watercolors
2885
both are atractive
and If I could I would keep both of them , but If I had to choose I would go with 1951.In this case (a square watch), its thinness is in my oppinion an asset ! as well as the simplicity of a dial. looks more noble. Not to take away from the compilations of 1952 but in my oppinion watch loving is not always only about how many features it has. What is important as well is overall feel to the watch , as to the strap, you change it anyway every six month and luxury straps are not hard to find. good luck decicing.
once again congrats on good taste.
regards
e
The Toledo 1951 side-by-side with the Toledo 1952
I have recently taken a shine to the Historiques Toledo 1951, dedicating a full review to it and stating that it has leap-frogged the Historiques American 1921 as my favorite watch in the Historiques collection. In private conversations with some forum me...
both are atractive
and If I could I would keep both of them , but If I had to choose I would go with 1951.In this case (a square watch), its thinness is in my oppinion an asset ! as well as the simplicity of a dial. looks more noble. Not to take away from the compilations o...
1952 for me ...
because to me it offers more charming details. Just for the pleasure of looking ... ... a lovely vintage piece that I had the pleasure to see at a VC collectors dinner some time ago. ...
more "cioccolatone" in 1952
for those who like cacao ;-)) Both are nice. Maybe 1952 for men and 1951 for women a perfect duo. Thanks for this side-by-side presentation. Cheers, Patrickh
Great comparison Bill!
I love the case design of the Toledos and in PG, they are just warm and awesome to me. They wear a little big for my small wrist but I can appreciate the feeling of them on my wrist. Both are beautifully crafted - case, dial. Between the two, purely on lo...
