closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 71

Thread: Old PRS-29 vs New PRS-29

  1. #1
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    29

    Old PRS-29 vs New PRS-29

    The new PRS-29A has been out for a year now so I thought it would be a nice time to discuss our thoughts on the changes Eddie put into the watch as well as compare and contrast the two.

    Below I've posted images of the two watches for quick reference

    A short list of the changes from old to new PRS-29:
    -Removal of the 39mm variant
    -Sapphire box crystal as opposed to Acrylic
    -Drilled lugs with springbars as opposed to fixed

    Dial changes:
    -Change in font typeface and thickness
    -Hour hand lume no longer fills to the point
    -Numbers closer to the outer track

    My thoughts:
    Both watches are gorgeous, both watches are very robust and accurate. This thread isn't to say one is better than the other because reason X Y Z, but to express our opinions on the little things you like and dislike between both versions. Personally, I would still pick the old PRS-29A as it is more true to the original, and in general more "military;" here is my reasoning for that.

    The open "4" is the most obvious change that isn't true to the original and, to my eye, looks like it belongs to a different family of typeface. The rest of the numbers look closer to the W10's typeface and thickness than the old PRS-29's. Another change was to move the 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 closer to the outer track and it gives the numbers a more square arrangement than round as in the original W10 and the old PRS-29A. The hands were not entirely true to the original on the old PRS-29 as both hands should have had the lume fill them to the point instead of just the hour hand, but on the new version they are both squared off.

    Of course the object of this watch isn't to be an exact copy, as then we'd have to copy the sorry state of the Lume on most surviving examples, but a faithful homage should have the same proportions of the main components. The numbers, both in their font and placement being the standout element in capturing the look of the original W10.

    The decision to add springbars and drilled lugs is in direct response to many people complaining that they could only have NATO's and clip-on straps, but I feel it has compromised some strength. I've had a failure of a spring bar while on a field exercise and can not trust them ever again after that (also the day I switched to NATOs exclusively). The old fixed bars were solid and you were not going to break one without breaking the whole damn watch or somehow imparting enough force to snap a NATO strap. It was also kind of a novelty as fixed bars are pretty rare these days, but of course, were standard on military watches back of the olden days.

    Sapphire vs Acrylic crystal I personally don't care too much about, but the original had acrylic and so the old PRS-29 is more accurate to the original in this respect. From the perspective of it being a field watch, scratches and scuffs are to be expected and so I do not mind acrylic crystal, especially since they can be buffed and are quite cheap. Sapphire on the other hand doesnt scratch but when it fails, it fails catastrophically, not what you want to happen when out in the field.

    With all that said, I think the new PRS-29A is more of a dress watch with characteristics of a field watch and the old one was a field watch that could be dressed up. I also believe the old one was truer to the original and the dial had better design.

    This is just speculation,but I feel like with this step towards versatility and becoming more of a dress watch, the PRS-29A has been sidelined by the watch that does it much better with a design that seems purpose built for it: the PRS-29AM. I think the PRS-29A, to distinguish it from the PRS-29AM, should be the more rugged counterpart with lume, fixed lugs, an acrylic crystal and very legible numbers.
    Would eddie be able to say if this last statement is true? I base the idea that the AM has outshone the PRS-29A in the last year just based off of how many listings I see of both in the secondhand market and how people ooh and ahh at it whenever a picture is posted (It is a fantastic looking watch).


    OLD PRS-29A


    NEW PRS-29A


    ORIGINAL SMITHS W10


    edit: edited titles for pictures, they were swapped between the "old" and "new" pictures
    Last edited by jared; 22nd November 2019 at 21:19.

  2. #2
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    33,737
    Very enjoyable. Thanks.

  3. #3
    Journeyman Ogdensnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    239
    I’ve tried to find rather unsuccessfully what the widths of the hands are on each model and whether the proportions are the same for each model. The first 29a to my eye looks closest in style to the W10 but the second hand appears too thin. I could be mistaken. Anyone know?


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  4. #4
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    The new PRS-29A has been out for a year now so I thought it would be a nice time to discuss our thoughts on the changes Eddie put into the watch as well as compare and contrast the two.

    Below I've posted images of the two watches for quick reference

    A short list of the changes from old to new PRS-29:
    -Removal of the 39mm variant
    -Sapphire box crystal as opposed to Acrylic
    -Drilled lugs with springbars as opposed to fixed

    Dial changes:
    -Change in font typeface and thickness
    -Hour hand lume no longer fills to the point
    -Numbers closer to the outer track

    My thoughts:
    Both watches are gorgeous, both watches are very robust and accurate. This thread isn't to say one is better than the other because reason X Y Z, but to express our opinions on the little things you like and dislike between both versions. Personally, I would still pick the old PRS-29A as it is more true to the original, and in general more "military;" here is my reasoning for that.

    The open "4" is the most obvious change that isn't true to the original and, to my eye, looks like it belongs to a different family of typeface. The rest of the numbers look closer to the W10's typeface and thickness than the old PRS-29's. Another change was to move the 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 closer to the outer track and it gives the numbers a more square arrangement than round as in the original W10 and the old PRS-29A. The hands were not entirely true to the original on the old PRS-29 as both hands should have had the lume fill them to the point instead of just the hour hand, but on the new version they are both squared off.

    Of course the object of this watch isn't to be an exact copy, as then we'd have to copy the sorry state of the Lume on most surviving examples, but a faithful homage should have the same proportions of the main components. The numbers, both in their font and placement being the standout element in capturing the look of the original W10.

    The decision to add springbars and drilled lugs is in direct response to many people complaining that they could only have NATO's and clip-on straps, but I feel it has compromised some strength. I've had a failure of a spring bar while on a field exercise and can not trust them ever again after that (also the day I switched to NATOs exclusively). The old fixed bars were solid and you were not going to break one without breaking the whole damn watch or somehow imparting enough force to snap a NATO strap. It was also kind of a novelty as fixed bars are pretty rare these days, but of course, were standard on military watches back of the olden days.

    Sapphire vs Acrylic crystal I personally don't care too much about, but the original had acrylic and so the old PRS-29 is more accurate to the original in this respect. From the perspective of it being a field watch, scratches and scuffs are to be expected and so I do not mind acrylic crystal, especially since they can be buffed and are quite cheap. Sapphire on the other hand doesnt scratch but when it fails, it fails catastrophically, not what you want to happen when out in the field.

    With all that said, I think the new PRS-29A is more of a dress watch with characteristics of a field watch and the old one was a field watch that could be dressed up. I also believe the old one was truer to the original and the dial had better design.

    This is just speculation,but I feel like with this step towards versatility and becoming more of a dress watch, the PRS-29A has been sidelined by the watch that does it much better with a design that seems purpose built for it: the PRS-29AM. I think the PRS-29A, to distinguish it from the PRS-29AM, should be the more rugged counterpart with lume, fixed lugs, an acrylic crystal and very legible numbers.
    Would eddie be able to say if this last statement is true? I base the idea that the AM has outshone the PRS-29A in the last year just based off of how many listings I see of both in the secondhand market and how people ooh and ahh at it whenever a picture is posted (It is a fantastic looking watch).


    NEW PRS-29A


    OLD PRS-29A


    ORIGINAL SMITHS W10
    The top two pics (or captions) are the wrong way round, as I'm sure most people and the OP have realised. I have just got hold of the new version and it is a beauty. I thought the slightly squared off positioning of the numbers and the open 4 might be an issue, but I find that they are not for me, and the new font with slimmer numerals is, in my view, a definite improvement. I love everything about this watch. The only thing I would change, if I could, would be to fill the lume to the points of both hour and minute hands, as in the original, but that is a minor suggestion and the existing hands are still fabulous.

  5. #5
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    France
    Posts
    159
    I am sooooo happy to have found a B version. It is so well balanced !


    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    The new PRS-29A has been out for a year now so I thought it would be a nice time to discuss our thoughts on the changes Eddie put into the watch as well as compare and contrast the two.

    Below I've posted images of the two watches for quick reference

    A short list of the changes from old to new PRS-29:
    -Removal of the 39mm variant
    -Sapphire box crystal as opposed to Acrylic
    -Drilled lugs with springbars as opposed to fixed

    Dial changes:
    -Change in font typeface and thickness
    -Hour hand lume no longer fills to the point
    -Numbers closer to the outer track

    My thoughts:
    Both watches are gorgeous, both watches are very robust and accurate. This thread isn't to say one is better than the other because reason X Y Z, but to express our opinions on the little things you like and dislike between both versions. Personally, I would still pick the old PRS-29A as it is more true to the original, and in general more "military;" here is my reasoning for that.

    The open "4" is the most obvious change that isn't true to the original and, to my eye, looks like it belongs to a different family of typeface. The rest of the numbers look closer to the W10's typeface and thickness than the old PRS-29's. Another change was to move the 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 11 closer to the outer track and it gives the numbers a more square arrangement than round as in the original W10 and the old PRS-29A. The hands were not entirely true to the original on the old PRS-29 as both hands should have had the lume fill them to the point instead of just the hour hand, but on the new version they are both squared off.

    Of course the object of this watch isn't to be an exact copy, as then we'd have to copy the sorry state of the Lume on most surviving examples, but a faithful homage should have the same proportions of the main components. The numbers, both in their font and placement being the standout element in capturing the look of the original W10.

    The decision to add springbars and drilled lugs is in direct response to many people complaining that they could only have NATO's and clip-on straps, but I feel it has compromised some strength. I've had a failure of a spring bar while on a field exercise and can not trust them ever again after that (also the day I switched to NATOs exclusively). The old fixed bars were solid and you were not going to break one without breaking the whole damn watch or somehow imparting enough force to snap a NATO strap. It was also kind of a novelty as fixed bars are pretty rare these days, but of course, were standard on military watches back of the olden days.

    Sapphire vs Acrylic crystal I personally don't care too much about, but the original had acrylic and so the old PRS-29 is more accurate to the original in this respect. From the perspective of it being a field watch, scratches and scuffs are to be expected and so I do not mind acrylic crystal, especially since they can be buffed and are quite cheap. Sapphire on the other hand doesnt scratch but when it fails, it fails catastrophically, not what you want to happen when out in the field.

    With all that said, I think the new PRS-29A is more of a dress watch with characteristics of a field watch and the old one was a field watch that could be dressed up. I also believe the old one was truer to the original and the dial had better design.

    This is just speculation,but I feel like with this step towards versatility and becoming more of a dress watch, the PRS-29A has been sidelined by the watch that does it much better with a design that seems purpose built for it: the PRS-29AM. I think the PRS-29A, to distinguish it from the PRS-29AM, should be the more rugged counterpart with lume, fixed lugs, an acrylic crystal and very legible numbers.
    Would eddie be able to say if this last statement is true? I base the idea that the AM has outshone the PRS-29A in the last year just based off of how many listings I see of both in the secondhand market and how people ooh and ahh at it whenever a picture is posted (It is a fantastic looking watch).

  6. #6
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    North Riding, UK
    Posts
    478
    Have the current 29A which is a very nice watch and the sapphire crystal has shrugged off knocks which would have scratched acrylic. Having said that I would have preferred it to have remained as before and more true to the original Smiths design concepts; sadly became aware of Timefactors watches that little bit to late to order one.

  7. #7
    Administrator swanbourne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Sheffield, England
    Posts
    47,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed875 View Post
    Have the current 29A which is a very nice watch and the sapphire crystal has shrugged off knocks which would have scratched acrylic. Having said that I would have preferred it to have remained as before and more true to the original Smiths design concepts; sadly became aware of Timefactors watches that little bit to late to order one.
    If the original Smiths was still making the military, do you think they'd still be using acrylic or would have switched to sapphire?

    Eddie
    Whole chunks of my life come under the heading "it seemed like a good idea at the time".

  8. #8
    Journeyman Ogdensnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    239
    In terms of movement, one thing I’d love to know is whether the 29A is more accurate than the original W10. My 29a mk2 runs at approx +10s a day but I know some owners have +/-2s a day (or maybe better). Did the original smiths w10 keep good time?


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  9. #9
    My 29a was +12 but consistent so I related it to a consistent +1. Simple to do if you have a timegrapher and know its rate is consistent.

    Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Charlotte, United States
    Posts
    512

    PRS-29A

    Quote Originally Posted by swanbourne View Post
    If the original Smiths was still making the military, do you think they'd still be using acrylic or would have switched to sapphire?

    Eddie
    I to am so glad that you improved on Smiths original design with better materials and especially a real handwound movement. Thanks Eddie and this is my next watch to purchase. I have had my new PRS 25 black dialed Everest on for almost a week and I love this watch. And speaking about movements, I really like this new Miyota 9039. It is only gaining less than 7 seconds a day and the only time I can hear any rotor noise is if I have it next to my ear and who walks around with their watch next to their ear LOL.

  11. #11
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by swanbourne View Post
    If the original Smiths was still making the military, do you think they'd still be using acrylic or would have switched to sapphire?

    Eddie
    Sapphire, no contest, it would be part of the demanded mil spec as it would ensure the functionality and readability of the watch.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Calumets View Post
    Sapphire, no contest, it would be part of the demanded mil spec as it would ensure the functionality and readability of the watch.
    +1

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Calumets View Post
    Sapphire, no contest, it would be part of the demanded mil spec as it would ensure the functionality and readability of the watch.
    Agreed:)

  14. #14
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    29
    I love my AM. Looks great in any setting



    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app

    edit: seems ictures uploaded from my phone come in sideways. reuploaded picture to a different service so that the picture is now right ways.
    Last edited by jared; 22nd November 2019 at 21:22.

  15. #15
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Charlotte, United States
    Posts
    512

    Great pick

    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    I love my AM. Looks great in any setting



    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app
    Great looking watch. I just purchased the Everest PRS25 black dial, but I have plans to add both the PRS 29A and PRS 29AM to my collection. Enjoy.

  16. #16
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NW Leics
    Posts
    8,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogdensnut View Post
    In terms of movement, one thing I’d love to know is whether the 29A is more accurate than the original W10. My 29a mk2 runs at approx +10s a day but I know some owners have +/-2s a day (or maybe better). Did the original smiths w10 keep good time?


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
    My 29A gains a bit while highly wound, but starts to lose a bit toward the end of the power reserve. By picking the right time to wind it (about 35 hours in I think, but I judge it by the time versus real time - when it's about 10 seconds slow) I can keep it running within 10 secs or so either way of real time for weeks on end.

    Obviously I have to use a bit of leeway on that, because 35 hours can be 3AM in the morning.

  17. #17
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    29
    My 29AM is about +10s a day, but I have a habit of letting friends who've never interacted with a mechanical watch wind it up a bit throughout the day, so I don't think I've accurately measured it. Speaking of which, the 29AM is a serious eye catcher. Random co-workers who I barely interact with have been asking me about it and I've been using it as a way to get people into watches. Usually they're hit by sticker shock on the timefactors watches but I then point them towards similar styles from Timex, Seiko, and Hamilton.
    It's fun getting people interested in watches and a lot of these people I work with have, like I said, never interacted with any sort of mechanical watches. Most people here just wear g shocks, which are great for the field, but I think watches like these are definitely more appropriate for Garrison. Militaries like to co-opt old timey field items for dress and Garrison usage and old timey watches fit perfectly into that. Better than seeing everyone walking around with those dreadful apple watches, I say

  18. #18
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by swanbourne View Post
    If the original Smiths was still making the military, do you think they'd still be using acrylic or would have switched to sapphire?

    Eddie
    This is an interesting question actually.

    My gut tells me acrylic for two reasons:

    1. Sapphire is a great material for scratch resistance, but when it fails it fails catastrophically. On the other hand, acrylic takes a lot of abuse to become totally illegible and if it's structurally compromised, it cracks instead of shatters. Seems the military mindset on gear is that you want it to work reliably, albeit degraded in some form, for many many years instead working great until after one incident it becomes totally unserviceable. I don't think the military would care too much about replacing a crystal as well, but at least with acrylic you can do some preemptive maintenance whereas sapphire doesn't tell you it's going to shatter until bad luck does.

    2. Something something lowest bidder

  19. #19
    Grand Master abraxas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    33,737
    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post

    1. Sapphire is a great material for scratch resistance, but when it fails it fails catastrophically............
    How often have you seen that happen?

  20. #20
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post
    How often have you seen that happen?
    All of the watches I've owned thus far have been acrylics with the exception of the prs 29am, but it's no secret that sapphire shatters if it's struck a certain way. Very hard material, but also brittle. This is antithetical to the traits that define robust military equipment. Unless the crystal is recessed behind a pronounced bezel, I believe the military would still prefer acrylic. Maybe not the generals or the people who sign these defense contracts, but the boots on the ground people will prefer the satisfaction of knowing that they can land some pretty solid impacts on their watch without worrying about it shattering.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by abraxas View Post
    How often have you seen that happen?
    I've personally never smashed any of my watches hard enough to shatter the crystal but that doesn't mean it can't happen. I was under the impression that current milspec called for mineral crystal for its better shatter resistance over sapphire, but I had a look on the CWC "current issue" section and the SBS has sapphire crystal, so I guess that's a myth. That said, the other ones I checked are all mineral and I seem to recall some doubts having been raised as to whether the SBS is a legit issued watch at all.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogdensnut View Post
    In terms of movement, one thing I’d love to know is whether the 29A is more accurate than the original W10. My 29a mk2 runs at approx +10s a day but I know some owners have +/-2s a day (or maybe better). Did the original smiths w10 keep good time?


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
    Funnily enough I got a PRS29-A old version today in a trade. I’ll post some pics later next to my W10.

    I’m glad I managed to get the older PRS29-A as it’s a much closer copy. I don’t think I could live with the “4” on the new one and I love acrylic so . . . .

    Re timekeeping: the mil spec cal 60466E in the W10 is a fantastic movement. I had one that was +/- 2 secs a week! I’ve had lots of them but that was the best. If they’ve been well cared for they will be good even if not that good.

  23. #23
    Incidentally re the numbers: some W10s have finer, crisper printing and on others it’s thicker / wider. So both could be considered right.

    The arrangement on the new one bothers me though; the “6” in line with or even slightly above the “7” and “5” jars with me. On the W10 and 1st gen PRS29-A it’s slightly below them.

    Also, is the hour hand thicker and/or shorter on the new model?

    Eddie says people want sapphire and spring bars. Fair enough. I’m just glad I got an old one.

  24. #24
    Further thoughts.

    Having had the PRS-29A (1st version) for 24 hours now I think it’s my second favourite TF watch ever (the first is the PRS-25W Everest Expedition).

    I love the 17mm lugs (true to the original but now at a more commercial/popular/practical 18mm).

    The only thing I would change is to have made the lume look like vintage tritium: more vanilla less mint.

    But other than that: what a watch.

    I does seem like the version 2 has been changed to appeal to more people (sapphire and spring bars) and that ok, I understand that Eddie has got to sell watches (and sharing the case with the AM model must make economic sense, too.)

    So I guess most people will actually prefer the v. 2. I’m a Smiths purist though so it’s the v. 1 for me.

    Finally, cases: anyone got both versions and care to post pics / comments on the cases? Aside from the lugs are there any other differences? (The crown I think; what about back, midcase, profile, weight etc?)

  25. #25
    Master OldHooky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Blightyland
    Posts
    4,414
    I'm with you Ollie, and it'll be a WTB for me, again!

  26. #26
    Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    London and Moray
    Posts
    1,799
    Just a few words representing a view that seems to differ from the consensus here.

    I sold my PRS-29a Mk I because of the fixed bars. I don't get on with NATOs, simple as that, and the other leather options were too limited. I'm thrilled with the Mk II for the deeper black dial and find the printing more precise. The new '4' doesn't bother me in the least, and the new positions make the number ring hug the outer circumference, making for a cleaner overall look. The sapphire gives the watch a satisfying heft.

    They're both superb watches. If you want something as close as possible to the original issued version, obviously the Mk I will please you more. If you want a watch of that size and design but that has the versatility and quality feel of a modern watch, the Mk II will be the clear choice. I respect the former position but find myself in the latter group.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by SplitSecond View Post
    Just a few words representing a view that seems to differ from the consensus here.

    I sold my PRS-29a Mk I because of the fixed bars. I don't get on with NATOs, simple as that, and the other leather options were too limited. I'm thrilled with the Mk II for the deeper black dial and find the printing more precise. The new '4' doesn't bother me in the least, and the new positions make the number ring hug the outer circumference, making for a cleaner overall look. The sapphire gives the watch a satisfying heft.

    They're both superb watches. If you want something as close as possible to the original issued version, obviously the Mk I will please you more. If you want a watch of that size and design but that has the versatility and quality feel of a modern watch, the Mk II will be the clear choice. I respect the former position but find myself in the latter group.
    Good post, thanks.

    Does anyone on here have both?

    If not, would anyone like to send me a Mk 2 for a side by side comparison? Returned by RMSD the next day.

    I'm interested in the differences - esp case and dial (movement is the same).

    Thanks

  28. #28
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Boeblingen, Germany
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by robt View Post
    I've personally never smashed any of my watches hard enough to shatter the crystal but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
    I once shattered a crystal, my wife another, both from surprisingly unspectacular bumps, both crystals were neither acrylic nor sapphire, but mineral. I bought a Railmaster Aqua Terra that has a superficial microscopic chip in its sapphire, but that was the first and only time i have seen a sapphire with any sort of damage whatsoever.

    Practicality aside, there are things I don't like about sapphire. Foremost the look of it, especially the milky ring if domed, and too "cold" for my taste. And its a fingerprint magnet. I also don't like that most sapphire watches seem to have a very high rehaut. Not all of them, so maybe its not required technically. The Hamilton Khaki Mechanical sports a sapphire, and a low bezel that looks like the ones usually seen on acrylic crystals.

    For me, its all about the looks, and nothing beats the look of a domed acrylic. When I compare, for example, the moonwatch with sapphire and hesalite, the hesalite looks way better. But I am probably odd, I adore design of the 50's and 60's,.

  29. #29
    Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by swanbourne View Post
    If the original Smiths was still making the military, do you think they'd still be using acrylic or would have switched to sapphire?

    Eddie
    This is an interesting question actually.

    My gut tells me acrylic for two reasons:

    1. Sapphire is a great material for scratch resistance, but when it fails it fails catastrophically. On the other hand, acrylic takes a lot of abuse to become totally illegible and if it's structurally compromised, it cracks instead of shatters. Seems the military mindset on gear is that you want it to work reliably, albeit degraded in some form, for many many years instead working great until after one incident it becomes totally unserviceable. I don't think the military would care too much about replacing a crystal as well, but at least with acrylic you can do some preemptive maintenance whereas sapphire doesn't tell you it's going to shatter until bad luck does.

    2. Something something lowest bidder
    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    All of the watches I've owned thus far have been acrylics with the exception of the prs 29am, but it's no secret that sapphire shatters if it's struck a certain way. Very hard material, but also brittle. This is antithetical to the traits that define robust military equipment. Unless the crystal is recessed behind a pronounced bezel, I believe the military would still prefer acrylic. Maybe not the generals or the people who sign these defense contracts, but the boots on the ground people will prefer the satisfaction of knowing that they can land some pretty solid impacts on their watch without worrying about it shattering.

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app

    +1 --- I think that's very well said
    Last edited by Rollon; 5th December 2019 at 06:04.

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by TomasC View Post
    I once shattered a crystal, my wife another, both from surprisingly unspectacular bumps, both crystals were neither acrylic nor sapphire, but mineral. I bought a Railmaster Aqua Terra that has a superficial microscopic chip in its sapphire, but that was the first and only time i have seen a sapphire with any sort of damage whatsoever.

    Practicality aside, there are things I don't like about sapphire. Foremost the look of it, especially the milky ring if domed, and too "cold" for my taste. And its a fingerprint magnet. I also don't like that most sapphire watches seem to have a very high rehaut. Not all of them, so maybe its not required technically. The Hamilton Khaki Mechanical sports a sapphire, and a low bezel that looks like the ones usually seen on acrylic crystals.

    For me, its all about the looks, and nothing beats the look of a domed acrylic. When I compare, for example, the moonwatch with sapphire and hesalite, the hesalite looks way better. But I am probably odd, I adore design of the 50's and 60's,.
    This. But people want sapphire and Eddie’s got to sell watches.

  31. #31
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by TomasC View Post

    For me, its all about the looks, and nothing beats the look of a domed acrylic.
    Can't agree more. For me sapphire kills a lot of the vintage vibe of a homage.

  32. #32
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    704
    I have the 29-b and it is hands down perfect, wish i had one like this when i was in the army when i was issued a 36mm watch, similar but too small for my liking . And sapphire...perfect. I had acrylic and from a boot on the ground acrylic was not prferred, in built up areas you were always knocking against walls etc and that beat the sh1t out of the readability so sapphire all the way.

    As to Eddies watches 29b thanks, perfect. AM also perfect, i want more but my wallet says no!

  33. #33
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl.1 View Post
    I have the 29-b and it is hands down perfect, wish i had one like this when i was in the army when i was issued a 36mm watch, similar but too small for my liking . And sapphire...perfect. I had acrylic and from a boot on the ground acrylic was not prferred, in built up areas you were always knocking against walls etc and that beat the sh1t out of the readability so sapphire all the way.

    As to Eddies watches 29b thanks, perfect. AM also perfect, i want more but my wallet says no!
    I think the acrylic vs sapphire debate that's sprung up here is mainly personal preference and application based. I put it in the OP mainly because i wanted 3 strong points that could differentiate a more true to the original PRS-29 in the future. The great thing is that crystal swaps are some of the most readily available modifications to watches.
    How much was a sapphire swap for the 29B?


    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app

  34. #34
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    704
    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    I think the acrylic vs sapphire debate that's sprung up here is mainly personal preference and application based. I put it in the OP mainly because i wanted 3 strong points that could differentiate a more true to the original PRS-29 in the future. The great thing is that crystal swaps are some of the most readily available modifications to watches.
    How much was a sapphire swap for the 29B?


    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app
    The 29b came with sapphire.

  35. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by jared View Post
    I think the acrylic vs sapphire debate that's sprung up here is mainly personal preference and application based. I put it in the OP mainly because i wanted 3 strong points that could differentiate a more true to the original PRS-29 in the future. The great thing is that crystal swaps are some of the most readily available modifications to watches.
    How much was a sapphire swap for the 29B?


    Sent from my Pixel 3a using TZ-UK mobile app
    I'm not sure it's quite so easy to swap acrylic for sapphire or vice versa. Something to do with the thickness of the crystal and the rebate. Mineral glass for acrylic or vice versa might be easier (wasn't there a mod for the CWC diver that allowed for that?)

    I might be wrong about all / any of that.

  36. #36
    Here's some pics of a little trio: dad and his two sons maybe?

    Smiths W10 (from 1967) -> PRS-29a (Mk 1 from 2014) -> PRS-29a (Mk 2 from 2018)

    You can what a god job Eddie has done. The Mk 1 differs in that the font is more like a bold take on the original -- not necessarily a bad thing imho; the Mk 2 differs in that the crystal is sapphire, the lugs are drilled with spring bars, the "4" has been cropped at the top and the bottom three numbers (7 - 6 - 5) are in a flat line father than following the curve of the dial (the W10 and Mk 1 have a slightly "dipped" 6).

    The original wins in that the midcase is slimmer so the crown protrudes more above and below, making it easier to grab and grip; it also has pointed lume inserts in the hands. It loses points for being overpriced for a watch made in vast quantities (>20,000) and relatively recently for a mil watch (1967-70). Also you can't assume that any are now still waterproof and it has silly 17mm lugs (18mm on both versions of the PRS-29).

    So: pros and cons all round. All are good though and I commend them to you! If you can grab one, do so!












  37. #37
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Charlotte, United States
    Posts
    512
    Just received my PRS-29A MK2 yesterday in the mail from Eddie. I have to say that I am in awe of this watch. I have a black dialed 36mm Everest and I just Love my Timefactors watches and so glad that Eddie is feeling better and providing awesome watches that we can wear and admire. I am of the firm belief that Eddie provides watches that provide great value and push well above their pricepoint. Really looking forward to seeing the MKXl.

  38. #38
    Craftsman Jo Hande's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Belgium-Greece
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by kneadking View Post
    Just received my PRS-29A MK2 yesterday in the mail from Eddie. I have to say that I am in awe of this watch. I have a black dialed 36mm Everest and I just Love my Timefactors watches and so glad that Eddie is feeling better and providing awesome watches that we can wear and admire. I am of the firm belief that Eddie provides watches that provide great value and push well above their pricepoint. Really looking forward to seeing the MKXl.
    Agree 100% Kneadking!
    I got mine (PRS29A MkII and PRS-36) a few weeks ago (Xmas 2019) as I have sold my Sinn 103 from 1994 to fund them.
    GREAT watches, thanks Eddie and hope you recover completely now!

    BTW, nice pictures Rev-o !
    I'm very happy with the PRS29 MKII: drilled lugs, sapphire .. the open "4" and upper "6" don't bother me at all: this details are for me only visible with magnifier ...
    The best readable watch ever. I wish, I had one when I was still in service in our Belgian Armed Forces, We had LIP watches ...
    Jo (retired officer)

  39. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Hande View Post
    Agree 100% Kneadking!
    I got mine (PRS29A MkII and PRS-36) a few weeks ago (Xmas 2019) as I have sold my Sinn 103 from 1994 to fund them.
    GREAT watches, thanks Eddie and hope you recover completely now!

    BTW, nice pictures Rev-o !
    I'm very happy with the PRS29 MKII: drilled lugs, sapphire .. the open "4" and upper "6" don't bother me at all: this details are for me only visible with magnifier ...
    The best readable watch ever. I wish, I had one when I was still in service in our Belgian Armed Forces, We had LIP watches ...
    Jo (retired officer)
    Yes, having had both on the wrist I really can't say whether I prefer the Mk 1 or the Mk 2. Both equally good.

  40. #40
    Craftsman Jo Hande's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Belgium-Greece
    Posts
    415
    Just a few pictures to see differences: my PRS-29M MK II (with 2 different straps)
    [IMG][/IMG]
    Greetings Jo

  41. #41
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Charlotte, United States
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Hande View Post
    Just a few pictures to see differences: my PRS-29M MK II (with 2 different straps)
    [IMG][/IMG]
    Greetings Jo
    Great looking watch. I have mine currently on a black elite silicone strap from Bartons. Uncle Seiko makes a variety of rubber straps in 19mm. Figured I can carefully trim it a half mm on both sides where the spring bars go and it should fit just right. I am really a rubber strap guy, but may try a leather strap but no Nato's for me please. I am so glad to be able to get the MK2 for my rotation. Really only have one more watch that I am looking at and that would be the MK11 that Eddie is looking to release later this year. I have to admit that I love a hand wound watch. Hope you are enjoying your as much as I am mine.

  42. #42
    Grand Master Velorum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    .
    Posts
    14,132
    Ive just bought back one of the Mk1's that I sold on. I sold this 2013 model in 2016 and its now back with me.

    Ive had two MK2's and moved them on.

    Its all a matter of personal taste of course but as good as the Mk2 is, and it is excellent, I concluded that I wasn't too keen on the drilled lugs and I didn't like the sapphire. For me, once I had noticed the milky ring that kind of killed it for me. Having owned an AM and an Expedition I think that the ring is less noticeable on a light coloured dial.

    I love how close the MK1 is to the original W10 and its purity of design. The warmth of the plexi is lovely. You just need to buy a tube of polywatch every now and then!


  43. #43
    Master bond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,067
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Velorum View Post
    Ive just bought back one of the Mk1's that I sold on. I sold this 2013 model in 2016 and its now back with me.

    Ive had two MK2's and moved them on.

    Its all a matter of personal taste of course but as good as the Mk2 is, and it is excellent, I concluded that I wasn't too keen on the drilled lugs and I didn't like the sapphire. For me, once I had noticed the milky ring that kind of killed it for me. Having owned an AM and an Expedition I think that the ring is less noticeable on a light coloured dial.

    I love how close the MK1 is to the original W10 and its purity of design. The warmth of the plexi is lovely. You just need to buy a tube of polywatch every now and then!

    Looks great on that perlon Ian , but I always liked it on some kind of leather also .

    Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

  44. #44
    Grand Master Velorum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    .
    Posts
    14,132
    It might go well with a Steveostraps 'Fury' bund. I've had a few G10s on these and they were very well.

    Sent from my SM-G970F using TZ-UK mobile app

  45. #45
    Master TheGent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    2,930
    Hi all,

    My first post on this forum - I hope it’s helpful. I own both the PRS-29a MK1 and MK2, that’s how I refer to them. I’ve taken some side by side and comparison shots, please excuse the dust or fluff on any of the pictures.

    In terms of preference, I think the MK1 feels more ‘authentic’ but the MK2 feels of a slightly better quality - I guess the sapphire crystal does this.

    The infamous ‘milky ring’ of the sapphire does bother me very slightly, it’s more pronounced in certain lights, but overall I don’t think it detracts from a superb watch.

    Hope you enjoy the pictures:




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  46. #46
    Master TheGent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    2,930



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  47. #47
    Master TheGent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    2,930



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  48. #48
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Charlotte, United States
    Posts
    512
    Great photos. I have the MK2 version with sapphire crystal and I really like mine. I had mine on for the last couple of days but have my Serica field watch on today and really loving it. If you are unfamiliar with the Serica you should check them out at www.serica-watches.com/en/ to read about them and their watch.

  49. #49
    Master TheGent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    North West, UK
    Posts
    2,930
    Quote Originally Posted by kneadking View Post
    Great photos. I have the MK2 version with sapphire crystal and I really like mine. I had mine on for the last couple of days but have my Serica field watch on today and really loving it. If you are unfamiliar with the Serica you should check them out at www.serica-watches.com/en/ to read about them and their watch.
    Thanks!

    The Serica looks nice. Not sure how I feel about a screw down crown with a hand wound movement


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  50. #50
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Location
    Charlotte, United States
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGent View Post
    Thanks!

    The Serica looks nice. Not sure how I feel about a screw down crown with a hand wound movement


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I asked that very same question when I first looked into the watch and then after some research I found out that there are other screw down crowns on manual wind watches such as the Oyster Perpetual from Rolex and that watch was over 60 years old. I know the Serica is not a Rolex but trust me the threaded crown on this watch is like a dream and a pleasure every time you wind it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information