-
I like that an awful lot.
The 4:30 placement for the date is just fine, I have no idea why the 3 placement is sacrosanct.
sips whisky
waits for regal to explode
Aroogah-
Placement is fine - but, as has been proved by Bell & Ross, can be done better.
The width of the 8 in the date window concerns me - looks too wide, I’d be interested to see how 28 etc. are handled
-
Also like this. Yeah it's busy...
-
It’s not the placement, it’s the unnecessary rotation of the numerals. Especially because the minute/second track numerals that are right next to it are rotated perpendicular to it.
No date at all is clearly preferable on a chronograph, though. Datograph fans can come at me.
-
I'm with @Regal on this - no issue with a 4.30 date but it looks so much better vertical (eg on the B&R posted a page or two back). Also they've gone pretty big with the date font so it's particularly noticeable/jarring.
Otherwise the watch is a proper looker (I'd prefer the bezel to have all the numbers if it's supposed to be a 2nd time zone thing, but that's a minor nit pick)
smithchild
Howard
Regal
Detritus
I didn’t even spot that. Now cannot unsee