Chopard

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...  

Didn't like the facelift result nor the new size.

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...  

the date ring is too big to the extent that the top part is covered by the hands. You are right, I wish the size would be max 40mm for such a dressy watch. Thanks for the review. Regards Ling

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... 

can be dangerous. Especially after so many great (detailed) pictures. Saw them and went to the next boutique. The RG version was on display and I liked a lot what I saw. Always liked their (manual L.U.C.) movements, but was never happy with their cases - ...  

Hi Kong, I've been looking at Chopard LUC watches since I got the launch catalog of the 1.96 some time ago (well nearly 15 years already). My interest has been recently revived following a discussion with MTF on that subject of Chopard. Your post is very ... 

Quattro was/is a great watch. The previous version fit my smallish wrist quite nicely.... but now 43mm? I don't know about that.... Ken...  

Thanks for sharing Ken. Kong

The 2000 year version has a classic appeal although I'm not crazy about the diamond shaped markers. Simply changing the Chopard font from script to plain print modernized the look of the watch. I agree that the new one is a great choice for a dress watch....