Thick or thin crown?!

[jbcollier]

I have seen photos with both. Which is correct?

 

[SteveHarris]

Mine has the thin crowns JB

 

[jbcollier]

Thanks, that's what I was thinking was correct. And then I saw photos like these:

And then I wasn't so sure...

 

[Joe_A]

Thin crowns look better . . . not that that matters.

 

[JimJupiter]

thin for me too. Makes also more sense, when the other was a later replacement and not the opposite

 

[jbcollier]

That is what I'm trying to figure out. Which crown is the replacement? I was hoping it was the thin one as I have a 1.0 thin crown to hand.

 

[Slim]

Ref. 125/006 & 145/006: thin crowns

Ref. 144 35 02: thick crowns (as 144 (165) 35 03 Ultra Dive)



regards Alois

 

[jbcollier]

Thanks!!!!

 

[jbcollier]

Sigh, someone swapped backs to a 167-08-02. That's a late Mk2 Super Dive with a pillow case. It's officially a Bitsa and will get the crown I have to hand. It's a well worn watch regardless and I'll get it serviced and use it.

 

[Gopher]

My Super-Dive (Polish Navy) has thick crowns,

 

[SteveHarris]

The Super Dive cases and casebacks do come up on eBay every now and then JB.

 

[jbcollier]

I hear you but it is a well patinated watch that I want to service and use rather than restore.

 

[Gopher]

Don't these just follow the same construct as other models like the Graphs and Jets in that the older versions have thin crowns and the later ones thick?

 

[jbcollier]

Yes. It goes: thin cross-hatched, thick cross-hatched, and finally, thick without cross-hatching. Early and middle dials, hands and bezels are similar.