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.
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!
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.
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
Original is circled T whereas Eddie's is circled L.
Did the first PRS-29a and the B have AR?
Nice Millenium Falcon too!!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
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.
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.