Jaeger-LeCoultre

respo
4777

• Show profile
• Show other posts

MUT Impressions

Great report, Nicolas!  I think a lot of us were awaiting the new MUT with great anticipation, and what a surprise that JLC launched TWO new versions AND a special anniversary edition in that lovely chocolate brown and rose gold combo, which I think is also my favorite rendition. 

I had been holding off on selecting a thin dress watch because what I realized I wanted was an MUT, but in a somewhat larger size -- that would be perfection, I thought.  But you know what they say, be careful what you wish for. 

First of all, the MGUT is, IMHO, an entirely different piece, gorgeous to be sure, but not quite comparable to the MUT.  I am not even sure, given its height, that it qualifies as "ultra thin," although perhaps it does if ultra thin is defined relative to case diameter. Maybe some of the experts here can enlighten me. In any case it is a nice addition to the JLC line up and a good start to their renewed commitment to producing slimmer watches.

Second, the new MUT has the same 849 movement as the previous models of the MUT, but placed in a larger case.  This seems a little like cheating; but I am more seriously concerned that this decision undermines the integrity of the MUT.  The 849 movement, if not the original MUT watch itself, have achieved somewhat legendary status as "best in class", I think, and many consider the 34mm MUT and its movement both masterpieces. From what I can see, it is pretty rare that a watch is produced in any category that is recongnized by so many to be the definitive current production example in its class, and the 34mm MUT did that for ultra thins.  But perhaps I am greatly overestimating its status.

So, does the placement of a pretty small movement (even relative to the 34 mm case, as is my understanding) into an even larger 38mm case produce something less than a masterpiece?  Perhaps the 849 works perfectly in a 34 mm case, and maybe the combination with a 38mm case loses something in the translation. What exactly is happening in all that extra space inside the larger case?  Are there technical issues of concern when a small movement is placed inside a large case?  I am certain the 38mm MUT is beautiful, but I am just not sure that it is up for consdieration as best in class as the original was.  Also, at 6.31 mm thick, again, I am not sure how this places the MUT in the ultra thin category as a whole -- while still very thin, it is no longer among the very thinnest compared to the original MUT or other really fine examples put out by other manufacturers; but in terms of height relative to diameter, it may in fact be quite impressive.I don't know the answers. Again, some enlightened opinions would be appreciated. 

What do others think about how the new MUT stacks up against the original, not so much in terms of beauty or elegance, which I think are more subjective, but in terms of their each being truly extraordinary or even seminal examples of the ultra thin watch?  I think that one of the appeals of the original MUT is in its being arguably the best interpretation of the ultra thin horological challenge in recent or current production. I think another appeal is that somehow the MUT became more than the sum of its parts, creating a very rare and sublime combination of artistry and technical achievement. Maybe it was too much to hope for an equal level of achievement from JLC with a new MUT, and perhaps it would have required beginning with a new movement. But as for now, I will need to reconsider my plans for a thin dress watch. 

respo