ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

cinch · 21 March 2016, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mps354

For me the 3940 is in a different league. Proportions are perfect, and perpetual > annual

.db · 21 March 2016, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cinch

For what reason?

Perfect proportions, great typeface used on the dial, and I like the concave bezel. It has a timeless look that is really appealing to me.

cinch · 21 March 2016, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by .db

Perfect proportions, the typeface used on the sub-dials is great, and I like the concave bezel. It has a timeless look that is really appealing to me.

Thank you

clock · 21 March 2016, 04:06 AM

Have you considered rose gold?

cinch · 21 March 2016, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clock

Have you considered rose gold?

No I'm not keen on yellow or rose gold, I stick to white metals.

clock · 21 March 2016, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cinch

No I'm not keen on yellow or rose gold, I stick to white metals.

A model in the Nautilus family?
Or only dress?

cinch · 21 March 2016, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clock

A model in the Nautilus family?
Or only dress?

Already got a 5711 and a 5167.
At the moment it's either 5146 or 3940 (if I had windfall then the 3970).

clock · 21 March 2016, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cinch

Already got a 5711 and a 5167.
At the moment it's either 5146 or 3940 (if I had windfall then the 3970).

Nice!
Would you consider a Lange?

cinch · 21 March 2016, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clock

Nice!
Would you consider a Lange?

I've tried the 1815 chrono and datograph but I decided I'm not a chrono fan and I much prefer PP calendar watches compared to Lange.

ghotihead2001 · 21 March 2016, 06:55 AM

the 3940. it is a modern classic. and if you have smaller wrists like I do (6.5") there is no question. 5146 is a great watch no doubt, it just doesnt have that extra "it" factor for me.

ultimately, put them both on, and let your heart give you the answer

cinch · 21 March 2016, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghotihead2001

the 3940. it is a modern classic. and if you have smaller wrists like I do (6.5") there is no question. 5146 is a great watch no doubt, it just doesnt have that extra "it" factor for me.

ultimately, put them both on, and let your heart give you the answer

Yeah I'm back down in the big smoke in a couple of weeks and I'm going to try it again (as long as it hasn't sold).
I've just realised I follow you on Instagram, nice pics of your 3940 on the blue strap, looks good.

clock · 21 March 2016, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cinch

I've tried the 1815 chrono and datograph but I decided I'm not a chrono fan and I much prefer PP calendar watches compared to Lange.

How about a PM Rolex or vintage?
Vintage Patek?

jon_jon · 21 March 2016, 11:08 AM

The 5146 is a nice watch for many of the reasons that you mentioned. However the 3940 is a superb watch for many more reasons.

Do you need a seconds hand? If you do, then the 5146 is better. Do you need to read the time in the dark? If you do, then the 5146 is better for that purpose.

Otherwise the 3940 with the thin 240 Q movement is a special watch. Patek considers a perpetual calendar watch a "Grand Complication". And they consider an annual calendar watch a "Complication".

Patek has been producing PCs for 90 years. This year, they will be celebrating 20 years of producing ACs. With the long and rich history of Patek PCs, with the 3940, you are also purchasing a piece of Patek history IMHO.

cinch · 21 March 2016, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon_jon

The 5146 is a nice watch for many of the reasons that you mentioned. However the 3940 is a superb watch for many more reasons.

Do you need a seconds hand? If you do, then the 5146 is better. Do you need to read the time in the dark? If you do, then the 5146 is better for that purpose.

Otherwise the 3940 with the thin 240 Q movement is a special watch. Patek considers a perpetual calendar watch a "Grand Complication". And they consider an annual calendar watch a "Complication".

Patek has been producing PCs for 90 years. This year, they will be celebrating 20 years of producing ACs. With the long and rich history of Patek PCs, with the 3940, you are also purchasing a piece of Patek history IMHO.

Very well put, thank you. I do like the idea of having a classic Patek and as you say a piece of Patek history.

Hamish · 21 March 2016, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dom007

3940 on any day for me.

What he said

topcat30093 · 28 March 2016, 05:48 PM

Even knowing that you had two AC's my answer would still have been the same:thumbs:

Having owned both the 5146 and the 3940, I would choose the 3940 in a heart beat, especially if it was in rose gold.

It is a stunning watch and imo very easy to read and wear, far better again in my opinion then the 5140.

cinch · 28 March 2016, 06:16 PM

Cheers, your pictures look good. I'm going back to try the 3940 again next week.

Love · 28 March 2016, 06:18 PM

I would choose the 3940 personally :)

cinch · 28 March 2016, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by topcat30093

Even knowing that you had two AC's my answer would still have been the same:thumbs:

Having owned both the 5146 and the 3940, I would choose the 3940 in a heart beat, especially if it was in rose gold.

How did you find the size difference between the 5146 and 3940? What size is your wrist? Have you still got the 3940?

JD521 · 28 March 2016, 10:15 PM

Love the 5146.

subtona · 28 March 2016, 10:20 PM

3940 or its newer 5327 at 39mm it may have better readability?

cinch · 29 March 2016, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subtona

3940 or its newer 5327 at 39mm it may have better readability?

I'm not keen on the 5327, I don't like the breguet numbers and I actually think 39mm will be too big for this model.

sirish19 · 29 March 2016, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMAN8

IMHO, they're both great watches but the 5146 wears better on my 7" wrist.

I just recently chose the 5146.

Great pic of the slate dial.

sirish19 · 29 March 2016, 04:46 AM

Personally, I prefer the 5146. It seems to be more legible and clean. While it is a lesser complication, it is still a complication that Patek patented and it is also one of those rare AC/PC complications that also has a power reserve which is a great thing to have in a complicated watch.

Switching straps can give it a fresh flavour.

cinch · 29 March 2016, 04:58 AM

Nice picture, I like the black strap!

jc-watch · 29 March 2016, 05:18 AM

For me, 3940. I just fine everything about it amazing. And, yes, the sub-dials can be hard to read for us in the 40 (or 50!) plus crowd!

cinch · 29 March 2016, 05:41 AM

I've just remeasured my wrist and it's actually 6.5 inches, not 6.75 inches. Even more reason to go for the 3940.

soundserious · 29 March 2016, 05:53 AM

Either wrist circumference can pull off the 5146, I wouldn't let that be your primary motivation.

Viv Savage · 29 March 2016, 07:45 AM

Without hesitation the 3940.

cwilson13 · 29 March 2016, 11:42 AM

I have owned a 3940p and a 5146g. Both classics in their own right. No wrong answer.

I loved the 3940, but it wore too small for me (I wear just under a 7) and with my poor eyes was very hard to read. Moved it along.

I also loved the 5146 which I found easier to read and had more wrist presence. However, it too has moved along. Just didn't light me up as time passed.

Probably because it reminded me that I gave up on the 3940 too soon!

So if you go with the 3940...give it lots of time to settle in.

21 March 2016, 06:55 AM	#40
ghotihead2001 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: NYC Watch: Breaking bad Posts: 426	the 3940. it is a modern classic. and if you have smaller wrists like I do (6.5") there is no question. 5146 is a great watch no doubt, it just doesnt have that extra "it" factor for me. ultimately, put them both on, and let your heart give you the answer __________________ "There is no fighting in here! This is the war room!" Instagram: @ghotihead2001

28 March 2016, 05:48 PM	#46
topcat30093 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Real Name: Tony Location: England Posts: 5,425	Even knowing that you had two AC's my answer would still have been the same:thumbs: Having owned both the 5146 and the 3940, I would choose the 3940 in a heart beat, especially if it was in rose gold. It is a stunning watch and imo very easy to read and wear, far better again in my opinion then the 5140. __________________

28 March 2016, 10:20 PM	#51
subtona "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: gus Location: East Coast Watch: APK & sometimes Y Posts: 25,995	3940 or its newer 5327 at 39mm it may have better readability? __________________

29 March 2016, 05:53 AM	#58
soundserious "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: usofmfa Posts: 3,157	Either wrist circumference can pull off the 5146, I wouldn't let that be your primary motivation. __________________ Instagram: soundsoserious

21 March 2016, 04:06 AM	#34
clock Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: in a house Posts: 13,510	Have you considered rose gold?

21 March 2016, 11:08 AM	#43
jon_jon "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: USA Posts: 4,341	The 5146 is a nice watch for many of the reasons that you mentioned. However the 3940 is a superb watch for many more reasons. Do you need a seconds hand? If you do, then the 5146 is better. Do you need to read the time in the dark? If you do, then the 5146 is better for that purpose. Otherwise the 3940 with the thin 240 Q movement is a special watch. Patek considers a perpetual calendar watch a "Grand Complication". And they consider an annual calendar watch a "Complication". Patek has been producing PCs for 90 years. This year, they will be celebrating 20 years of producing ACs. With the long and rich history of Patek PCs, with the 3940, you are also purchasing a piece of Patek history IMHO.

28 March 2016, 06:16 PM	#47
cinch "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: uk Posts: 802	Cheers, your pictures look good. I'm going back to try the 3940 again next week.

28 March 2016, 06:18 PM	#48
Love Banned Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Sarasota Posts: 188	I would choose the 3940 personally :)

28 March 2016, 10:15 PM	#50
JD521 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Real Name: John Location: The Bay Posts: 1,055	Love the 5146.

29 March 2016, 04:58 AM	#55
cinch "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: uk Posts: 802	Nice picture, I like the black strap!

29 March 2016, 05:18 AM	#56
jc-watch "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Location: USA Watch: need moar! Posts: 134	For me, 3940. I just fine everything about it amazing. And, yes, the sub-dials can be hard to read for us in the 40 (or 50!) plus crowd!

29 March 2016, 05:41 AM	#57
cinch "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: uk Posts: 802	I've just remeasured my wrist and it's actually 6.5 inches, not 6.75 inches. Even more reason to go for the 3940.

29 March 2016, 11:42 AM	#60
cwilson13 "TRF" Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 1,492	I have owned a 3940p and a 5146g. Both classics in their own right. No wrong answer. I loved the 3940, but it wore too small for me (I wear just under a 7) and with my poor eyes was very hard to read. Moved it along. I also loved the 5146 which I found easier to read and had more wrist presence. However, it too has moved along. Just didn't light me up as time passed. Probably because it reminded me that I gave up on the 3940 too soon! So if you go with the 3940...give it lots of time to settle in.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)