Panerai 8 Day Reserve... or not!

[kilyung]

Today, I got Panerai to admit that the 8 day movement in the 233 (P.2002) is essentially the basis for the 270 and other 10 day movements. In fact, the P.2002 is rated for 10.2 days but is advertised as 8 days for the marketing value of historical "8 days" Angelus based Panerais.

[Watchcraze007]

Interesting piece of info!

[bcacncnc]

Thanks....after 2 years of owning the 233 - I've never really timed the PR. I keep getting the itch the wind it up - because its such a delight to do.

[Psmith]

Thanks Mike - that would explain why 233 owners often report that the power reserve is 'more like 10 days' !

[rulessapt]

8 days was the traditional style of movement for quality clocks, long before Panerai and the Angelus was used.
It was marketing a hundred years ago that made it popular...
some things never change ;-)

Cheers
Richard

[gregvisser]

Nothing to do with anything here, but I can say my 190 8 days has a PR of 9 1/4 days. 8 days is just not 8 days these days.

Greg

[travisb]

Always a plus when your watch exceeds expectations.
Makes you wonder why someone would drop the extra cash on a 270.

[mfer]

Very cool info. My understanding as well is that all watches advertised power reserve is longer because the timeframe the advertise is for accurate timekeeping. Anything over that might not be as accurate, but 2 extra days does not fall I into that category!

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by travisb

Always a plus when your watch exceeds expectations.
Makes you wonder why someone would drop the extra cash on a 270.

That's exactly what I said! The Panerai rep's response was, "The convenience of automatic winding is probably worth $400 and the '10 Days' is the remaining $2k price difference."

He did give me a nice cap to go away.

[nauticajoe]

Interesting. Thanks Mike.

[russellnyc]

Wow. How long does it take to wind one of those suckers? Or does the crown have long gearing?

[Travelller]

Originally Posted by mfer

...My understanding as well is that all watches advertised power reserve is longer because the timeframe the advertise is for accurate timekeeping...

This is the case and OP recommends 8-Day owners to wind their watches after the 8 days are over to insure accuracy.

This has always had me asking how the 10 days remain accurate, unless there is indeed a different spring in the barrels...

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Travelller

This is the case and OP recommends 8-Day owners to wind their watches after the 8 days are over to insure accuracy.

This has always had me asking how the 10 days remain accurate, unless there is indeed a different spring in the barrels...

According to Panerai, same barrels.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by russellnyc

Wow. How long does it take to wind one of those suckers? Or does the crown have long gearing?

3.4 days per barrel. So three times longer than most Panerai models.

[nick c]

[aboen]

Make sense...My (long departed) 233 ran long after the PR is at zero full stop.

Sure do miss it :-(


Sure do miss it :-(

[rulessapt]

I suspect the design was a collaboration between JLC and Panerai, both being part of the Richemont Group.
JLC makes no recommendation for winding only after 8 days are completed.
Their (JLC) 8-day movement is a twin barrel.
as far as I know JLC have not used a triple barrel system, usually their watches are slim and space defines the available complications.

As Panerai have only been using an inhouse movement on some models for a few years, to gain the movement design skills they have to be using others within the Richemont Group to achieve this.

In any event, in time, I hope that Panerai can move toward being a proper manufacture in their own right, making all the parts and cases within their own company.
Very few manufactures can lay claim to this feature. Haute horologie, not fashion.

Cheers
Richard

Cheers
Richard

[Shrinkdial]

Great info!

[Watchcraze007]

Originally Posted by rulessapt

I suspect the design was a collaboration between JLC and Panerai, both being part of the Richemont Group.
JLC makes no recommendation for winding only after 8 days are completed.
Their (JLC) 8-day movement is a twin barrel.
as far as I know JLC have not used a triple barrel system, usually their watches are slim and space defines the available complications.

As Panerai have only been using an inhouse movement on some models for a few years, to gain the movement design skills they have to be using others within the Richemont Group to achieve this.

In any event, in time, I hope that Panerai can move toward being a proper manufacture in their own right, making all the parts and cases within their own company.
Very few manufactures can lay claim to this feature. Haute horologie, not fashion.

Cheers
Richard

Cheers
Richard

[Travelller]

Originally Posted by russellnyc

...How long does it take to wind...

In the ballpark of about two mins... compared to my 56hr 6498/2, which only takes 30~40sec, 2mins is quite a long time... but damned worth it

[bcacncnc]

Originally Posted by russellnyc

Wow. How long does it take to wind one of those suckers? Or does the crown have long gearing?

It has pretty long gearing plus its very smooth. I can wind the full 8 days faster than on my 000 with 56 hours PR.

[Travelller]

Originally Posted by rulessapt

I suspect the design was a collaboration between JLC and Panerai, both being part of the Richemont Group...

This sounds familar... oh yes, the "suspicion" that the P.999 is based on Piaget's 838P (Piaget also being a member of Richemont's group). Personally, I have no problems what so ever if OP has collaborated with JLC, an old and noble house indeed. I do however accept OP's declaration of modeling the P.2002 "in the spirit of" the venerable Angelus 240 SF used in most 6152/1 as well as a few 3646 Radiomirs and the GPF 2/56. After opening the OP-dedicated manufacture in 2002, they took three years to bring the P.2002 into production.

Which PAM(s) do you own, Richard?

Originally Posted by bcacncnc

I can wind the full 8 days faster than on my 000 with 56 hours PR.

I can't. Despite the agreed smoothness of the P.2002's winding mechanism