Striking 1/10 vs Original 1969

jsaen
Posts
347
Likes
2,336
I have a modest vintage collection, and am also interested in more modern El Primeros. I think that some of you have both the Striking 1/10 and the Original 1969. What are your opinions of the two of them? And for those that have one or the other, why did you choose that?

As far as I can tell, the Striking 1/10 has a really cool complication, but is larger. The Original 1969 looks pretty close to a modern A386. Of those differences I can't figure out which are important to me, so I'm hoping that hearing from others might help. :)
 
Darlinboy
Posts
8,741
Likes
69,398
I've looked at both of these live and in hand. For me, the Original 1969 hews more closely to the spirit of the original, and the size is in a sweet spot, at least for me. The Strking 10th is, well, striking too, but does wear fairly large.

Sadly, the star Zenith felt it necessary to stick on the end of the chrono hands annoys me, or I'd probably have bought one already. :cautious:
Edited:
 
NT931
Posts
2,857
Likes
14,621
jsaen jsaen
I have a modest vintage collection, and am also interested in more modern El Primeros. I think that some of you have both the Striking 1/10 and the Original 1969. What are your opinions of the two of them? And for those that have one or the other, why did you choose that?

As far as I can tell, the Striking 1/10 has a really cool complication, but is larger. The Original 1969 looks pretty close to a modern A386. Of those differences I can't figure out which are important to me, so I'm hoping that hearing from others might help. :)

The Original 1969 wears close to the A386, but the Striking 1/10th wears larger than it's 42mm would suggest. The original 1969 wears pretty well actually, but that red 'tinkerbell' hand is a bit of an eyesore, IMO.
 
ELV web
Posts
2,670
Likes
24,899
I really like the striking 10th, I passed it to my dad because it is the only watch that has enough water resistance in my possession. It is big though.
 
LouS
Posts
6,713
Likes
18,550
Some images to help with the discussion - not an Original 1969 for comparison, but an original 1969, if you get my drift. diameter is more or less the same, but the modern Original is thicker.

face.jpg


wristEP.jpg


wristST.jpg
 
Darlinboy
Posts
8,741
Likes
69,398
@LouS - Thanks for that helpful on-the-wrist comparison. :thumbsup:

Those both look great, but would look much better if.....


they were mine. Just sayin'. :D
 
Bienne2998
Posts
629
Likes
6,603
I also like both. But for me the Striking 10 is a further development of the "normal" El Primeo A386 with a real cool complication. I would not go for a 69 remake if I can have the real deal.... or at least the Striking enhancement....
Top AA.jpg Top 2.jpg
 
Bienne2998
Posts
629
Likes
6,603
Lets see if it works. I tried to capture the cool complication on video. the first one is on normal speed ant the second one is a recording with the slomo video function of the iPhone

 
LouS
Posts
6,713
Likes
18,550
that captures some of the stutter-steps inherent in the function rather well. When it first came out, there was huge denial about those.
 
nicolas07
Posts
197
Likes
238
Both are very nice for sure but I would definitively go for the Original 1969 as it is directly in line with the A386 and both might be a very interesting duo :)
 
jsaen
Posts
347
Likes
2,336
thanks everybody, I really appreciate the opinions and information. The comparisons are great.

In my best Scarlett O'Hara Voice: As God is my witness I will have an A386! So the real question is which one should go with it?
 
ELV web
Posts
2,670
Likes
24,899
jsaen jsaen
thanks everybody, I really appreciate the opinions and information. The comparisons are great.

In my best Scarlett O'Hara Voice: As God is my witness I will have an A386! So the real question is which one should go with it?
Quite obviously striking 10th then, why go for 1969 which is not going to be as good as the original and you do have the original.
 
Sign up or log in to reply...