The 1960s were exciting times for Seiko. That decade introduced the brand's first mechanical chronograph movement as well as the brand's first automatic chronograph movement in 1964 and 1969, respectively.
The first milestone is the 1964 Crown Chronograph (see below).
This model was made in time for the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games. A mono-pusher chronograph movement which was powered by the manual winding Caliber 5719.
The second milestone is creation of Seiko's first automatic chronograph movement, the Caliber 6139 (see below).
Fast forward 50 plus years later, Seiko decided to commemorate the brand's achievement for these two original milestones by producing two interpretations, the Seiko Prospex SRQ029J1 for the Caliber 6139 (a 50th anniversary model) and the Seiko Presage SRQ031J1 for the 1964 Crown Chronograph watch (a 55th anniversary model). Note that one is to commemorate a movement while the other is to commemorate a watch. Confusing right?
Anyway, to clear away any confusion, I've created a flow diagram to explain the linkages between the historical models and calibers to the new commemorative timepieces issued in 2019 as well as another timepiece issued in 2014 which would be relevant to the story.
As you can see in the diagram above, the 2014 SDGZ013 and 2019 SRQ029J1 commemorative timepieces used the 1970 Panda as the watch base whereas their focus was on the 1964 movement and 1969 movement, respectively. Meanwhile, the 2019 SRQ031J1 focus is on the 1964 movement as well as the 1964 Crown Chronograph.
In my view, these commemorative timepieces did not do justice to the bygone milestones they wanted to honour. Even as "reinterpretation" timepieces, the amount of designs incorporated from other periods has diluted the essence of what was being commemorated. For example:
Unfortunately, those that does not understand the history may get misinformed.
Having said all that, the two timepieces issued by Seiko as part of the Seiko Chronograph Historical Collection 2019 should be seen as standalone timepieces instead of historical reproduction unlike the SLA017J1 (for the 62MAS), SLA025J1 (for the 6159-7001) and the SLA033J1 (for the 6105-811X).
Below is some core positive and negative aspects of both watches that I have identified.
Conclusion
Of the two under the Seiko Chronograph Historical Collection 2019, I am more inclined to appreciate the SRQ031J1 over the SRQ029J1. To me, the SRQ031J1 feels more balanced with more practicality. For example, the availability of the movable bezel helps track a second time zone if required. The SRQ029J1 seems to be missing the vintage vibes which defeats the whole purpose of its production anyway. At least the SRQ031J1 holds true to the 1964 Crown Chronograph to some extent.
Photo Gallery
The first milestone is the 1964 Crown Chronograph (see below).
 |
| 1964 Seiko Crown Chronograph |
This model was made in time for the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games. A mono-pusher chronograph movement which was powered by the manual winding Caliber 5719.
 |
| Seiko's first mechanical chronograph movement, the manual winding Caliber 5719 which is manually winding |
 |
| Seiko's first automatic chronograph movement, the Caliber 6139 introduced in 1969 |
Anyway, to clear away any confusion, I've created a flow diagram to explain the linkages between the historical models and calibers to the new commemorative timepieces issued in 2019 as well as another timepiece issued in 2014 which would be relevant to the story.
As you can see in the diagram above, the 2014 SDGZ013 and 2019 SRQ029J1 commemorative timepieces used the 1970 Panda as the watch base whereas their focus was on the 1964 movement and 1969 movement, respectively. Meanwhile, the 2019 SRQ031J1 focus is on the 1964 movement as well as the 1964 Crown Chronograph.
In my view, these commemorative timepieces did not do justice to the bygone milestones they wanted to honour. Even as "reinterpretation" timepieces, the amount of designs incorporated from other periods has diluted the essence of what was being commemorated. For example:
- The 2014 SDGZ013 (modern two pusher chronograph, three counters, date) has no semblance to the 1964 movement (mono-pusher chronograph) as well as 1964 Crown Chronograph watch (3-hand watch with bi-directional bezel);
- The 2019 SRQ029J1 (modern two pusher chronograph, three counters, date) has slight semblance to the 1969 movement (two pusher chronograph, two counters, day & date);
- The 2019 SRQ031J1 (modern two pusher chronograph, three counters, date, bidirectional bezel) as no semblance to the 1964 movement (mono-pusher chronograph) but has slight semblance to the 1964 Crown Chronograph watch (3-hand watch with bi-directional bezel).
Therefore, I believe, this exercise of commemorating past excellence was made using the bare minimum of effort as the historical timepieces were at the end of their evolutionary tree. Trying to make something to resembling the old timepieces would take too much effort in designing and tooling to make it commercially viable.
No a lot of brands continue to make mechanical mono-pusher chronographs today. An article written on the Ablogtowatch called: Why Monopusher Chronographs Are Primitive & A Brief History Of The Chronograph Watch Complication illustrate this reason why mono-pusher chronographs are no longer considered by many watch makers.
Unfortunately, those that does not understand the history may get misinformed.
Having said all that, the two timepieces issued by Seiko as part of the Seiko Chronograph Historical Collection 2019 should be seen as standalone timepieces instead of historical reproduction unlike the SLA017J1 (for the 62MAS), SLA025J1 (for the 6159-7001) and the SLA033J1 (for the 6105-811X).
| Specs. | Seiko Prospex SRQ029J1 | Seiko Presage SRQ031J1 |
| Series | Prospex / Japanese Reference SBEC005 | Presage / Japanese Reference SARK015 |
| Caliber | 8R48 | 8R48 |
| Case Material | Stainless steel with Diashield & Zaratsu polishing | Stainless steel with Diashield & Zaratsu polishing |
| Strap Material | Stainless steel bracelet with Diashield | Cardovan leather strap |
| Strap Length | 197 mm | 192 mm |
| Case Width | 41 mm | 42.3 mm |
| Case Length | 47 mm | 49.3 mm |
| Case Height | 16 mm | 15.3 mm |
| Lug Width | 20 mm | 20 mm |
| Weight | 190 gm | 115 gm |
| Water Rating | 100 meters | 100 meters |
| Bezel | Fixed | Bi-directional |
| Launch Date | October 2019 | October 2019 |
| MSRP | RM14,800; YEN380,000 | RM13,800; YEN350,000 |
| Production | 1,000 pieces | 1,000 pieces |
Below is some core positive and negative aspects of both watches that I have identified.
| Seiko Prospex SRQ029J1 | Seiko Presage SRQ031J1 | |
| Positive | - Based on the iconic 'Panda' design - Box sapphire crystal | - Very close in external design to the original 1964 Crown Chronograph - Box sapphire crystal |
| Negative | - Poor illumination - Similar to the Seiko Brightz Panda SDGZ013 (2014) which also happens to be a 50th anniversary timepiece (this time to commemorate Seiko's first mechanical chronograph movement, the 5719). Confusing to say the least. | - Poor illumination - The movement is not even close in concept to the mono-pusher chronograph 5719 movement powered original model that is being commemorated |
Conclusion
Of the two under the Seiko Chronograph Historical Collection 2019, I am more inclined to appreciate the SRQ031J1 over the SRQ029J1. To me, the SRQ031J1 feels more balanced with more practicality. For example, the availability of the movable bezel helps track a second time zone if required. The SRQ029J1 seems to be missing the vintage vibes which defeats the whole purpose of its production anyway. At least the SRQ031J1 holds true to the 1964 Crown Chronograph to some extent.
Photo Gallery
No comments:
Post a Comment