Initial Owner's Experience ReportAugust 20 2003 at 9:58 AM
|Robert Yeager (Login Fourwize)|
I received my LUC 2000 Sport watch August 14, and have had a few days to assess it as I have worn it each day.
The fit and finish are gorgeous. The materials are very fine. I find that I keep taking it off to view the backside of the watch. I noticed that on the arm of the case at 5:00 there is a small stamping of LUC, and there is also a very faint LUC stamping on the workings behind the winding rotor.
On the front, the dial is extremely luminous, even in daylight conditions. It is extremely easy to read in virtually any condition so far. This is a contrast to the Rolex Date (black face) I was wearing before.
The watch is beautiful to behold from virtually any angle. A neat point is that there are no strap dowel holes visible from the exterior case of the watch, another small but telling quality indicator.
I have worn it into water and it seems fine. No evidence visible to me of any water ingress.
I have woirn Rolexes of one sort or another for 30 years. A Rolex is easily identifiable to anyone with even marginal awareness of watches. That is a blessing and a curse. It's a curse because you may be making statements to others without intending to. One thing I love about the Chopard is that it is not as identifiable. Only people who know watches will recognize the Chopard. But when someone recognizes the Chopard, you will have an engaging conversation.
I have heard from Chopard that the small 7 digit number at 12:00 on the workings is the serial number for the movement. So the watch has two serial numbers, one being six digits on the case, and the other being the movement number. As well, Chopard seems very communicative, and eager to serve and stand behind their product, which is comforting. Try getting a response from Rolex.
I have found two things that need some sorting out with the watch:
1. It is not very accurate for a chronometer. I test it once daily against the "Official U.S. Time Clock", which gives time in seconds, and the watch can vary up to 40 seconds in a day against that clock. By comparison, the Rolex Date varied about 2 seconds per day against that clock;
2. On re-setting time manually with the winding crown, when I have set the hands and press on the crown to screw it down, the hands jump out of position. This is annoying, and makes it difficult to set the hands precisely. It's a shame, because the hands are obviously built to show precisely the time. I note also that unlike the Rolex, when the stem is pulled to maximum to adjust time, the movement does not stop but continues. This makes it a bit difficult to adjust time to the second.
Anyway, if you have any suggestions as to my two points above, I would love to hear from you. In the meantime, I love this watch, and I hope you all enjoy yours as well.
AP Discussion Group
thanks for the report!
|August 20 2003, 3:11 PM |
I'm glad to hear you're pleased with the overal quality of the watch. I'm a big fan of Chopard's LUC watches and think the 2000 Sport is one I'd seriously consider in that pricerange.
40 seconds a day is not good performance. It's not even acceptable. If you're sure it's getting wound thoroughly (the automatic system in that watch is pretty efficient for most people so unless you're very sedentary, this shouldn't be a problem) then it needs to be regulated or otherwise looked at by a watchmaker.
I would try winding it by hand (a good 50 or 60 turns of the crown for good measure) for a couple of days and seeing how it does. If it keeps good time when handwound, there could be something wrong with the automatic winding (assuming you're physically active enough to keep most automatics wound, which, if you wore a Rolex with no trouble is a pretty good indicator). If it still keeps lousy time, get it looked at. There's no way Chopard would be satisifed with 40 seconds a day deviation and you shouldn't be either.
The problem when setting the hands is a commonly reported quirk with the LUC movements. Try setting the hands to where you want them, then turning the crown back the other direction just a bit to put some slack back into the handsetting train before pushing in the crown. With a little practice, you'll be setting the hands to the minute with no trouble.
Thanks again for the report!
Try setting your watch by - - -
|August 20 2003, 5:20 PM |
rotating the minute hand past the intended time about 5 minutes and then backing it up to the desired time. This should work. I have used this method on 3 different LUC sports very successfully.
Give it a week or two to settle down
|August 20 2003, 10:24 PM |
before worring about the accuracy. Mine gained 5-10 seconds a day for the first week out of the box, then stabilised at a lose of 1 second a day for the last year.
John's advice about setting is spot on.I think even the 1.96's suffered from the same problem of the hands moving while being set (and I heard Chopard corrects this when it gets serviced).
When you advance (or vice versa) the minute hand to the correct time,just back up a tiny fraction before pushing the crown in and it does not budge.
Enjoy - Its a great watch!
p.s.After a year I still find myself looking at the back.
L.U.Chopard Calibre 1.96
|August 24 2003, 2:07 PM |
I can't afford this one yet, but I'll put it under my pillow.
I love the markings all over the watch simply because it set a standards for posterity. In a few decades, this watch will be rare.
This is the actual picture of the watch. Enjoy!!!
|August 25 2003, 10:02 PM |