25-11-2014, 03:47 PM
Det er virkelig et spørgsmål om smag og behag. Jeg tror næppe, der bliver nogen væsentlig økonomisk forskel på de to ure. Her er endnu et svar fra IWC's forum. Det er iøvrigt Kristian Haagen, som spørger om forskellen mellem de to værker. Moderator Michael svarer:
"51110 vs. 50110 technical differences . Hi Kristian, This has been covered in prior posts (buried in the archives but unfortunately not in any one post).
There's several key differences between the 50xxx and 51xxx calibres. Basically as I see it, there are 3 groups of differences:
1. Beat rate. Increasing the beat from 18,000 to 21,600 half-beats/hour involves more than just more sprockets on a wheel. About a dozen parts were changed (there's something on this in the archives if I recall but I don't know if all parts were identified).
2. Free-sprung balance. To me this is more horologically interesting than the beat rate, and I personally like the romance of the pocket watch going rate of the older model. Free-sprung balances have several technical advantages, at least in theory, even if normal regulation systems have been used by 95% of the industrry for 100+ years and there are some disadvantages (primarily in servicing). Again there should be more in the archives.
3. Bridge redesigns. There were several changes which makes the movement somewhat easier to assemble/disassemble, which not only helps with construction time and servicing but also indirectly can produce a more consistent movement.
These changes are all very technical, but the basic idea is that the movement will work better. Personally, I look at it analogously to the evolution of the historical automatics, from the c. 852 to the 853 or 854. Each successive one contained technical enhancements but any one would be fine to own. Regards, Michael (slow-beat retrogrouch)"
Håber det glimrende citat, kan hjælpe dig i valget.
JK
"51110 vs. 50110 technical differences . Hi Kristian, This has been covered in prior posts (buried in the archives but unfortunately not in any one post).
There's several key differences between the 50xxx and 51xxx calibres. Basically as I see it, there are 3 groups of differences:
1. Beat rate. Increasing the beat from 18,000 to 21,600 half-beats/hour involves more than just more sprockets on a wheel. About a dozen parts were changed (there's something on this in the archives if I recall but I don't know if all parts were identified).
2. Free-sprung balance. To me this is more horologically interesting than the beat rate, and I personally like the romance of the pocket watch going rate of the older model. Free-sprung balances have several technical advantages, at least in theory, even if normal regulation systems have been used by 95% of the industrry for 100+ years and there are some disadvantages (primarily in servicing). Again there should be more in the archives.
3. Bridge redesigns. There were several changes which makes the movement somewhat easier to assemble/disassemble, which not only helps with construction time and servicing but also indirectly can produce a more consistent movement.
These changes are all very technical, but the basic idea is that the movement will work better. Personally, I look at it analogously to the evolution of the historical automatics, from the c. 852 to the 853 or 854. Each successive one contained technical enhancements but any one would be fine to own. Regards, Michael (slow-beat retrogrouch)"
Håber det glimrende citat, kan hjælpe dig i valget.
JK
![[-]](https://urdebatten.dk/images/collapse.png)