cfn
1579
Thank you for a well-considered comparison.
No doubt, two amazing pieces. The Trubute certainly has its own character and your observations as to the size and seeing the two sides as identical but contrasting was a new perspective for me.
I am also the grateful owner of the original and I can recognize your feelings about that beautiful and special watch. In the end, two brilliant watches, similar but different as family members are.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. Here’s mine
Claus
Then & Now: JLC Reverso Chronographe Rétrograde & Tribute Chronograph
Riding in Tandem I won’t dwell on the history of the original rose gold Reverso Chronographe Rétrograde, Ref. 270.2.69, issued as a limited edition in 1996, as it’s been covered previously in depth on this forum, and in summary in this 2022 article from t...
Excellent comparison, my friend.
On the original, my only doubt is about the date, which was not mandatory. I would have loved to see it existing in platinum, but well... As it is, it is a masterpiece. A milestone of elegance, and its case dimensions are playing a big part in the charm o...
Actually, the Tribute is NOT a dual time watch - a point I of popular misinformation I had planned to mention, and managed to forget.
The time on recto and verso are not individually adjustable, though several sources have described the Tribute as possessing that complication. (Too bad, it would have been cool.)
Beautiful pieces.
The rose gold chronograph is my personal preference here. Although I have to say, the crown looks a little too big in the proportions to the rest of the case. The Fagliano strap proportions don't look right on the rose gold Chronograph in my eyes; the "sq...
The crown on the rose gold reference has been criticized for its size, and also defended as being necessary/appropriate, given the chrono pushers.
I have so many alternative straps for the Chrono Rétrograde, I could wear it for a week and have something different on it every day. ;-) Hence that Fagliano band is a sometimes thing. As for comparative wrist time, I've only had the Tribute for a short t...
A lot of enjoyment to come!
I'd be proud to own and to wear either. Come to think of it. I haven't worn my Reverso in a while. And considering this is the watch that got me interested in watches when I was 10 years old, I'm surprised I only own one Reverso! I need more Reversos in m...
OK, here's som more...;-)
Traded away this Gran Sport years ago for this WG Duoface Night & Day. ...
I was thinking that I would buy that version of the Grand Sport decades ago.
Then I went thinking of the Reverso Grande GMT. But never pulled the trigger on that one neither. It was just too big on my wrist.
Both of those Reverso are quite nice, and the size differences are manageable
my Grande Calendar wears like a 38mm-40mm watch, so large at 49x30, but with just the right amount of presence on my 7-1/4” wrist (18.4 cm). I’ve owned a couple of Reverso in the smaller Grande Taille sized case (42x26) and found them to be a little daint...
Great comparison. What a pair you have there...
The 60th Anniversary versions are quite special - all 6 of them, although I regret that they were only offered in RG...
Thanks for this in depth comparison!
Bravo 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 While your reasoning is very compelling, I cannot but wish for the smaller, more elegant case of the original 🤷🏻♂️
Thank you for a well-considered comparison.
No doubt, two amazing pieces. The Trubute certainly has its own character and your observations as to the size and seeing the two sides as identical but contrasting was a new perspective for me. I am also the grateful owner of the original and I can recog...
A really interesting and exciting comparison of these two marvels.
You now have two great beauties in your collection. ☺️ Personally, I like the larger case and the wrist presence that comes with the Tribute Chronograph better. I also feel more drawn to the beautiful blue dial and the white metallic case. The really clea...
A FEW CORRECTIONS:
1. There is an asterisk following "..fine-textured 'guilloché' work..." in the original post. The corresponding missing footnote should read: *Does anybody know whether the “guilloche” on the Ref. 270.2.69 recto dial is an fact machine-worked or stamped? ...