It has been already debated, I believe, but let's come back to this topic.
I was ( and still am ) in the search of the perfect Rattrapante Chrono, and began to think about what would be the best.
The RM 004 is a bit Out Of Reach, so are the PP 5004 and the 5959.
Some are based on the 7750 with a module for the Rattrapante, like the IWC Portugaise, or the very nice cushion shaped GP, but these are Automatic movements, and the origin of the Movement is not that exciting, nor the finish ( it is maybe for that reason that these all have a solid case back? )...
So I started to lurk at the Double Split, hoping to find with this watch THE perfect Rattrapante Chrono, and also thinking to sell my Datograph to fund it.
So a Match between these 2 monsters was unavoidable.
The strong point of the Double Split is the movement.
You may spend hours looking, admiring this gorgeous movement!
The finish is outstanding, to reach an Artisitic level.
Compared to the Datograph, this movement is even more sophisticated in its complications, with a Double Split function ( seconds...but also minutes ), while the Dato is " only " a Flyback.
The Datograph movement:
The Datograph movement beats at 18 000 Vibrations per Hour, when the Double Split beats at 21 600, which is not, IMO, significative.
So, in terms of mechanical sophistications, the Double Split is on the top of the Datograph.
A bit like if it was a Super Datograph, without Date.
But a Watch is not only a movement, but also a Case and a Dial...
And here, the things are more complicated.
About the Case, the dimensions say all:
43 mm big, and 15, 3 mm Thick for the Double Split.
39mm big, and 12,8 mm thick for the Datograph.
So, a difference of 4 mm and 2,5mm for the case of the Double split!
And it is obvious.
The Datograph has, IMO, more homogeneity than the Double Split.
Its case, and the lugs are perfectly dimensionned, even if the bezel is a bit, but just a bit too thick.
With the Double Split, the things are very different.
I personnaly find the case too big, and too thick, like if it was a body builded Datograph, with an exageration of all the defaults.
I mean that by this enhanced size, the watch looses its natural balance, its harmony.
The lugs are much bigger in live than a few mm more in theory, and their draw is not as appealing it is for the lugs of the Datograph..
Same problem with the bezel...
Here are 2 pics which speak better than words:
So, the Datograph wins if we compare both cases.
As for the dial, now :
The design of the Datograph dial is reaching the perfection, in terms of balance, symmetry and strengh.
The 2 round silver dials at 4 and 8 make a perfect triangle with the big date located just under 12.
Even the writings " Datograph Flyback " seem to be at their right place.
The layout of the dial is an exemple of harmony indeed.
With the Double Split, when having in mind the dial of the Datograph, it is a bit more complicated.
The finish of the dial is as stunning as bthe one of the Datograph, but the layout seems less nice, less harmonious and balanced.
Take off the Big Date, put a Power Reserve indicator and an Applied XII instead, and you won't get the same outcome!
The loss of the big date comes with the loss of the balance and symmetry, IMO.
Even the writings seem to be located too low!
A pity, because the ballet of the double split seconds and minute hads is really magic!
On the wrist, the confirmation is here.
While the Datograph is pure joy and happyness, the Double Split is too big, at least for my normally sized wrist.
I think that to enjoy wearing this watch , you need a quite big wrist!
So, the outcome of this horological match?
No surprises, my friends.
I stay with my Datograph, in fact, this is maybe due to the fact that I dreamt of a Double Split Datograph, maybe a bit bigger, but with the same thickness, and the big date to not loose the symmetry of the dial.
Best, hoping that you'll enjoy this small comparative view, and that you will share with us all your thoughts about it!
Nicolas This message has been edited by amanico on 2009-04-27 23:24:18 This message has been edited by Dje on 2009-05-04 06:38:09