Chopard L.U.C 1963 Chronograph PuristSPro Edition

jrwong23 (aka watchthebin) · 2016-02-27T07:21:25Z

Jrwong23 reviews the Chopard L.U.C 1963 Chronograph PuristSPro Edition and rose gold version, comparing them to Montblanc Villeret chronographs. Discover unique movements and design.

jrwong23 (aka watchthebin)

WPS member · Chopard forum

47 replies7339 views6 photos

Jrwong23 (aka watchthebin) provides an exclusive look at the Chopard L.U.C 1963 Chronograph PuristSPro Edition in steel and its rose gold counterpart, encountered during a visit to the London Chopard boutique. His post offers a comparative analysis with his Montblanc Villeret chronograph, highlighting the unique attributes and value proposition of the limited-edition Chopard.

I finally managed to see this beauty in the metal!
Was lucky to see it in the London Chopard boutique along with the rose gold 1963 chronograph (also my first time seeing the rose gold version in the metal as the Singapore Chopard boutique does not have stock of either).

This PuristSPro edition (LE 50 in steel) was not on display - when I asked if they have this watch, the sales lady took it out from the safe

Some pics to share here.

Even though the case is 42mm, it didn't feel big on my 6.2 inch small wrist. I like the size actually!

The rose gold version. Looks slightly bigger with the white dial but still fits my small wrist well. Without a date window, it would have been even nicer as most PuristS already commented

Both versions side by side along with my Montblanc Villeret chronograph grand feu enamel

A battle of 2 high end chronographs! Both black dial and white metal case

The battle between 2 chronograph movements crafted in German silver. The Chopard has untreated German silver whereas the Montblanc Rhodium plates the German silver plates

Comparing the 2 very briefly, I feel the Chopard LUC 1963 chronograph PuristSPro edition is a more wearable watch being in steel, lighter and thinner. It also looks very interesting (not boring) with a stunning movement with patina as well as a lovely dial design. The Montblanc Villeret however has a more interesting movement design (more 3D and layered) and the chronograph pushers of the Montblanc is smoother than the already very smooth Chopard LUC 1963 chronograph (which is as smooth as my Lange Datograph). Ok here I am comparing amongst the very best

Of course, the Chopard is a lot lower in price than the Montblanc Villeret so we can't compare apples to apples. For the price, I must say the PuristSPro edition of the Chopard LUC 1963 chronograph is tempting indeed!

I feel so lucky to finally see and try it today in London.
Hope you guys get to see it too.

Cheers
Robin

Key Points from the Discussion

The PuristSPro stainless steel version of the L.U.C 1963 Chronograph is preferred over the rose gold variant, not only for its lack of a date window but also for its more subdued aesthetic.
The L.U.C 1963 Chronograph PuristS Edition is exclusively available at Chopard's own boutiques, making it a rare find that requires visiting specific locations like London, Mexico City, Bal Harbour, or Costa Mesa.
The Chopard L.U.C movement is lauded for its uniqueness and superior finishing compared to the Montblanc Villeret's Minerva movement, which, while excellent, is seen as more derivative of older Lemania designs.
Despite the Montblanc Villeret's movement being more three-dimensional, the Chopard L.U.C 1963 Chronograph's movement is praised for its superb German silver patina and overall wearability due to its lighter, thinner steel case.
The Chopard L.U.C 1963 Chronograph is considered a strong contender against the Montblanc 1858 Monopusher Tachymeter in steel, with its hands, dial, and date-free design being notable attractive elements.
The Chopard L.U.C 1963 movement is admired for its unique 'arena' type 3D view and manual wind chronograph complication, distinguishing it from movements that resemble historical Lemania calibers.

The Discussion

amanico

Feb 27, 2016

The movement is, at least for me, much more my taste. Ok, the price is not the same, as you rightly pointed out. But for a bit lower price, the Montblanc 1858 Mono pusher Tachymeter in steel, blue dial, is the winner. Which doesn't mean that it is lacks interest. The hands, the dial, the absence of date, the case are some nice elements. Best, Nicolas.

MichaelC

Feb 27, 2016

The best part of the PuristS version chronograph is the lack of the date. Otherwise, I think the gold version looks much better.

CaliforniaJed

Feb 27, 2016

1. The MB movement is derivative and similar Chrono movements are available in myriad other watches from many munufactures, at prices far above and far below the MB. 2. The Chopard movement, on the other hand, is unique. No one else but Chopard has it, and they introduced it in a watch just for us. I could never chose the MB over this one. 3. The Chopard movement is, to my eye, better finished than the MB. 3. I suspect we\'ll see this movement used by Chopard in more and more complicated watches

CaliforniaJed

Feb 27, 2016

The truth is I would love to own both!

KMII

Feb 27, 2016

Having seen both the RG and the PuristSPro stainless steel version of the 1963 Chrono live, my choice is clearly for the latter - and not only because of the lacking date. I find its subdued looks more to my taste but this may well be personal. If I was in the position at the moment to go for either the LUC 1963 or the SS version of the 1858 chrono from MB, I'd go the Chopard way. With Robin's watch - not sure; but then again we are talking of a different price point Here from my last encounter

KMII

Feb 27, 2016

Maybe seeing the 1858 live may have changed my mind but for the moment all of those pieces are of largely academic interest

Continue the conversation

This thread is active on the Chopard forum with 47 replies. Share your knowledge with fellow collectors.

Join the Discussion →

Chopard L.U.C 1963 Chronograph PuristSPro Edition

Key Points from the Discussion

Continue the conversation

More from this Forum