MichaelC[AP Moderator]
21931
Another wonderful report Kong.
The date layout is odd to me. I like the creativity of the two rings, however all of the extra tick marks between the small numbers are not needed and really make it busy. So we have all of these markings drawing the eyes, yet as you point out the date is not quickly identified. I am curious as to what other designs they perhaps explored before settling on this one.
The case is a beauty, although I am not sure this particular piece benefits from the larger size. Great strap. Overall a nice watch, but I prefer the older generations by a good bit.
The new 2011 L.U.C Quattro
By: Kong : December 7th, 2011-09:44
L.U.C. was officially started in 1996, with the first revered movement, the L.U.C 1.96, joined by the tonneau-shaped L.U.C 1.97 and then the shocker 4-barrels hand-wound L.U.C 1.98. At that time, around year 2000, the four sequential barrels with 216 hour...
Interesting question
By: MTF : December 7th, 2011-17:35
Thanks Kong for the mini-review. I started with a L.U.C. 1.96 movement in the old 16/1860/1 classic model with diamond-shape indicators as you showed. Then, a L.U.C. 1.98 Quattro movement in a rose gold version of the watch you showed...