PAM104, What's the difference?

[RichieRich777]

I'm looking to buy a PAM104 & I'm on Andrew's site... I see 3 PAM104's that all look the same but there is a big difference in price. I read the discriptions & other than the movement I don't see much difference. Can anyone tell me if the dials, cases, straps, etc are the same? Are the more expensive ones waterproof? I did see on the "Best" version it also makes mention of correct date & magnification.

One more question, waterproofing by Andrew... Waste of money or worth the 50 bucks. I did do a search on this & saw that most people say it's a waste in general but Andrew comes very highly recomended so I'm wondering if his waterproofing is the exception.

Thanks everybody!

[capice]

I'm looking to buy a PAM104 & I'm on Andrew's site... I see 3 PAM104's that all look the same but there is a big difference in price. I read the discriptions & other than the movement I don't see much difference. Can anyone tell me if the dials, cases, straps, etc are the same? Are the more expensive ones waterproof? I did see on the "Best" version it also makes mention of correct date & magnification.

One more question, waterproofing by Andrew... Waste of money or worth the 50 bucks. I did do a search on this & saw that most people say it's a waste in general but Andrew comes very highly recomended so I'm wondering if his waterproofing is the exception.

Thanks everybody!

Difference is in the movement , so go for what you can afford.

Regarding waterproofing< do some reading on this, there are several threads about this "extra service"

Waterproofing is allways controversial, with gens it can mean resistant against rain, only the real diverswatches with the proper atmtest are fit for a good swim

[scoobs1971]

1. 21j movement

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...;products_id=39

This one has the old cyclops and thin date font. The subdial @9 should be recessed. 'Synthetic sapphire' sounds mineral glass to me, but you should check it with Andrew. The 6 font looks a bit odd. Also the crown is a bit too thin. The case back inscription is way off. No AR coating.

2. low beat 7750 (old version)

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...;products_id=90

This one also has the old cyclops and thin date font. The subdial @9 is recessed and more correct, too bad they placed the L Swiss Made L incorrect. The glass is supposed to be sapphire. The 6 font look better to me. The crown looks too thin. The case back is still incorrect, but looks better than the 21j version caseback. The low beat 7750 is notorious if unserviced. No AR coating.

3. high beat 7750 (new version)

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...roducts_id=2437

This the latest release of the 104 and almost 'ultimate'. The high beat movement is more reliable, especially after servicing. The crystal is sapphire and has single AR. The subdial is recessed, altough not as much as the gen. The cyclops and date font are much improved. A real difference with the other 2 versions. The crown also looks a bit thicker.

The only annoying flaw is the position of the L Swiss Made L, which is too close to the 6. The inscriptions on the case back are difficult to see on the pic, but at least they've added the serial number. Don't know if the OP number and BB number have been improved.

Qualitywise I would choose the 3rd. This is the most accurate version to date. Too bad of the L Swiss Made L thingy, but I could live with that.

I would only trust my own watchmaker for waterproofing....

Good luck!

[RichieRich777]

1. 21j movement

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...;products_id=39

This one has the old cyclops and thin date font. The subdial @9 should be recessed. 'Synthetic sapphire' sounds mineral glass to me, but you should check it with Andrew. The 6 font looks a bit odd. Also the crown is a bit too thin. The case back inscription is way off. No AR coating.

2. low beat 7750 (old version)

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...;products_id=90

This one also has the old cyclops and thin date font. The subdial @9 is recessed and more correct, too bad they placed the L Swiss Made L incorrect. The glass is supposed to be sapphire. The 6 font look better to me. The crown looks too thin. The case back is still incorrect, but looks better than the 21j version caseback. The low beat 7750 is notorious if unserviced. No AR coating.

3. high beat 7750 (new version)

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...roducts_id=2437

This the latest release of the 104 and almost 'ultimate'. The high beat movement is more reliable, especially after servicing. The crystal is sapphire and has single AR. The subdial is recessed, altough not as much as the gen. The cyclops and date font are much improved. A real difference with the other 2 versions. The crown also looks a bit thicker.

The only annoying flaw is the position of the L Swiss Made L, which is too close to the 6. The inscriptions on the case back are difficult to see on the pic, but at least they've added the serial number. Don't know if the OP number and BB number have been improved.

Qualitywise I would choose the 3rd. This is the most accurate version to date. Too bad of the L Swiss Made L thingy, but I could live with that.

I would only trust my own watchmaker for waterproofing....

Good luck!

WOW, you guys are good! Thank you

[RichieRich777]

1. 21j movement

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...;products_id=39

This one has the old cyclops and thin date font. The subdial @9 should be recessed. 'Synthetic sapphire' sounds mineral glass to me, but you should check it with Andrew. The 6 font looks a bit odd. Also the crown is a bit too thin. The case back inscription is way off. No AR coating.

2. low beat 7750 (old version)

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...;products_id=90

This one also has the old cyclops and thin date font. The subdial @9 is recessed and more correct, too bad they placed the L Swiss Made L incorrect. The glass is supposed to be sapphire. The 6 font look better to me. The crown looks too thin. The case back is still incorrect, but looks better than the 21j version caseback. The low beat 7750 is notorious if unserviced. No AR coating.

3. high beat 7750 (new version)

http://www.trustytime88.com/index.php?main...roducts_id=2437

This the latest release of the 104 and almost 'ultimate'. The high beat movement is more reliable, especially after servicing. The crystal is sapphire and has single AR. The subdial is recessed, altough not as much as the gen. The cyclops and date font are much improved. A real difference with the other 2 versions. The crown also looks a bit thicker.

The only annoying flaw is the position of the L Swiss Made L, which is too close to the 6. The inscriptions on the case back are difficult to see on the pic, but at least they've added the serial number. Don't know if the OP number and BB number have been improved.

Qualitywise I would choose the 3rd. This is the most accurate version to date. Too bad of the L Swiss Made L thingy, but I could live with that.

I would only trust my own watchmaker for waterproofing....

Good luck!

So while we're at it, which PAM 44/47 mm is mostly correct? Which is closest?

[scoobs1971]

So while we're at it, which PAM 44/47 mm is mostly correct? Which is closest?

Short answer: none

Long answer:

All PAM reps have flaws. Some more than others. Some big flaws, some minor flaws. With all the 'superreps' around here these days the perfect PAM still doesn't exists. So if accuracy is a real issue for you I would almost advise you to stay away from PAMs. If you can live with some flaws use the search function and study as much the model you like best and see if you can live with the inaccuracies or how you can mod it to get closer to the real deal.

Some general guidelines:

- the historic Luminors have wrong fonts (last week Sssurfer had a great topic about this);

- most contemporary Luminors have a bad cyclops and wrong date font. Recently this has been improved on the 'best version' 104, 164, the 229 and some Submersible models;

- the GMT models have wrong hands;

- the recessed subdials on most contemporary models are not as deep as the gen;

- most handwind models suffer from a recessed cannon pinion;

- most PAMs have poor lume and a too thin crown.

One of the most populair reps is also the most inaccurate PAM: the 111 H-series with sandwich dial (the sausage dial E-series is more accurate).

Search for the topic by PAMman for getting as close as possible to the 'perfect' PAM (also posted last week).