Glashütte Original

Greetings all.
For the longest of time I have been admiring the GO Senator Perpetual.  I was at an AD the other day and saw the caliber 39 and the caliber 100 perpetuals.  I am so very tempted to "adopt one" but can't seem to decide between the two models.

Without giving away my leanings, I would like to hear from those in the know as far as the qualitative and structural differences between the two calibers.  Is there as significant improvement in the 100 over the 39 (a tried and true movement).  Has the 100 been out long enough to get the "bugs" out of it?  I know that the new model is larger and the aesthetics have been altered slightly but that is not my question.  The question is regarding the guts?  Is the caliber 100 truly worth the extra several thousand dollars for what you get?

In advance, thanks for the input and most importantly I hope all have a happy holiday season.

Mitch

... since I have not yet tested a cal. 100-equipped watch yet. Therefore, all I can say is based on the movements I have seen and handled both at the dealers and at presentations, and of course based on the conversations with watchmakers and the people developing and producing the movements. Consequently, my advice cannot be authoritative, I apologize.

The cal. 39 is solid and tried, this is correct. however, from the technical point of view, and despite its beautiful aesthetic finish, it cannot deny its rather unsophisticated nature, based on the company's most succesful movement designs from the late Seventies and early Eighties. IN this respect, the new cal. 100 is playing in a different league. Optically, it adhers to the classic tradition of the 2/3-plate design, but is splitting the top plate, to make access easier, which reduces cost and the danger of damages during reassembly.the two spring barrels not only offer a longer power reserve, but also a higher accuracy due to a more stable rate over a prolonged time. The unique and practical second resetting mechanism also assures higher stability of the movement's performance, since the balance wheel is not stopped and has to restart after the reset. Finally, the cal. 100's balance wheel looks more attractive, with its poising screws, but this is an absolutely subjective argument.

Sorry for not being able to offer a better advice.

Regards,
Marcus

I completely agree with you regarding the aesthetics of the 100 movement.  I think that it truly is a much more attractive movement, one that befits the manufacture.  To my eye, the 39 seems more industrial and that may be why I have yet to pull the trigger.  Your information about the effects of the changes in the movement are interesting.  I am hopeful that we might hear from those in the community that have had practical experience with the movements and add to the information "bank".  A there is a cost differential between the two watches, I need to be convinced about worthiness of one over the other.

Mitch

both tell the time without discernible difference.  The Cal. 100 has the advances already indicated in previous posts.  Is the price differential justified?  That is not for me to answer.  Fortunately, the Cal. 100 pieces differ from those containing the Cal. 39.  Thus the choice may be based on other than the movement.  Good luck in choosing the one which appeals to you.

The appearance of a watch is as important as the guts of the movement. It is nice to know, however, whether what is new is better or is it just a matter of window dressing. Of course, a selection of a certain movement in a less attractive casing is not what most of us would do. All of our senses must approve before putting cash on the barrel head. Mitch

. . . and informed response.  I can offer only my biased opinion based on almost four years of experience with cal 39 perpetuals. The cal 39 is reliable and durable - my first perpetual (which admittedly required two early trips to the G O service department) has been running nonstop for three years without a hitch, and consistently gains about half a minute per week.  My gold Senator survived a two-foot drop onto a tile floor without losing a beat.  I eventually sent it in for case repair and regulation, and when it returned the ding was gone and it's running -1 / day.  The middle child has never been sent in for any kind of service, has been running nonstop for two years, and loses less than a minute per week.   That record gave me the confidence to buy a fourth cal 39 perpetual which I'll be acquiring shortly.  The additional power reserve (and consistent torque delivery) of the cal 100 might be superior on paper, but since the raison d'etre of the perpetual calendar complication is realized by consistent operation, a winder is mandatory unless it's worn daily; to my way of thinking the benefits of the cal 100 are obviated in the perpetual calendar configuration.  And besides, the 3/4 plate of the cal 39 is way cool.  Happy holidays, Mitch . . . cordially, Art    

the one thing that would worry me about long term reliability in the Cal. 100 is the direct-activated vertical clutch that is used in the second reset mechanism.  I don't know the design as well as I should, but I worry that it is an inherently sensitive mechanism(see all the fun with a similar piece in the F. Piguet 1185), and that due to the direct activation, rather than the more instant activation in a controlled chronograph, there will be more time spent(fractions of a second still) in 'slipping' mode.
Aaron
ps re-reading this, it makes sense to me, but it may come across garbled...need some lunch ;)

I'm deeply in love with the cal 39, with i find to be a beautiful and relieable movement with a bit of history. One might not like the history, but it is probably one of the reasons Glashutte Original survived, and a link back in time.

My attraction the new Senators - and cal 100 - is the elegant watches and especially the new dial. Seeing and handling the watch a couple of weeks ago ricked my firm belief that my next GO should be a panomatic or a Panoreserve.

If I should choose my first GO today? Cal 39. Why? History and reliability.  

Merry Christmas

nt

To me, the link back to the past is one of the things that destinguise GO from other 'resurrected' brands. GO is still GO, not just the name.

Kind regards