# Zenith El primero chronomaster 38mm Thickness?



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

Hi guys,

Can anyone give me the exact thickness of this watch?









Thanks!


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Is that your watch?! In that case, I would advise you to measure it.....

If not, then others might chime in. I don't own one. I would suspect, though, that it's rather slim for a chronograph. Ca. 12mm would be my bet. The base movement is 6.5mm, my Cal. 410 is 7.5mm and the watch it's in is ca. 13-14mm high.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## transporter305 (May 29, 2014)

Knisse said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Can anyone give me the exact thickness of this watch?
> 
> ...


12.45mm. You're welcome!


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

@ Hartmut Richter
Quiet obvious that i do not own the watch. 

@transporter305 thank you! Did you measure your own or?


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Knisse said:


> @ Hartmut Richter
> Quiet obvious that i do not own the watch.


How would I know that? It is not stated - and you'd be surprised at how many idiotic questions we've had here on the forum in the past! When you've been around here for as long as I have, you are always prepared for the worst.....

Hartmut Richter


----------



## WristWretch (Oct 3, 2016)

Official thickness is 12.45 but I just took a look at mine and with the dome of the crystal it’s a full mm thicker. More like 13.45. Battery is dead in my digital caliper, so I’m eyeballing but certainly over 13mm.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

@Hartmut Richter

Then why not just skip and dont post in threads like this? I am quite surprised that a Moderator would make such comments, as it doesnt help anything besides that you come across as kind of an ........ I understand that numerous idiotic questions might have taken its toll, but just dont post 



WristWretch said:


> Official thickness is 12.45 but I just took a look at mine and with the dome of the crystal it's a full mm thicker. More like 13.45. Battery is dead in my digital caliper, so I'm eyeballing but certainly over 13mm.


Cheers! Post check the exact measurements once you get new batteries, would be quite nice of you. Do you have the blue one as well? If you do i would highly appriciate some pictures. I own the IWC Mark XVI black dial, but i would like something that would pair well with a dark brown strap so i am in the market for something like this Zenith in blue. I am just worried as some pictures and videos of it makes it appear thicker than 12.45mm.. Not sure i can pull off 13.45mm thickness.. Quite worried in this regard.


----------



## krh7 (Apr 22, 2017)

are the 39mm and 42mm versions of this watch the same thickness? the larger watch has the date at 6 o'clock. to me, this classic look is the one to own.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

@krh7
The 42mm looks great in pictures! But the one i am after is the 38mm, my wrist is not that big so the 42mm version would look massive on my wrist. Again my only worries with the 38mm is the thickness - that it might look ill-proportioned


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Knisse said:


> @Hartmut Richter
> 
> Then why not just skip and dont post in threads like this? I am quite surprised that a Moderator would make such comments, as it doesnt help anything besides that you come across as kind of an ........ I understand that numerous idiotic questions might have taken its toll, but just dont post


Then let me ask: whose hand is holding that watch? And even if it isn't yours (which I would by now presume), then who took the picture? If it was you yourself, then you must have had some sort of access to the watch at the time. And if you forgot to measure it then, you could ask whoever owns the watch (unless it was a fleeting acquaintance).....

Most of the time, when such requests come, we see a generic picture of the watch in question, pulled from the internet, possibly even from the Zenith website (i.e. some sort of "Sales" picture, without anything other than the watch). With the one you posted, you should be prepared for comments like mine. Quite apart from which, I didn't just leave that comment but went a little further, giving a reasonable estimate that wasn't far off from the true value.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## transporter305 (May 29, 2014)

Knisse said:


> @ Hartmut Richter
> Quiet obvious that i do not own the watch.
> 
> @transporter305 thank you! Did you measure your own or?


No, just the official number. Mine is with Zenith service center at the moment for some minor adjustment, but I don't even have a tool for such precise measurement. Lets see if the other guy gets his batteries. Now I'm also curious to know))


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

@Hartmut Richter Perhaps it is Ben Clymers hands? No idea actually, but it is a possibility as the picture is from Hodinkee - only shown to get a reference point so that everyone here knows exactly what watch i am taking about. Again, i could look up on the interweb and search for thickness - it is just my experience when i purchased my last watch that there was tremendous differences all over the internet. My IWC MARK XVI went from 10mm to almost 14mm some places. To me thickness is a very important so i ask people that actually own the watch, hence why i am here right now . To help in my - long - purchase decisions.

Again, it feels weird, you simply just come across as hostile and argumentative. Im more and more baffled why you act this way as a moderator.


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't wish to be hostile, at the same time, I don't want to take this lying down. In my more recent posts, I tried to explain my train of thought. If it had been a standard, sterile picture, there would have been no comment like my original one - from me and very likely from noone else. And yes, you do frequently have such comments coming from other members too.

Your initial post combined a) a picture that, even only in a subtle way, contained a little more information than your bog-standard sales picture with b) an extremely terse request. And the combination of the two sometimes sets peoples' minds reeling. If you had given more information from the start (e.g. "I pinched this picture from the internet....." or "I'm thinking of getting this watch....."), you would not have garnered my reply.

Yes, I will fully admit that my comment represented a little dig at yourself and could have been done without. If I had been able to anticipate the reaction it caused from you, I *would* have left it out - I am not here to deliberately insult or hurt people. At the same time, I am (here and otherwise) not extremely politically correct or otherwise overly cautious just in case I might else offend people. Jokes are a part of life, they are certainly part of my life, and all jokes offend someone in some way. Yet, if you suppress them in order to avoid all people from being offended, life would be very boring. And in case you are wondering, I have in my time on this forum also been on the receiving end of the odd dig. I generally just laugh it off. And on reflection, I don't think that my initial comment was terribly offensive, only slightly. If you think that it was, then that somewhat saddens me. But in such a case, maybe you ought to get some neutral opinions. If the majority think "Really nasty!", I am wiling to apologise. If the majority say "Yeah, a little personal, but so what?", I would feel largely vindicated.

On the subject of moderators vs. the rest, then yes, moderators should act a little more cautiously. However, we are not here only to police the fora - we are allowed, and even expected, to participate in the general discussion. All of the moderators do this in their spare time and get no cash for their work. If the site owners or the members expected them to stick to sterile replies in case they migh tread on someone's toes, 90% of the moderators would surely be out through the door.

Lastly, if you still feel offended by my comment to an unbearable degree and/or if you feel my replies and explanations are not good enough and/or you believe that my behaviour here or in general on this forum is not acceptable for a moderator, then please feel free to report it to the administration (use the little "Report post" triangle at the bottom left of the post in question). I will not stand in your way - on the contrary, if the issue is too big in your opinion that you can live with it, I would actually urge you to do so. I myself have not and will not report(ed) the post, thus demonstrating that (i) I think that your reaction is not excessively unreasonable and (ii) I believe that we can still reach a concensus without external involvement. But you may think differently.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

Measured mine with a set of calipers. Drumroll... *13.8mm* from bottom to the top of the dome. The official thickness is probably without the crystal, which is quite tall. Still one of the thinnest chronographs around, but if you want something even thinner around the same size, check out the Blancpain Leman or a Speedy Reduced, both are in the 12mm range (although granted I have never measured these myself).

I'd definitely try one on if you can. These watches sit very low on the wrist and wear quite thin and compact because of the lug shape.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

Nathan356 said:


> Measured mine with a set of calipers. Drumroll... *13.8mm* from bottom to the top of the dome. The official thickness is probably without the crystal, which is quite tall. Still one of the thinnest chronographs around, but if you want something even thinner around the same size, check out the Blancpain Leman or a Speedy Reduced, both are in the 12mm range (although granted I have never measured these myself).
> 
> I'd definitely try one on if you can. These watches sit very low on the wrist and wear quite thin and compact because of the lug shape.


Awesome, very nice, thank you! So disappointed, that the official measurement is not correct. Kind of strange if they forget that the crystal has some height as well.

Not sure what to do from here. I am definitely looking for something blue, but 13,8mm is quite tall. Chronograph is not neccessarily a requirement, but thank you for the suggestion.


----------



## TAG Fan (Aug 27, 2017)

Knisse said:


> Awesome, very nice, thank you! So disappointed, that the official measurement is not correct. Kind of strange if they forget that the crystal has some height as well.
> 
> Not sure what to do from here. I am definitely looking for something blue, but 13,8mm is quite tall. Chronograph is not neccessarily a requirement, but thank you for the suggestion.


Have you considered the Zenith Defy Classic?


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

*Re: Zenith El primero chronomaster 38mm Thickness? - The mystery deepens*

Warning: minutia alert!

All, so I was browsing some 38mm EP picture threads and I noticed something that I don't think has ever been identified before: _Zenith has changed the bezel design!_. This might explain the difference in thickness between the original 12.45mm spec and my 13.8mm measurement. I've attached some photos to illustrate the difference in the design. Pay close attention to where the bezel meets the case:

Old design (corresponding to the pre-2017 overlap)








credit: ABlogtoWatch

New design








credit: C. Demoni Li

You'll notice the newer bezel design has a chamfer compared to a bevel on the older design. The big question, which is hard to tell from the pictures: is the newer bezel actually thicker than the old one, and is the newer watch as a whole thicker than the older one? And if so... why? So if anyone out there has an EP tri-color with the older style case, can you also put some calipers to your watch and report back on the total thickness?

To make matters even slightly more complicated, it appears that some EPs with the newer dial-overlap still have the older case. I've also noticed a distinct difference in beveling of the lugs as well, with the newer case having thicker lugs with smaller bevels, while the older case has thinner lugs and more bevel. You can easily spot the difference when you look at the amount of brushed top lug is visible right at the end of the lug.


----------



## zewill (Jan 12, 2011)

Interesting... and confusing to see there are so many different versions and sizes, despite Zenith considering only 3 models at 38mm 42mm and 45mm... (wish they could throw in a 40mm  but that wouldnt help the confusion in dial setups!  )


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

Maybe someone with the older design can also measure their thickness with a set of calipers and tell us what you get?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LodeRunner (Feb 17, 2013)

Hartmut Richter said:


> Then let me ask: whose hand is holding that watch? And even if it isn't yours (which I would by now presume), then who took the picture? If it was you yourself, then you must have had some sort of access to the watch at the time. And if you forgot to measure it then, you could ask whoever owns the watch (unless it was a fleeting acquaintance).....
> 
> Most of the time, when such requests come, we see a generic picture of the watch in question, pulled from the internet, possibly even from the Zenith website (i.e. some sort of "Sales" picture, without anything other than the watch). With the one you posted, you should be prepared for comments like mine. Quite apart from which, I didn't just leave that comment but went a little further, giving a reasonable estimate that wasn't far off from the true value.
> 
> Hartmut Richter


Agreed, had the original poster submitted a stock Zenith photo, or something obviously pulled from the Web, maybe it would have been more obvious. It looks like a picture from someone who owned (or at least had physical access to) the watch.

I own the actual watch, and I can say that for a chronograph, it actually wears pretty slim on the wrist. I also recently acquired the 50th Anniversary El Primero, and that looks almost 2mm thinner.


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

Mark.W said:


> Agreed, had the original poster submitted a stock Zenith photo, or something obviously pulled from the Web, maybe it would have been more obvious. It looks like a picture from someone who owned (or at least had physical access to) the watch.
> 
> I own the actual watch, and I can say that for a chronograph, it actually wears pretty slim on the wrist. I also recently acquired the 50th Anniversary El Primero, and that looks almost 2mm thinner.


Mark, do you think you could take a caliper to yours and report back the results? Also is your 1969 the "mk2" or "mk1" bezel? My watch obsession is nagging me to know whether zenith actually thickened the watch with the mk2 bezel or if they always just reported out a thinner number than the actual...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LodeRunner (Feb 17, 2013)

Nathan356 said:


> Mark, do you think you could take a caliper to yours and report back the results? Also is your 1969 the "mk2" or "mk1" bezel? My watch obsession is nagging me to know whether zenith actually thickened the watch with the mk2 bezel or if they always just reported out a thinner number than the actual...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Confused, which watch? The blue El Primero measures in at around 12.5mm thickness, which is right on with the published specifications for this watch. The 50th Anniversary measures in around 11.8mm, so not as thin as I previously said. But the case wears thinner probably because of the case design difference, see image below; the top image is the 50th Anniversary side profile and the one below it, the regular 1969 Original.


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

I knew it! So Zenith actually thickened the watch from 12.5mm to 13.8mm around 2018. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed, I always wondered why the watch looked thicker than 12.5mm until I finally measured it and now I know why. It also makes me wonder though why they would do this, considering thinness is one of the selling points of the watch. I've attached mine for comparison, you can see they changed the bezel to make it raised.


----------



## ralfoto (Jun 15, 2014)

I can only chime in that I did not feel Hartmut's original comments were in any way hostile...just really factual, which is if you have access to the watch try and find someone or the tools to actually measure it. I have often found published numbers to difer slightly from the actual measurements in many items.
BTW...in all my correspondence with Hartmut he has always acted professionally and amicably so I am at a loss why the OP took his comments in a hostile manner since they were not from what I can read and see.


----------



## ralfoto (Jun 15, 2014)

BTW......I think it is lovely Hartmut chimes in and please remember English is his "second " language....ja, 
Vielen grusse,

robert


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

ralfoto said:


> ... please remember English is his "second " language....ja,


Well, I would say that the two are nearly equivalent for me. When you know the difference between "judicial" and "judicious", when you can cite whole passages of Shakespeare and when you're "the very model of a modern Major-General" while at the same time you can also cite the entire "Max und Moritz" off by heart, know the origin of the phrase "Nullacht-Fuffzehn" (08/15) and can tell why babies are stuck with "nails" (Brahms' lullaby, "..._mit Näglein besteckt_"), you move in both worlds, I suppose.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

I have to chime in to express my support for Hartmut here. Knisse, based on this thread you created you have good taste in watches, but we so often see throwaway threads with a generic photo and one-liner demanding input from forum members like we are some sort of information service. It gets tedious and such threads are not really great for community or conversation.

It’s true that Hartmut is a little sharp sometimes, but contrast this with other moderators who are much briefer in their posts and tend to manage conversations as much as participate. I’ve found that Hartmut has a genuine commitment to Zenith while also not being afraid of expressing critical opinions on the brand when it’s warranted. I feel he has a great editorial line.

In any case, what you seem to have discovered about the varying thickness of Zenith’s modern 38 mm models is interesting and certainly worth investigating.


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

@Nathan356

This is an awesome and sharp find of yours. Kudos!

I reckon to sum up:

We have the 50th anniversary found here i reckon https://www.zenith-watches.com/en_e...86-revival-50th-el-primero-anniversary-2.html that is the slimmest. Unfortunately that is very expensive as well (white gold?) but 11.8mm

Then we have the old design (pre 2018?) 12.45mm

And then new design 13.8mm

Damn, this is impressive find Nathan 

@All 
I think this Hartmut Richter deal has been blown out of proportion (as things often do on forums). I would encourage you to PM this guy Hartmut Richter if you wish to discuss it further with him. I respect that you agree with him, good for him. Right now, it only clouds this thread.

Right now Nathan356 has by far been the top contributor in this thread.


----------



## Hartmut Richter (Feb 13, 2006)

Knisse said:


> @All
> I think this Hartmut Richter deal has been blown out of proportion (as things often do on forums). I would encourage you to PM this guy Hartmut Richter if you wish to discuss it further with him. I respect that you agree with him, good for him. Right now, it only clouds this thread.
> 
> Right now Nathan356 has by far been the top contributor in this thread.


My own feeling is neutral on this point. On the one hand, the issue has turned from a molehill into a mountain but I must say that your own (Knisse) posts have definitely helped to make it grow out of proportion. I have been on this forum since Day 1 (and I was on the old forum for several years before it closed down and was replaced by the current platform - the old software couldn't take it any more) so I have 17 years of forum experience. In all that time, I have seen a fair number of cases such as these but few inflated in this way. Re-reading my replies here, I would say that (i) I at no point insulted you (phrases like "stupid", "oversensitive" or "too lazy to measure it yourself" - to name just a few candidates - are entirely lacking) and (ii) I explained in detail what led me to reply in the way I did, thereby introducing a maximum level of objectivity.

On the other hand, while I appreciate people ralleying for me, I think that threads like this should not contain umpteen testimonials of this kind. I think that all that needs to be said on the matter has been said. I have made my point clear, neither side has backed down but the brawl is now over so it appears that Knisse and I will just have to agree to differ on the matter in order to continue "meeting" civilly on this forum (and unless Knisse decides to leave or merely post in subfora which I don't visit/moderate, he will find it hard to evade me). I personally can accept that and if Knisse can't, I would once again invite him to escalate the matter by reporting it to the Administration.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## transporter305 (May 29, 2014)

Knisse said:


> .....
> 
> I reckon to sum up:
> 
> ...


I agree - too much BS littering this thread. Wish Hartmut would delete all the irrelevant clutter as the issue itself is already confusing enough. What creates the confusion is Zenith making several versions of the watch with the same reference number.



Mark.W said:


> Confused, which watch? The blue El Primero measures in at around 12.5mm thickness.....


Ok, so I was under impression Mark is speaking of the blue watch in the OP? It looks like the latest version(proper overlap, no extra wording). And he measured it at 12.5mm? Mine is the same but silver, purchased brand new a couple of months ago. I should have it back on Monday and will try to measure next week. Have a nice weekend!

UPDATE: Measured my watch today - 13.8mm. To avoid more confusion, this is the exact piece:


----------



## Knisse (Mar 7, 2013)

Thank you for the update transporter. Strange that Zenith hasnt updated it yet, it clearly states that this 38mm has a thickness of 12.45


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

All, so to update everyone on this topic, I actually reached out to Zenith and asked them about the change in the design. It turns out that the change to the thicker case was only for a period of time due to a supplier constraint, and the watches being manufactured now have reverted back to the thinner MK1 case. So, the eagle-eyed among you can keep an eye out at dealers for the re-appearance of the thinner cases.


----------



## VastHorizon (Sep 30, 2011)

Nathan356 said:


> All, so to update everyone on this topic, I actually reached out to Zenith and asked them about the change in the design. It turns out that the change to the thicker case was only for a period of time due to a supplier constraint, and the watches being manufactured now have reverted back to the thinner MK1 case. So, the eagle-eyed among you can keep an eye out at dealers for the re-appearance of the thinner cases.


Very interesting. Is there a timeline regarding the change to the thicker MK2 case?
I've tried a MK1 case before and loved it.
I am currently looking for a pre-owned El Primero, but I'm afraid a MK2 case will sit higher on my wrist and cause it to flop around.
Is there a serial number range or any other way to distinguish a MK2 case besides measuring it?


----------



## transporter305 (May 29, 2014)

Nathan356 said:


> All, so to update everyone on this topic, I actually reached out to Zenith and asked them about the change in the design. It turns out that *the change to the thicker case was only for a period of time due to a supplier constraint*, and the watches being manufactured now have reverted back to the thinner MK1 case. So, the eagle-eyed among you can keep an eye out at dealers for the re-appearance of the thinner cases.


There is a legal term for this > misrepresentation. I hope they don't experience any other constraints and, for example, use a different movement for a period of time. Without notifying the potential customersb-)


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

VastHorizon said:


> Very interesting. Is there a timeline regarding the change to the thicker MK2 case?
> I've tried a MK1 case before and loved it.
> I am currently looking for a pre-owned El Primero, but I'm afraid a MK2 case will sit higher on my wrist and cause it to flop around.
> Is there a serial number range or any other way to distinguish a MK2 case besides measuring it?


Hey VastHorizon,

The thicker MK2 case looks to have appeared around mid-2018 to present day. If you look at the pictures I posted earlier in the thread, you can see the difference in the case design, so you shouldn't need to measure it in order to tell. Aside from the bezel being shaped different, the thicker case also has a deeper, more prominent rehaut, and less beveling on the lugs. Having experienced both case designs, you can't feel the difference, so I wouldn't worry about the watch "sitting" differently, they sit exactly the same. its just that the crystal is positioned higher up on the MK2 case due to the raised bezel. I also prefer the MK1 case, but the MK2 case has its own charm and is more rare, so there's that. Who knows, the MK2 case may end up becoming collectible one day. From what I can tell, there are 3 dial variations, and 2 case variations:

MK1 dial: bigger overlap, with automatic/36000 on dial
MK2 dial: bigger overlap, no automatic/no 36000 on dial
All of the MK1 and MK2 dials have the MK1 case from what I have seen

MK3 dial: smaller overlap, no automatic/no 36000
The MK3 dial was first available with the MK1 case, then the MK2 case, and now back again to the MK1 case.


----------



## Greg1234 (Jul 31, 2014)

Not sure but looks great


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Nathan356 said:


> Hey VastHorizon,
> 
> The thicker MK2 case looks to have appeared around mid-2018 to present day. If you look at the pictures I posted earlier in the thread, you can see the difference in the case design, so you shouldn't need to measure it in order to tell. Aside from the bezel being shaped different, the thicker case also has a deeper, more prominent rehaut, and less beveling on the lugs. Having experienced both case designs, you can't feel the difference, so I wouldn't worry about the watch "sitting" differently, they sit exactly the same. its just that the crystal is positioned higher up on the MK2 case due to the raised bezel. I also prefer the MK1 case, but the MK2 case has its own charm and is more rare, so there's that. Who knows, the MK2 case may end up becoming collectible one day. From what I can tell, there are 3 dial variations, and 2 case variations:
> 
> ...


So if looking for a 38mm with the thinner case, which are the years / specific model / serial number pattern to look for?


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

fskywalker said:


> So if looking for a 38mm with the thinner case, which are the years / specific model / serial number pattern to look for?


I don't know about serial numbers, but all the watches with the older overlapping dial appear to have the thinner case. So 2017 and older. I have yet to see any "new" tricolor watches with the thinner case (yet). It looks like all of the Heritage 146 models also have the thinner case for their entire run, and all the 42mm models of any type also have the thinner case. So, the thick case is the exception to the rule, and only occurs on tricolor models (including silver, blue, and gray dials) in 38mm, produced between 2018 and 2019.


----------



## Marrin (Feb 8, 2011)

I have emailed Zenith on the matter a couple of months ago as I am in the market for a new dial/old case that seems to have been produced in 2017 for a short period of time and they replied they will be reintroducing the thin case at the start of 2020.
So, I gave up on the hunt for a used one, I'll just wait for the "improved" batch to come out.
It kind of gave me relief as I was afraid the "perfect" ones will never be available again.

Sent from my SLA-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Marrin (Feb 8, 2011)

Nathan356 said:


> I don't know about serial numbers, but all the watches with the older overlapping dial appear to have the thinner case. So 2017 and older. I have yet to see any "new" tricolor watches with the thinner case (yet). It looks like all of the Heritage 146 models also have the thinner case for their entire run, and all the 42mm models of any type also have the thinner case. So, the thick case is the exception to the rule, and only occurs on tricolor models (including silver, blue, and gray dials) in 38mm, produced between 2018 and 2019.


Actually a forum member here has the new dial/old case, I forget what his name is, but he wasn't aware he had the "PERFECT" one until I told him about the thicker ones.
I asked if he's willing to sell his, which he kindly refused 

Sent from my SLA-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Nathan356 said:


> I don't know about serial numbers, but all the watches with the older overlapping dial appear to have the thinner case. So 2017 and older. I have yet to see any "new" tricolor watches with the thinner case (yet). It looks like all of the Heritage 146 models also have the thinner case for their entire run, and all the 42mm models of any type also have the thinner case. So, the thick case is the exception to the rule, and only occurs on tricolor models (including silver, blue, and gray dials) in 38mm, produced between 2018 and 2019.


Thanks! 

The hunt is on then for an used 38 MM anthracite grey with either the older or the newer dial and the thin case (on the steel bracelet) :-!


----------



## Keli (Jul 10, 2018)

Bought my silver 1969 with the new dial in December 2017, and after comparing it with the pictures it has the thicker case. 
Looks like the thinker case was used for a longer periode than what Zenith is claiming.

On that subject, early models of the 1969 have polished finish on the lugs top, that would count as a third type of case I presume.


----------



## theHarrow (Dec 2, 2010)

Any word if they have gone back to the old 12.45mm cases yet?


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

theHarrow said:


> Any word if they have gone back to the old 12.45mm cases yet?


I just bought a new Tri-Color 38mm, will measure mine and report back, but looking at the profile of the bezel (chamfer rather than bevel) think mine has the thicker profile










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Just measured thickness of my tri-color and got 13.46 MM at the edge of the sapphire:










and 13.81 MM on the center of the sapphire:










So the thickness is still higher on new pieces, which still have the chamfer rather than the bevel on the bezel seen on the older models with thickness of 12.45 MM (wonder if thE 12.45 MM measurement is at the edge or at the center of the sapphire; imagine it is at the edge and as such the difference in thickness between bevel versus chamfer models is 1 MM)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Aquaracer1 (Jul 23, 2009)

Guys, I was very worried about the thicker case, as I owned a MK I version from mid 2017. Now sold. I bit the bullet and got an MK II case from 2019 and am happy to report the look and feel on the wrist is a marginal difference. Personally I can’t tell the difference at all between the two cases


----------



## Nathan356 (Mar 20, 2016)

fskywalker said:


> Just measured thickness of my tri-color and got 13.46 MM at the edge of the sapphire:
> 
> and 13.81 MM on the center of the sapphire:
> 
> ...


Hey Francisco,

I checked the edge thickness on mine that has the MK1 case, it is 12.3mm at the edge of the crystal and 12.7mm at the center. I think you are right that the difference appears to be entirely in the bezel, which is why you can't really tell the difference between the two versions unless you know exactly what to look for


----------



## fskywalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Nathan356 said:


> Hey Francisco,
> 
> I checked the edge thickness on mine that has the MK1 case, it is 12.3mm at the edge of the crystal and 12.7mm at the center. I think you are right that the difference appears to be entirely in the bezel, which is why you can't really tell the difference between the two versions unless you know exactly what to look for
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing Nathan! ???


----------

