Comments:
<< Previous Comments
Well. I had the exact same thought yesterday.
It is much more difficult to do a perpetual than an annual. Perhaps, there just wasn’t the room for it. But I he your point well.
The Annual calendar here is a straightforward implementation
No complex mechanisms. It is a hand that can be seen on the caseback side, and makes a full revolution once every 366 days. It simply points to a disc which has properly spaced, varying month lengths between 29-31 days.
The reason this was done is because it conveniently ties in with another complication - the Equation of Time, which is an annual complication. Another watch that uses a fairly similar setup would be the Vianney Halter Classic Janvier, also on the caseback.
Regards,
skyeriding
The reason this was done is because it conveniently ties in with another complication - the Equation of Time, which is an annual complication. Another watch that uses a fairly similar setup would be the Vianney Halter Classic Janvier, also on the caseback.
Regards,
skyeriding
Correction - the disc itself rotates, with a fixed pointer hand. [nt]
No message body
it makes sence from a logical POV
that the equation of time ties in with the annual calendar. I am not that deep in to the technical issue but i understand that the jump from annual to a perpetual calendar is quite a big one. not only in tems of number of parts but actually making the mechanism behave the way it is supposed to.