kenmasters Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 My eyes are not keen on POs yet. So please let me know what you think. I noticed the sub-dial spacing issue. Its an Asian 7750 from Silix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docblackrock Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 Firstly it's a PO Chrono not a PO Anyway, I'm fairly sure this is the only PO Chrono rep currently available so there ain't much choice if you want one. Wrong subdial spacing aside (which also means the indices are inaccurate), the dial isn't fantastic quality in terms of printing, also the modified 7750 means sunken datewheel of course, the chrono pushers are too large/protruding, the pearl is off, as is the colour of the chrono second hand (too red). Consequently, wasn't/isn't a big seller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreww Posted October 10, 2007 Report Share Posted October 10, 2007 The 3, 6 & 9 are all too small. The crown is likely too short (usually are when they leave them unscrewed like that). There really isn't much that is accurate, all stemming from it using the wrong movement, but its a nice piece. If I didn't have a couple of POs, I'd probably consider getting one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenmasters Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 That sucks. The watch still looks good. Here's a tougher one. What's the diff between these two ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreww Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 pic 1 is the 2nd generation and pic 2 is the 3rd generation. The 3rd gen has the proper positioning of the date font, but as I pointed out earlier, they decided to shring the 3, 6 & 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenmasters Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Good eye. I like the 2nd gen given that it costs less. I don't mind the wrong position of the date font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsterRider Posted October 11, 2007 Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 Good eye. I like the 2nd gen given that it costs less. I don't mind the wrong position of the date font. The first one has an incorrect pearl, whereas the second one is about as good as it gets on a rep. Also, the second one has MUCH better sub-dial print, much more correct looking sub-dial hands, better looking 3 and 9 dial markers and as Andreww pointed out, a better date font. Neither are correct, but IMO the second one is a much better looking piece. SR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenmasters Posted October 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2007 The first one has an incorrect pearl, whereas the second one is about as good as it gets on a rep. Also, the second one has MUCH better sub-dial print, much more correct looking sub-dial hands, better looking 3 and 9 dial markers and as Andreww pointed out, a better date font. Neither are correct, but IMO the second one is a much better looking piece. SR The two main differences I notice are the smaller 3,6,9 fonts, and maybe the pearl. I don't know what's up with the pearl. The bottom one looks like its embedded into the bezel, where as the top one looks like its just attached on top. Looks kinda dumb like that i'm sure.. i guess thats enough for someone to pay a little more to get the better version. As for the dial print, can't notice it unless i have both watches in my hands, but I'll take your advice.. crappy print will make me sad.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.