lfovco Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) I have been looking at the pics of new gen 1950's and I must say that I find the design of the new thinner crowns absolutely horrible. I cannot look at them without a cringe, they look worse then a bed rep. I also looked at one at an AD right next to a nice Base 112 and it just looks soooooo bad. The design of 1950 is nice though. I think the standard crown from Historic series is perfect and so is the chunky one in the Pam127 or the one in 1950 Chrono. But the new ones are totally killing me, ha. Maybe it is because we pay so much attention to crowns and the general crown would not even look or think about it for a sec. Edited November 8, 2010 by lfovco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babola Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 The main problem is - these aren't 1950s...not even close. They're poor cousins of the 47mm original, and something simply had to give to be able to squeeze the 1950-style watch into a 44mm case and make it automatic. The crown is super thin as it's, firstly - smaller, and secondly thinner as it needs a lot of travel when extended outwards from the case for time, date and 2nd time zone adjustment. They should never have made this, IMO cheers, b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subbiesrock Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 What's the model number of this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 I said the same thing in response to a review on a gen forum and got hammered !! I think I called it an Anorexic Hybrid!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheaton26 Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 What's the model number of this one? pam 320. and i'll have to disagree with the members above. i love everything about the 1950 luminors (hence my new signature below). it's vintage meets modern with an in house movement. an instant classic imo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defender110 Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 wheatons pics looks good, the pic in the orig post is certainly lacking something (looks like teeth that have ever seen a toothbrush or a dentist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted November 8, 2010 Report Share Posted November 8, 2010 pam 320. and i'll have to disagree with the members above. i love everything about the 1950 luminors (hence my new signature below). it's vintage meets modern with an in house movement. an instant classic imo! I know why !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serious Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Looks great to me... Taste is subjective... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Looks great to me... Taste is subjective... You cant be serious !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfovco Posted November 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 When I handled it at an AD it felt like an unmodded rep, mainly cause of the crappy crown. Hurt my eyes way too much. I think that 1950 flyback chrono was million times sweeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadToucha Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 That crown is definitely too thin (for me). I can understand the explanation of babola ... but it screams rep when i look at it... bad habits ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now