WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,390 Posts
Re: ΩΩΩ WAYW? Saturday, October 29, 2016 ΩΩΩ

Ken G said:
(apologies for the multiple shots)
:rodekaart Don't. Apologize that is. Especially when your photos (and subject) are as beautiful as these |>

The good people at Bienne did a fabulous job at the restoration of your 176.007 - it's a new old watch.

Just from memory, I'd say the case of this one is very similar to your Cosmic 2000 (although the latter has a "bezel"). Could you, at some point, show these side-by-side?

For me, still / again the MKII Hawkinge:

160708_Hawkinge_RB.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
Just from memory, I'd say the case of this one is very similar to your Cosmic 2000 (although the latter has a "bezel"). Could you, at some point, show these side-by-side?
Thanks for the kind words Appreciate it.

This pic isn't strictly a side-by-side shot, but I think it compares the cases quite well:



(Edit: for clearer comparison)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,390 Posts
Re: ΩΩΩ WAYW? Saturday, October 29, 2016 ΩΩΩ

Ken G said:
This pic isn't strictly a side-by-side shot, but I think it compares the cases quite well
Thanks for that, Ken |>

This compilation fits the bill. I remembered well, but these photos also highlight subtle differences. The 176.007 seems a little bit shorter and thicker, almost "chunkier" (in a good way).
Both are gorgeous watches, very nice indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,179 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Thanks for that, Ken |>

This compilation fits the bill. I remembered well, but these photos also highlight subtle differences. The 176.007 seems a little bit shorter and thicker, almost "chunkier" (in a good way).
Both are gorgeous watches, very nice indeed.
Yup - you did remember very well. Shorter and thicker is spot on (excuse the poor lighting):

 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top