FLE 2011 proto photos

The third forum Limited Edition
Sold out
User avatar
downer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:02 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: UK

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by downer »

robinbarke wrote: Don't like to disagree with you Richard but it was on the basis of your mock up that we subscribed to the FLE. To my eye the watch has changed significantly and it seems to me another example of sloppy design. What is the point of carefully describing minite markers all the way around the dial only for the minute hand to wallow in no man's land between 28/32 seconds. A smaller sub dial would be fine and the solution adopted by Stowa, Bell, Thomas Ninchritz and others using the Unitas movement. The movement and case are given so surely we must get the dial right avoiding unnecessary compromises like the wretched date positioning of the C60!! Maybe the 2011FLE committee should consult and perhaps vote on this.
Firstly, we should see this as a debate, rather than an argument. :)

The issue here is whether or not the larger, sunken sub-dial is a strong element of this watch. Personally, I think it is vital. Sure, we could have a smaller sub-dial, but we would lose something in the process.

Below are two images - first the prototype..

Image

And then a mock-up showing the approximate reduction in the subdial in order to retain the sunken dial feature and show the minute markers at 28,29,31,32.

I deliberately left the space white - to show the scale of reduction.

Image

To my eyes, this would kill the watch. The sub-dial looks like an afterthought - as it does on many, many watches with the 6497/6498 movement.

In fact there are a lot of watches with gaps in the minute tracks, and I don't think it is necessarily sloppy design. Here is an example..

Image

And here is another..

Image

And of course there are many, many watches with no minute markers at all (including some design icons), but people seem perfectly happy with them, and are still able to use them as timepieces.

So, I think it is perfectly possible to have functional watches with missing minute tracks and personally, I think we should be quite happy with the prototype design.*

Oh, and by the way, I like the Trident date position. :)



* In any event, I have no idea whether or not the design can be changed at this stage, or what delays it would bring. I am merely arguing that we should not change anything.
Richard
robinbarke
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:42 pm
CW-watches: 7
Location: Lower Heyford, Oxon

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by robinbarke »

downer wrote:
robinbarke wrote: Don't like to disagree with you Richard but it was on the basis of your mock up that we subscribed to the FLE. To my eye the watch has changed significantly and it seems to me another example of sloppy design. What is the point of carefully describing minite markers all the way around the dial only for the minute hand to wallow in no man's land between 28/32 seconds. A smaller sub dial would be fine and the solution adopted by Stowa, Bell, Thomas Ninchritz and others using the Unitas movement. The movement and case are given so surely we must get the dial right avoiding unnecessary compromises like the wretched date positioning of the C60!! Maybe the 2011FLE committee should consult and perhaps vote on this.
Firstly, we should see this as a debate, rather than an argument. :)

The issue here is whether or not the larger, sunken sub-dial is a strong element of this watch. Personally, I think it is vital. Sure, we could have a smaller sub-dial, but we would lose something in the process.

Below are two images - first the prototype..

Image

And then a mock-up showing the approximate reduction in the subdial in order to retain the sunken dial feature and show the minute markers at 28,29,31,32.

I deliberately left the space white - to show the scale of reduction.

Image

To my eyes, this would kill the watch. The sub-dial looks like an afterthought - as it does on many, many watches with the 6497/6498 movement.

In fact there are a lot of watches with gaps in the minute tracks, and I don't think it is necessarily sloppy design. Here is an example..

Image

And here is another..

Image

And of course there are many, many watches with no minute markers at all (including some design icons), but people seem perfectly happy with them, and are still able to use them as timepieces.

So, I think it is perfectly possible to have functional watches with missing minute tracks and personally, I think we should be quite happy with the prototype design.*

Oh, and by the way, I like the Trident date position. :)



* In any event, I have no idea whether or not the design can be changed at this stage, or what delays it would bring. I am merely arguing that we should not change anything.
Thank you for going to so much trouble in setting out your case for supporting the prototype and I am glad you agree that there are grounds for debate here. My point is that, as far as I am aware, no quality watch manufacturer elects to use the Unitas movement and then has to compromise his design because of the limitation of the position of the sub-dial. I am surprised that you use a quartz chronograph to illustrate your point. Yes, there are many designs out there to appeal to many varying tastes and pockets, but with little aesthetic appeal, and certainly not of genuine quality.

I don't think you enhance your case by showing, in extremis, what a revision would look like were the sub dial to be made smaller although I happily defer to your skills. It would not need to be as small as you have shown. I would be happy for the minute marks to be cut down in size, provided they were still in evidence. This then would provide a proportionately sized dial, a well balanced piece, the best of all worlds and I think everyone would be happy.

Do you really prefer the date of the C60 where it is rather than equidistant between 4 and 5 o'clock? It has cost CW at least one sale!
C9GMT C8 Mk 1 C5 Malvern 2011 C9FLE C50 Malvern COSC C60 FLE2012 2013FLE
Oris Big Crown, Hublot, Rolex Datejust, Nomos Tangomat.


See my book, Aynho Junction, in the News section of http://www.robinbarkerphotography.com
User avatar
downer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:02 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: UK

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by downer »

robinbarke wrote:I am surprised that you use a quartz chronograph to illustrate your point. Yes, there are many designs out there to appeal to many varying tastes and pockets, but with little aesthetic appeal, and certainly not of genuine quality.
Robin, you cannot say the C70 is without aesthetic appeal or genuine quality. It may not match your idea of appeal (or mine for that matter), but the fact remains, it is a very popular design that has (as far as we know) been at the top of the CW best seller list for a while. Therefore, it is relevant to this debate, which is about a CW watch.
robinbarke wrote:
I don't think you enhance your case by showing, in extremis, what a revision would look like were the sub dial to be made smaller although I happily defer to your skills. It would not need to be as small as you have shown. I would be happy for the minute marks to be cut down in size, provided they were still in evidence. This then would provide a proportionately sized dial, a well balanced piece, the best of all worlds and I think everyone would be happy.
I want to see the sub dial retained as a major feature of the watch - not as an afterthought. I believe it would have to be reduced in size considerably in order to retain the minute marks (and not have the minute marks interfering with the crispness of the subdial sunken edge). If there is a compromise where tiny minute markers could be applied, so be it, but personally, I don't see it is that important either way.
robinbarke wrote: Do you really prefer the date of the C60 where it is rather than equidistant between 4 and 5 o'clock? It has cost CW at least one sale!
The lack of symmetry does not bother me at all, so I have no strong feelings either way.


As a reminder, this post is my own view, rather than any kind of representation of the committee. Again, I have no idea if it is even possible to change the design at this stage, and therefore, the whole debate could be irrelevant
Richard
Galton321
Forumgod
Forumgod
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:45 am
CW-watches: 14
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
Location: Hampshire

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by Galton321 »

To my eyes, this would kill the watch. The sub-dial looks like an afterthought - as it does on many, many watches with the 6497/6498 movement.

Don't want to force my way into a private discussion :) but to my eyes the larger sub-dial looks better. I have to agree with Downer in that the smaller looks like an afterthought. I think the meanness of the sub-dials on the C9 chrono completely unbalance the dial looking IMHO like two p*** holes in the snow. Still waiting for a nice dress chrono from Chris. :)
User avatar
Kip
The Administrator
The Administrator
Posts: 35127
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:45 pm
CW-watches: 150
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
LE-three: yes
LE-foura: yes
LE-fourb: yes
LE-five: yes
LE-six: yes
LESeven: yes
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by Kip »

Here are the answers to some of the questions asked......

There is only 1 prototype....Chris rushed the photos so we could see this asap. He will try to get us some better photos next week. Our movement does have the Geneva stripes. Any differences are due to light refraction.

The center of the hands and the subsecond hands will be nickel finished not white or black and cannot be changed.

The 28-32 markers have gone because the internal bezel needs to be 0.05 mm deeper (because the case height is higher than normal then the gradient is longer down to the dial) plus... the center of the Unitas sub dial is also slightly lower than the original drawings.

Effectively, the differences in the drawings and the prototype are due to normal factors that have been adjusted due to requirements of specifications relative to the case, movement and parts availability.

Also for what it is worth, everyone who has seen the protoype thinks it is spectacular...The best Forum effort yet!
Kip

"Asylum Administrator"


Visit the CWArchives for everything CW. Historical, specs, manuals and resale. It is all there.
User avatar
st-rider
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:04 pm
CW-watches: 12
LE-three: yes
LE-foura: yes
Location: nr York, UK

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by st-rider »

Kip wrote:...everyone who has seen the protoype thinks it is spectacular...The best Forum effort yet!
Looking at this as an outsider with no interest in the design or a stake in ownership I would have to agree.
Congratulations =D>

What was that old phrase about the devil being in the detail :wink: :D
Alex

Caitlin: "What did Ducky look like when he was younger?"
Gibbs: "Illya Kuryakin" :D
robinbarke
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 2868
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:42 pm
CW-watches: 7
Location: Lower Heyford, Oxon

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by robinbarke »

Not in line with the drawings,not in line with the mock up and just a slight hint of take it or leave it. Just hope it is 'spectacular' as suggested and that we all love it. I'm sure we will!!

Thanks Richard and Kip. Will hibernate until October!

Robin
C9GMT C8 Mk 1 C5 Malvern 2011 C9FLE C50 Malvern COSC C60 FLE2012 2013FLE
Oris Big Crown, Hublot, Rolex Datejust, Nomos Tangomat.


See my book, Aynho Junction, in the News section of http://www.robinbarkerphotography.com
User avatar
paw3001
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:50 pm
CW-watches: 4
LE-two: yes
Location: Berlin - Brexit Refugee!

Post by paw3001 »

I wouldn't worry about the minutes markers because if you are looking at this watch at any angle other than top down you won't see them. This is because of the use of a lower end crystal which will have a high level of refraction (as can been seen in the prototype photos) and reflections as there is no anti reflection coating.

And no the refractions are not there just because the crystal is double domed. There are many watches with double domed crystals which do not suffer the same level of refraction that Chris's watches do.

Obviously a higher end crystal would add to an increase in overall costs so I don't expect this change to happen and therefore I don't give a rats arse about missing a few minute marks.
User avatar
rcherryuk
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 3456
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:41 am
CW-watches: 8
LE-one: yes
LE-two: yes
LE-three: yes
LE-foura: yes
Location: Haarlem NL

Re:

Post by rcherryuk »

paw3001 wrote:I wouldn't worry about the minutes markers because if you are looking at this watch at any angle other than top down you won't see them. This is because of the use of a lower end crystal which will have a high level of refraction (as can been seen in the prototype photos) and reflections as their is no anti reflection coating.

And no the refractions are not there just because the crystal is double domed. There are many watches with double domed crystals which do not suffer the same level of refraction that Chris's watches do.

Obviously a higher end crystal would add to an increase in overall costs so I don't expect this change to happen and therefore I don't give a rats arse about missing a few minute marks.

Sorry, but some CWs have AR coating, admittedly it seems to be single sided (internal) but it is there, just not on the cheapies!

R
Rob

Watches are like Dictionaries; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.
Samuel Johnson
User avatar
downer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:02 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: UK

Re: Re:

Post by downer »

rcherryuk wrote:
paw3001 wrote:I wouldn't worry about the minutes markers because if you are looking at this watch at any angle other than top down you won't see them. This is because of the use of a lower end crystal which will have a high level of refraction (as can been seen in the prototype photos) and reflections as their is no anti reflection coating.

And no the refractions are not there just because the crystal is double domed. There are many watches with double domed crystals which do not suffer the same level of refraction that Chris's watches do.

Obviously a higher end crystal would add to an increase in overall costs so I don't expect this change to happen and therefore I don't give a rats arse about missing a few minute marks.

Sorry, but some CWs have AR coating, admittedly it seems to be single sided (internal) but it is there, just not on the cheapies!

R
I think all models have AR... and I think the refraction 'issue' is overstated (or even incorrect) above..

This is the C9, from a fairly low angle. You can see the dirty crystal, but you can also see the dial pretty clearly. :)

Image
Richard
User avatar
paw3001
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:50 pm
CW-watches: 4
LE-two: yes
Location: Berlin - Brexit Refugee!

Re: Re:

Post by paw3001 »

[quote="rcherryuk
Sorry, but some CWs have AR coating, admittedly it seems to be single sided (internal) but it is there, just not on the cheapies!

R[/quote]

Not saying that this isn't true but the specs for the FLE 11 do not state anti reflective coating and the prototype photos do seem to display quite heavy reflections in my opinion. Even single sided coating do reduce reflections, so I wonder if someone from the design committee can clarify whether the FLE11 will have any such coating?
Watches - Too many but not enough!
User avatar
paw3001
Trusted Seller
Trusted Seller
Posts: 2798
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 8:50 pm
CW-watches: 4
LE-two: yes
Location: Berlin - Brexit Refugee!

Re: Re:

Post by paw3001 »

[quote="downer
I think all models have AR... and I think the refraction 'issue' is overstated (or even incorrect) above..

This is the C9, from a fairly low angle. You can see the dirty crystal, but you can also see the dial pretty clearly. :)

Image[/quote]

Granted that photo of the C9 doesn't seen too bad and reassures me somewhat.

However, you may think the issue is overstated but how can you say it is incorrect? Have you looked at photos 1 and 8 of the prototypes. Isn't that evidence of refraction of light via the crystal? :?
Watches - Too many but not enough!
User avatar
downer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 25478
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:02 pm
CW-watches: 4
Location: UK

Re: Re:

Post by downer »

paw3001 wrote:
downer wrote: I think all models have AR... and I think the refraction 'issue' is overstated (or even incorrect) above..

This is the C9, from a fairly low angle. You can see the dirty crystal, but you can also see the dial pretty clearly. :)

Image
Granted that photo of the C9 doesn't seen too bad and reassures me somewhat.

However, you may think the issue is overstated but how can you say it is incorrect? Have you looked at photos 1 and 8 of the prototypes. Isn't that evidence of refraction of light via the crystal? :?
The FLE will use the stock C9 crystal as shown above, which does have AR coating. I have looked at the photos. I think most of them suffer from lack of depth. There is refraction on a couple of them, where the focus is on the case. These are shot almost horizontally, so it is unsurprising to see refraction on the domed crystal. What may be 'incorrect' is the assumption that this is "cheap" crystal, because it doesn't really show up as a problem on my C9. Just my opinion.

It would be interesting to see a picture of a "higher end crystal" from the same angle.
Richard
User avatar
Royston 64
Senior Guru
Senior Guru
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 9:38 am
CW-watches: 4
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by Royston 64 »

Now there is a discussion I haven't came across before - 'High end sapphire Crystal'. The true cost of sapphire crystal comes from the tools required to cut and shape it, as far as I am aware. :?

Seiko do have a sapphlex crystal that is mainly mineral crystal with a coating of sapphire fused to it - this is a cheaper process though.

As for the C9 crystal, I don't have any issues at all with the one fitted to my C90 - it just works.

Like Downer is alluding to, I think Chris actually focused on the crystal in some shots and without the required depth of field available in these macro shots, it has made the dial detail look a little fuzzy. :D
CW’s - C63 sealander, C65 Chrono
Others - Rolex Submariner, Rolex Airking, Rolex Datejust, Jaeger LeCoultre Polaris, Bremont Airco Mach1, Duckworth Prestex Viewmatic and 1 or 2 others
User avatar
golfjunky
Senior Forumgod
Senior Forumgod
Posts: 6828
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:32 pm
Location: Essex

Re: FLE 2011 proto photos

Post by golfjunky »

Great watch and cant wait....... but the minute hand does look a bit orangie to me !
Current collection = Omega Seamaster 2225.80.00, Omega Speedmaster 'Moonphase' 3576.50.00, Breitling Aerospace Evo, Vintage Azur, Vintage Seiko Sprtsman, Grand Seiko SBGX059, Omega SMP NTTD 210.92.42.20.01.001, Casioak Milkyway, Casioak Tiffany Sky.
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post