Ulysse Nardin

Just three pics, of the limited edition in gold, with a gorgeous baked enamel dial, and the unlimited version in titanium and steel, that features a modernized dial and hands layout. Both equipped with the new in-house cal. 118 movement with DiamonSil escapement.







Full press text is upcoming.

Regards,
Marcus
This message has been edited by Marcus Hanke on 2012-03-07 07:34:26 This message has been edited by AnthonyTsai on 2012-03-07 08:15:18

We were waiting for this one for a very long time, and here it is.

The movement seems to be fantastic.

Can you confirm that the Cal 160 is out, at the benefit of the Cal 118?

The only problem I have is the presence of the Date... I would much have preferred without, but it is just my taste.

It is also great to know that there is the choice between RG and Titanium.

Hmm, will have to see this one in the flesh, as I always wanted a Marine Chronometer from U.N!

Thanks for the news, Marcus, thank you so much.

I am now eagerly waiting for your in depht review!

Best,

Nicolas

... as I have written elsewhere, I am sick at home, and it is possible that I won't make it to Basel. So I will not have the chance to handle the actual watch right now.

Yes, the cal. 160 is out, and, well, the Anniversary is most likely to be the only watch with this movement, making it really unique.

The date is an integral function of the movement, as is the power reserve display and the small second. Consequently, there is no module, making a "date tunnel" as on the previous Marine Chronometers and Divers unnecessary. The date is located under the dial. The case diameter is 45mm, which is the only downside in my eyes. In my opinion, such a classic timepiece should not exceed some 43mm in diameter.

Regards,
Marcus

I agree with you on the size... 43 mm would have been better.

As for the date, I guess this is something I can live with.

Any idea on the retail of the titanium?

Get better, my friend, and thanks for your efforts, despite you are sick.

Best,

Nicolas

Are they going to sell it with a gymbal mount for deck-use as well?

The new movement is good news, I was afraid it was going to be the "Chinese Democracy" of movements, and UN was going to keep holding awaiting it

A

I have been very excited to see the caliber 118 piece and here it is.  I certainly had a different design in my mind.

The titanium/steel version, while unlimited and available, fails for me on aesthetics.  What an opportunity to create a modern chronometer dial that was different than UN's previously used bold roman numerals, which I have never cared for.  I hoped for regular numerals, like my ship's chronometer from 1937.  The sub seconds dial design... wow, I just don't get it.  I am not one to be disrespectful of a new release whether I like it or not, but with UN as a personal favorite brand, I envisioned something quite a bit more spectacular.

The gold model is exquisite with the enamel dial and much more appealing.  I do agree with Nico on the date, and would prefer it without.  The movement looks incredible, and that is a plus for both pieces.

Still, aside from the technical merits of the 118, I see nothing nearly as impactful as what the Caliber 160 piece represented when it launched.  That one is now further cemented in UN lore for me, and I would absolutely choose it over this new model.

... with the Maxi Marine Chronometer, that was not available with Romans. The later, again larger Chronometer with Romans came but some years ago.

However, I would not entirely dismiss the new Chronometer based on the first production variant only. We all know how huge the variety of UN's 1846 Marine Chronometers was, there were so many different dial colours, marker styles, hands, etc. I am convinced that, sooner or later, everybody can find her or his favourite model. I, for example, was never a fan of black dials, so I would rather hope for a silver-white dial with heat-blued markers and hands.

Regards,
Marcus

I suspect I will have a caliber 118 piece one day as new variations are released.

I just expected more out of this release.  I think back to how exciting the first shots you posted of the 160 were.  Not just the movement, but the entire watch.

Here I see the RG piece as aesthetically very similar to the Anniversary chronometer they did, and the steel/ti piece as not much different than the other pieces that have been out for years.  So in my eyes it is still a very somber way to launch this much anticipated caliber.  The RG piece really does look good, but it does not move me or stir any emotions. 

I especially like the rotor.

I really like this watch and I would like to sum up in a few words the pros and cons I felt:

pros:

- the size: yes, I found it perfect. A big size is coherent for a "Marine Chronometer" watch and moreover, the "lugs" are short and improve the comfort on the wrist.
- the movement: glad to see this new movement in this context. I especially like its lay-out and the balance bridge.
- the finishings of the case and of the dials.

cons:

- I find that the date is totally useless. Its window cuts the second hand scale which is a pity for a chronometer watch.
- power reserve indicator in both langages: come on guys, you are not serious! Write everything in french or in english but don't write it twice!
- the big UN 118 written on the dial: I would have preferred the dial without.

Overall: despite some irritating details, the overall beauty of the watch and the quality of its finishings are really seducing.

Fx

I slightly disagree with you on the lugs, which is the major aesthetical con, for me...

But to each his own, indeed.

Best,

Nicolas

I think this limited edition chronometer is absolutely gorgeous. The bilingual description of the power reserve is weird, indeed. Thankfully, the unlimited versions with the modern dial do not have this, but simply show a red zone for the low power reserve.

The lug design is that of the Maxi Marine Chronometer, known since more than ten years. I am not a fan of it, because it limits the choice of straps, resp. increases the cost of third party straps. But it is an integral part of the watch's design.

The date, well. I agree that on the limited edition with enamel dial, the date appears to be disturbing the overall appearance. If we look at the first Marine Chronometer, launched as limited edition in 1996, this had been without date:



However, for an everyday watch, a date is an important complication. Personally, I normally do not wear watches without date display; too often I need it in everyday work, and apparently I am not clever enough to memorize the current date every day in the morning ...

Despite the fact that the date window is cutting through the second register, I think it is practical. However, what I dislike is the loupe grinded into the sapphire crystal's rear side. That loupe was necessary, when the Marine series watches used the ETA 2892 with the UN-produced module for small second and power reserve. The module placed the date ring far under the dial, so it was necessary to look at it through a "tunnel". Originally, a small loupe was integrated into the tunnel, which was less efficient, but did not distort the second hand, when it passed over the date. Later, UN replaced that loupe with the one in the top crystal's rear: it increased the visual size of the date well, but appeared weird whenever the second hand passed under it.

The new Marine Chronometer has small second and power reserve integrated already in the cal. 118 movement, so the date ring is now placed directly under the dial. In my opinion, the loupe is not necessary any more, and could be discarded, and I think the overall appearance of the watch would improve.

Regards,
Marcus

No message body

Looks fantastic mate ! would agree that it would look better without the date.

I think you have a great analysis of the piece.

In your post above, you wrote:

"cons:
...
- power reserve indicator in both langages: come on guys, you are not serious! Write everything in french or in english but don't write it twice!"

In my reply, I agreed:

"The bilingual description of the power reserve is weird, indeed"

Today, I received a message from Ulysse Nardin's CEO, Patrik Hoffmann, with a picture included that, actually, showed that already the classic and world renown marine chronometers made by UN sported this bilingual description of the power reserve:



Well, this could be an isolated case, ne c'est pas? So I conducted a small online research on UN marine chronometers, and: Lo and behold! this kind of designation was the absolute standard:







To further complete my embarassement, I found corresponding pictures in my own reference gallery of this forum, that I had collected in earlier years:





So I gladly express my apologies to the staff of UN, especially to the dial designer of the new Marine Chronometer: the bilingual power reserve inscription is not weird, it is historically correct.

Regards,
Marcus
This message has been edited by Marcus Hanke on 2012-03-29 12:29:45

But to be historically correctn the new Marine Chronometer, as the others, by the way, should be ... Dateless!



Best,

Nicolas This message has been edited by amanico on 2012-03-29 13:37:29

No message body