closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Smiths W10 -> PRS-29a (Mk 1) -> PRS-29a (Mk 2)

  1. #1

    Smiths W10 -> PRS-29a (Mk 1) -> PRS-29a (Mk 2)

    Following on from this thread https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...-vs-New-PRS-29

    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!












  2. #2
    Journeyman Synthpunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    No longer in London, UK
    Posts
    56
    One other difference between the original and eddies as far as i can tell on my examples is that the originals have a ‘dished’ dial whereas eddies are flat.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Synthpunk View Post
    One other difference between the original and eddies as far as i can tell on my examples is that the originals have a ‘dished’ dial whereas eddies are flat.
    No, both flat; the W10 looks curved (convex) but that's the low-dome armoured acrylic crystal.

  4. #4
    Journeyman Synthpunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    No longer in London, UK
    Posts
    56

    Question

    Ill probly mess the image posting up but heres what i mean—->


    https://imgur.com/a/PqT5AAe

    Youcan see the dish. So the movement sits slightly ‘inside’ the dial as it were. I think this is what helps the cheltenham SmiffS acheive a thinner midcase than Sheffield SmiffS

  5. #5
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Lincs
    Posts
    669
    Original is circled T whereas Eddie's is circled L.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Synthpunk View Post
    Ill probly mess the image posting up but heres what i mean—->


    https://imgur.com/a/PqT5AAe

    Youcan see the dish. So the movement sits slightly ‘inside’ the dial as it were. I think this is what helps the cheltenham SmiffS acheive a thinner midcase than Sheffield SmiffS
    Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, "dished" rather than convex. I think that lip around the edge is the recess for the armoured crystal retaining ring. Been awhile since I had one apart.

  7. #7
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Down south jukin
    Posts
    2,592
    Did the first PRS-29a and the B have AR?

  8. #8
    Journeyman Ogdensnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev-O View Post
    Following on from this thread https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...-vs-New-PRS-29

    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!











    Nice Millenium Falcon too!!


    Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

  9. #9
    The placement of the numbers on the MK2 looks off to me, and it would be nice to have both hands with pointy lume. Any chance of a MK3?
    Last edited by AndySquirrel; 14th January 2020 at 10:05.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by AndySquirrel View Post
    The placement of the numbers on the MK2 looks off to me, and it would be nice to have both hands with pointy lume. Any chance of a MK3?
    I like all three versions; each has their pros and cons.

    I suppose if you wanted a really accurate re-creation of the original it would be the Mk 1 with the thinner / finer printing of the Mk 2. Aesthetically I prefer the dial printing on the original / Mk 2 but I practically the bolder type work better as my eyes are getting old and weak.

    The sapphire of the Mk 2 doesn't bother me as much as I thought it would. Again, aesthetically I prefer the acrylic on the original and Mk 1 but the sapphire looks better than I thought it would and has its obvious advantages.

    Re drilled lugs vs fixed bars: yet again, aesthetically I prefer the original but practically the ability to use normal straps is great.

    The placing / spacing of the numbers on the Mk 2 bugs me as does the cut-off "4" but against that the consistency of the hands' lume (both squared-off at the ends) runs in its favour.

    The Mk 1 is certainly closer to the original in almost all regards but the Mk 2 is more its own thing and has a lot going for it.

    Overall I'd say you need have both versions ha ha.

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