Czapek

[dchang81]

Which is your favorite..?

[mikemargolis]

Originally Posted by AlyRba

Had the chance to see the Antarctique white/silver dial Passage De Drake at a NY AD. Both the dial and movement are nicely finished. The case was ok. However, the bracelet didn’t leave a great impression. Lack of chamfering aside, the bracelet just doesn’t feel like it belongs on a $22k watch. I wish Czapek had kept the price few hundred dollars higher and finished the bracelet to a higher quality. Aesthetics are personal choice. However, after seeing the Antarctique in person, I feel Moser Streamliner is clearly a more complete package in overall quality and stands up comparatively well against the likes of Royal Oak and Overseas. Comparing time only/date models here. Unfortunately, I didn’t see a chance to see the Parmigiani Tonda PF. Although the Tonda PF dial is too plain for my liking, I have heard great things about the case and bracelet build quality from a friend who saw it in person.

Contemplating canceling both my Passage De Drake orders. Will take few days to think it through.

I received this message from Switzerland, and was asked to post it here:

There is an invisible to the eye but real chamfering of the edges and that the concept was to match the design of the case (invisible chamfering).

The upper part of the bracelet is like a sword and more masculine, the inner part is round and soft and more feminine… much better that the "famous bracelet" one for instance.

[whats_shakin]

Originally Posted by mikemargolis

I received this message from Switzerland, and was asked to post it here:

There is an invisible to the eye but real chamfering of the edges and that the concept was to match the design of the case (invisible chamfering).

The upper part of the bracelet is like a sword and more masculine, the inner part is round and soft and more feminine… much better that the "famous bracelet" one for instance.

Mike, that is a bunch of marketing mumbo jumbo. Per your own Instagram, you can clearly see the difference between the bracelet on the S and on the original, and the original looks cheap in comparison.

Really, really wish you guys would prioritize updating the bracelet with chamfers for a watch at this price point - the head is fantastic.

[AlyRba]

Originally Posted by mikemargolis

I received this message from Switzerland, and was asked to post it here:

There is an invisible to the eye but real chamfering of the edges and that the concept was to match the design of the case (invisible chamfering).

The upper part of the bracelet is like a sword and more masculine, the inner part is round and soft and more feminine… much better that the "famous bracelet" one for instance.

Thank you Mike for checking in with HQ and posting a response. Really appreciate it.

Honestly, I don’t know how to respond to this, especially seeing how the S version has chamfers. If Xavier feels happy with the response you received from Geneva, then it’s a little upsetting. I will just leave it at that.

[_speedmaster_]

I'm sorry, but bracelets like that of the RO or the PF Tonda are a cut above. It's obvious to anyone to has held those two watches and an Antartique. Is that the end of the world? No. Does that mean the Antartique is not a great watch? No. Should all of you throw your Antartiques in a fire and buy something else? No.

The Antartique has a great design. The movement architecture is unique and captivating. The dimensions and wearability is great. But, the bracelet leaves much to be desired. It is okay to point out things that should be improved. Not every watch is a masterpiece without fault.

[mongrelnomoad]

This whole discussion reminds immediately of the perceived quality arguments with cars in the 80s and 90s. Japanese cars were claimed to be inferior because the doors felt “light” and therefore “cheap”, completely ignoring that they had been engineered to a far higher level specifically to have that lightness.

As Mike has said: the outside of the bracelet is sharp as a razor by design - the inside is bevelled to make it comfortable against the skin and avoid it ripping out hairs. This is by design, and I personally think it looks fantastic.

You seem to once again be confusing taste with quality.

[uscmatt99]

There must be something lost in translation with that response from Switzerland. Suffice it to say that the non-visible chamfers were a design choice, and it aesthetically works for some but not all. Of course there are micro-chamfers, otherwise there would be a razor sharp edge. If you turn the bracelet under the light, you can make out a veeeery thin chamfer I guess.

That's one issue. As Steven said regarding a second issue, a little bit of play in the bracelet goes a long way towards comfort, but can be perceived as sloppy or made with poor tolerances. This isn't an Uncle Seiko stamped jangle bracelet, but it's no Oyster either.

After owning my Antarctique for quite some time, I can say that it's hard to find a more comfortable bracelet. It's thin, it has a lot of range of motion at the pins to hug the wrist, and it doesn't grab hairs. As mongrelnomoad stated, the back side of the links is smooth and rounded and that adds to the comfort.

However, the absence of sizeable chamfers can give it a 2D appearance rather than a 3D appearance, even though it plays well with the light in real life. I like the looks of this bracelet better than an Oyster, but not as much as a Royal Oak or Nautilus. I can appreciate the design overall though, because as Xavier said in one of the videos they released.... They put up photos of the two icons during the design phase and went out of their way to come up with something truly unique, and in this they succeeded.

[dchang81]

I guess then my question is why have deeper chamfers on the S rather than the "invisible" ones.

[RolexSimon]

Originally Posted by GB-man

All I can say is the PF is built like a tank. As solid as a RO or oyster. Sounds like the Czapek is more akin to the 5711 bracelet. I go back and forth on bracelet quality. My favorite watch has a dog s*** bracelet

I would agree with the PF assessment - love it! Odysseus also amazing. Urban Jurgensen One - I really didn't get with the bracelet. The first links were so inflexible it made it impossible to curve nicely round a 17cm wrist. I have a Moser Govberg bracelet in titanium which is different to the streamliner but made by the same team that did the Odysseus - amazingly comfortable too. I'll feed back on the Czapek when mine arrives early 2023 (hopefully!!!!)

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by mongrelnomoad

You seem to once again be confusing taste with quality.

Is this supposed to be directed at me?

[mongrelnomoad]

Yes.

[charger_vital]

Originally Posted by dchang81

I guess then my question is why have deeper chamfers on the S rather than the "invisible" ones.

Just following the logic cited: If the smooth chamfers are considered "feminine" then putting them on the "S" version would make sense... Since it is the smaller and more feminine of the two models. Just my guess.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by RolexSimon

Urban Jurgensen One - I really didn't get with the bracelet. The first links were so inflexible it made it impossible to curve nicely round a 17cm wrist.

A great point, especially for those of us with smaller wrists. While in Vegas two weeks ago a few dealers were extremely interested in my Czapek, and enjoyed sharing more details with them. Without a doubt there's plenty of room for them to grow and add more dealers, etc.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by mongrelnomoad

Yes.

Originally Posted by _speedmaster_

Is this supposed to be directed at me?

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by mongrelnomoad

Yes.

My comment clearly has nothing to do with aesthetics or "taste". I didn't mention the word "chamfer" once or any other design element they want to defend.

Learn reading comprehension. Keep your imaginary scenarios about what you perceive I say to yourself.

[stateman]

Originally Posted by _speedmaster_

I'm sorry, but bracelets like that of the RO or the PF Tonda are a cut above. It's obvious to anyone to has held those two watches and an Antartique. Is that the end of the world? No. Does that mean the Antartique is not a great watch? No. Should all of you throw your Antartiques in a fire and buy something else? No.

The Antartique has a great design. The movement architecture is unique and captivating. The dimensions and wearability is great. But, the bracelet leaves much to be desired. It is okay to point out things that should be improved. Not every watch is a masterpiece without fault.

This guy is making too much sense...a balanced take on an issue in an internet forum?

[enjoythemusic]

^^^ agreed.

Add H. Moser Steamliner to a bracelet that is a cut above imho.

[szabo_martin]

Mike Margolis was correct that the inside of the links (on the skin) vs the outside are chamfered differently. I think we are just comparing the bracelet to the RO too much. The lines and aesthetics match the case. Just for apples to apples... does anyone know what MSRP is for a new SS Royal Oak and the PF Tonda?

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by szabo_martin

Mike Margolis was correct that the inside of the links (on the skin) vs the outside are chamfered differently. I think we are just comparing the bracelet to the RO too much. The lines and aesthetics match the case. Just for apples to apples... does anyone know what MSRP is for a new SS Royal Oak and the PF Tonda?

I paid just under 23k for the pf micro. The 15510st is 26,600.

[trackingtime]

Originally Posted by _speedmaster_

I'm sorry, but bracelets like that of the RO or the PF Tonda are a cut above. It's obvious to anyone to has held those two watches and an Antartique. Is that the end of the world? No. Does that mean the Antartique is not a great watch? No. Should all of you throw your Antartiques in a fire and buy something else? No.

The Antartique has a great design. The movement architecture is unique and captivating. The dimensions and wearability is great. But, the bracelet leaves much to be desired. It is okay to point out things that should be improved. Not every watch is a masterpiece without fault.

gotta add, Patek's Nautilus and Aquanaut Bracelets are a joke, especially the nautilus but that doesn't mean they aren't excellent watches.
just need a little improvement on the bracelet.

[Gebbeth]

What is an "invisible" chamfer? I've never heard of the term.

I thought the purpose of chamfering was to give a watch a certain design element or nuance to it and then secondarily to provide some comfort from sharp edges.

Why make an exterior design element "invisible." If it's invisible, how do you know it's actually there?

[szabo_martin]

So they are all priced around the same. I own a 5711 and there is zero wrong with the bracelet. If you don't like it thats a matter of taste. I know the Moser is quality but I dont like the look. Just like I dont like the Lange bracelet even though Im sure its quality.

[dchang81]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

What is an "invisible" chamfer? I've never heard of the term.

I thought the purpose of chamfering was to give a watch a certain design element or nuance to it and then secondarily to provide some comfort from sharp edges.

Why make an exterior design element "invisible." If it's invisible, how do you know it's actually there?

I read that as a more nuanced the emperor's new clothes...ugh and I have a deposit since forever

[mongrelnomoad]

Originally Posted by _speedmaster_

My comment clearly has nothing to do with aesthetics or "taste". I didn't mention the word "chamfer" once or any other design element they want to defend.

Learn reading comprehension. Keep your imaginary scenarios about what you perceive I say to yourself.

Calm down dear.

I’m a published author with two degrees in English literature, but please, tell me more about how I should “learn reading comprehension” while you spew opinions, all unsubstantiated, as if they were fact and then attack someone calling you out on your inconsistencies.

As you were.

[GB-man]

There’s literally people in this thread who love czapek adjusting the bracelet because the end link fitment is sub par. I think speedy is generally very objective almost to a fault. The guy buys watches almost entirely based on fit and finish!

[mongrelnomoad]

Originally Posted by GB-man

There’s literally people in this thread who love czapek adjusting the bracelet because the end link fitment is sub par. I think speedy is generally very objective almost to a fault. The guy buys watches almost entirely based on fit and finish!

Perhaps, however he made no statement to clarify why he believes the Czapek bracelet of lower quality than the competition other than (in essence) “I like it less.”

I’m open to a debate, but forgive me if I don’t particularly appreciate being personally harangued by someone for simply and politely suggesting that they’ve not made their point.

And IMO the end link fitment is not sub par - it permits the bracelet articulation and allows it to conform more freely and comfortably to the wrist than other similar watches. Again: if you don’t like it, fair enough, but I’d argue that is preference rather than some inherent quality flaw.

[whats_shakin]

Originally Posted by mongrelnomoad

Calm down dear.

I’m a published author with two degrees in English literature, but please, tell me more about how I should “learn reading comprehension” while you spew opinions, all unsubstantiated, as if they were fact and then attack someone calling you out on your inconsistencies.

As you were.

Let's try and stay civil. I don't think you're interpreting _speedmaster_'s comments the way others are, and it's causing issues.

Yes, there is a certain amount of taste in regards to the fit of a bracelet. Some people love vintage four-digit Rolex jubilees because of the play they have, which feels less constricting on the wrist, and some people don't. That's a matter of taste.

Mongrel, you seem to be saying that the Czapek bracelet is as high-quality as comparably priced peers, and that everything being critiqued about it an intentional design choice on the part of Czapek. That isn't true, as Mike and Xavier have both admitted there is too much play in the end-link and are fixing the issue.

The issue, I think, is Czapek has put less money (from my perspective) into the bracelet construction than competitors, but at the same time has a much better movement and case design. I think it's fair to say 'I think the Czapek bracelet feels cheap for the watch', but we should also acknowledge that the head of the watch is a tier above many peers.

Specifically -- I wish the Czapek bracelet had screws, not pin-and-collar (and Xavier has said publicly he hopes to move to screws instead in a v2 or v3, so was not a specific, intentional design choice vs. cost choice, Mongrel); I wish there was less play in the end links (being fixed), I wish the bracelet design had less slack between the links (a matter of taste), and that there was chamfering on the exterior side of the bracelet (which usually, as a consensus, is perceived as an indicator of quality / effort, as adding chamfers costs more).

Mike seems to be indicating the lack of chamfering on the 40.5 is intentional; I, again, don't seem to buy that as Xavier has publicly commented on adding chamfering in later editions of the antarctique bracelet. We can argue about whether chamfering is an indicator of quality, but I tend to equate it so.

My tl;dr is the Czapek is a fantastic watch, and one of the most comfortable I've worn. The movement, dial, and case are all of higher perceived quality than peers; at the same time, the bracelet (to me) appears to be lower quality than that of those peers (pins-and-collar, lack of chamfers, end link slack, original lack of microadjust, etc.) but it is still a good bracelet.

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by mongrelnomoad

Perhaps, however he made no statement to clarify why he believes the Czapek bracelet is of lower quality than the competition other than (in essence) “I like it less.”

I’m open to a debate, but forgive me if I don’t particularly appreciate being personally harangued by someone for simply and politely suggesting that they’ve not made their point.

Except that's not what you did, is it? You jumped to a premature and incorrect assumption that I confuse quality with "taste". If you want me to clarify my statements, then simply ask instead of making condescending statements.

You can publish ten books, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.... much like the bracelet we are discussing.

As you were dear.

[_speedmaster_]

Originally Posted by GB-man

There’s literally people in this thread who love czapek adjusting the bracelet because the end link fitment is sub par. I think speedy is generally very objective almost to a fault. The guy buys watches almost entirely based on fit and finish!

Thank you amigo.

[mongrelnomoad]

I agree about the screws vs pins but disagree on the end-links and chamfering (just because you can doesn’t mean you should).

However it appears I’m in a minority and will quietly recuse myself from this portion of the discussion to spend more time with my actual watch.

Evening all.