Horological Meandering | News Central | Audemars Piguet | Blancpain | Breguet | Bulgari | Cartier | Chopard | Girard Perregaux | Glashütte Original | Hublot | Jaeger LeCoultre | A.Lange & Söhne | Richard Mille | Montblanc | Omega | Officine Panerai | Patek Philippe | Piaget | Roger Dubuis | Rolex | Ulysse Nardin | Vacheron Constantin | Harry Winston | Zenith | AHCI and independent haute horlogerie | TimeOut | WristScan | WatchTech | Automotive | |
List All |
Top Level | Most Recent : (posts) *| FAV
. . . with the cal 100 being the more modern and advanced of the two. I have three cal 39 perpetuals in my collection (and at one time had four), and there are many owners of cal 100 perpetuals that participate on this forum. Both movements are exceedingly competent and well made. Here are links to articles of both:
The one significant operational difference is there have been instances of a 'sticking date' with the cal 39 that can occur if the movement isn't properly adjusted. This problem occurred with my first cal 39 perpetual, and was resolved under warranty; none of my other cal 39 perpetuals ever exhibited the problem. I've heard of other cal 39 perpetual owners with the same problem, but never from the owner of a cal 100 perpetual. My guess is that the broader torque curve and deeper power reserve of the cal 100 makes final adjustment less critical than with the cal 39, so it's more likely to not be affected by a lack of power at a critical transition.
PuristSPro.com Home Page -
Visit PURISTSPRO V2