Not sure if this has been discussed before, I came across this interesting dial variance when I helped a friend to buy anot...
Newer version
Yes it is a newer version of the 5712, which started to be available on the market from around 1.5-2 years ago. Note that the power reserve indicator has another dot after 48 hours (same thing on 'newer' 5712G and 5712R too).
Any difference in construction?
Are the moonphase discs versions both manufactured on a evaporation technique in a vacuum? Thanks.
Mine has the same dot after the 48 hrs too, and mine
Packaging box has the same original number as well. Would you have any pictures to show the "older" dial? Thank you.
Not another variant, just a different moon disc. [nt]
No message body This message has been edited by patrick_y on 2010-03-08 14:29:56
Well the dial model number is Prefixed with B, hence I mentioned that it's like another
Variant. Yes the rest remains the same.
Ahhh, I didn't know that it was prefixed with a B
The complete model number for the 5712 is; 5712/1A-001 710.TNGT3 As far as I know, the 001 is the description of the dial. I personally like the old moonphase design with the shiny moon.
I wanted to load the pictures on my previous post... but guess it didnt load up...
Here is the difference shown: ">...
Mine has a B also
I got one a few weeks ago and I have the B on the box, the moon has a granular affect not shiny per se. Since I don't have anything to compare it to, I would have never noticed.
I wonder.............
............how mine will be. Don't know which one I like the most. Vte
Thanks for this is a very interesting observation
Mine is 'B' and I'm glad. I certainly prefered not to have outline for the stars. A granular moon is closer to the reality, which is full of craters. The most realistic moon I seen is Bvlgari Daniel Roth piece. But it is personal preference.
Thanks for the pics!
IIRC, this difference has been pointed before in passing in some of the previous posts put up. However, your pictures certainly puts things in perspective. Many thanks for the effort! Chye