# Laco 45mm Ref: 861698 "Stuttgart



## bparker170 (Jun 5, 2010)

...any one out there been given a delivery time for the above,or ny of the new 45mm,i was told my order would be shipped early Dec,getting a bit twitchy as Christmas is getting nearer?thanks Bob


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

bparker170 said:


> ...any one out there been given a delivery time for the above,or ny of the new 45mm,i was told my order would be shipped early Dec,getting a bit twitchy as Christmas is getting nearer?thanks Bob


Why not e-mailing Laco once again ?


----------



## bparker170 (Jun 5, 2010)

yeah i'll try Laco tomorrow just wondered what others were being told.....


stuffler said:


> Why not e-mailing Laco once again ?


----------



## Takashi78 (Jul 19, 2010)

I was told earliest 2nd or 3rd week of Dec to ship out. IF everything works out fine.
Its been 2 months waiting now.


----------



## bparker170 (Jun 5, 2010)

yes,i was told definately before Christmas for delivery,hope this is correct as it is my present to myself!


Takashi78 said:


> I was told earliest 2nd or 3rd week of Dec to ship out. IF everything works out fine.
> Its been 2 months waiting now.


----------



## Skyz3008 (Apr 15, 2010)

Hi guys
Just got mine today,anyway is it normal for the triangle marker line not going all the way down to the inner ring?


----------



## StufflerMike (Mar 23, 2010)

I hope this pic of an original B-watch will answer your question:










Here's a Laco 42mm (just a random pic posted here)










However the 45mm Stuttgart looks different









Pic by member Andy S.

I think it should look like this


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

But, according to the site it has the correct look?


----------



## Andy S. (Feb 18, 2006)

....from what i can tell on Laco's site all the same pics are used for 42 and 45mm watches, which seem like the 42mm model proportion wise.....it looks like from actual photos of 42 and 45 that they both use exactly the same size numerals, index & 12oclock pointer. It also looks like the inner hour ring is the same for both watches.....so something has to give if the dial is 3mm wider? I dunno, i didn't notice this at first, now you guys got the gears turning.


----------



## Skyz3008 (Apr 15, 2010)

For mine the triangle marker was exactly in between the 12o'clock marker and the inner ring.will post pics soon.


----------



## frank_be (Feb 28, 2006)

The 45mm version dial apparently did not get a correct rescaling.
The space between the top triangle and the inner circle is too big.
Andy S. could be very right IMO. I too think the inner circle is too small compared to the rest.
Or the triangle itself could be too small too. Or a combination of the two. Impossible to tell exactly without measuring.

greetings,
Frank


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

I took the pic from the Laco site. The delivered watch is different. Is the pic a computer created image?


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

I've mentioned your concerns to Laco and will give you an official explanation once I receive it. I suspect that the photos are of the 42 mm version, however, let's wait and see what the manufacturer has to say on the subject.


----------



## Andy the Squirrel (Sep 13, 2009)

perhaps they had the dials redesigned to match the hands that were wrong!


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Andy the Squirrel said:


> the hands that were wrong!


Which hands are you talking about? The ones on the new 42 and 45 are near identical to those on original B-Uhrs.


----------



## Andy S. (Feb 18, 2006)

.....perhaps the scaling of the 'bad batch' of 45 hands was incorrect?


----------



## fachiro1 (Jan 24, 2007)

It looks to me like the hour hand is probably the same size as the 42mm, hence, the same size inner ring as the 42mm.


----------



## Andy the Squirrel (Sep 13, 2009)

Uwe W. said:


> Which hands are you talking about? The ones on the new 42 and 45 are near identical to those on original B-Uhrs.


i'm hypothesising based on this


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

The hands are spot on. 

100% correct!

Please note that the Seconds Hand has a square with a tiny hole in. A crucial detail in the overall appearance of the hands.

andy, I guess that Laco squeezed some cojones, and got them extra early!


----------



## Andy the Squirrel (Sep 13, 2009)

Sorry, it just doesn't look right to me. Glad I bought the 42mm.


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

For most of us, the 42mm is more wearable.


----------



## Andy S. (Feb 18, 2006)

fachiro1 said:


> It looks to me like the hour hand is probably the same size as the 42mm, hence, the same size inner ring as the 42mm.


...that's my take on it also.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

You're probably right in your assessment. I'm assuming I'll be able to post something from Laco in the morning on the subject.

And Janne, you just won't give up on what you think is more wearable, will you? ;-) Andy S. for example has a mega-size wrist - he needs a 45 or bigger! (By the way: congratulations on hitting 10,000 posts! :-!)


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

Thanks! 10 000 useless post - internet record?

It is just that an old guy like me, that grew up with 36mm has some adaptations difficulties. You young virile bucks are used to bigger stuff.


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

:-d Ha!

The forum should give you a gold watch for hitting 10,000 posts, regardless if they were useless ones or not! ;-)

Best wishes for another 10k.


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

I should be able to do it in maybe 2014.
Unless I get banned, but I have tried to be a Good Boy.


----------



## Janne (Apr 16, 2007)

I just remembered an important detail.
The proportions on the dial of the WUS B are not a scaled down (42/55) exact copy. A scaled down dial did not look right so we changed the proportins slightly.
If the 45 dial looks different from the 42 dial, it can be that Laco did an exact 45/55 version, excpt the arrow. We must not compare the 42mm d ial and the 45mm dial. Even with an exact scaling down from the 55mm dial, it will visually not look perfect.
The eye lies sometimes.

IMHO the 45mm looks goddamn good.
And please understand that I am the owner of an Original (1944) Laco B-uhr, with an unmolested dial.

I have scrutinised the IWC version, and the GO version, side by side with my 55mm and WUS 42mm in the local AD (Kirk Freeport).
I can tell you, those two far more expensive watches do not even come close to the" basement" priced Laco!


----------



## george88 (Jul 6, 2007)

YouTube - Kanaal van SoloTempoEsp esp. at 25-28 sec


----------



## Uwe W. (Jan 7, 2009)

Before I discsuss the B-Muster, has anyone here taken delivery of the 45 mm with the A-Muster dial yet? Does anyone have that version on order?

Laco has taken everyone's concerns regarding the new 45 mm B-Muster dial very seriously and as a result will be making changes to it. Essentially, the inner hour ring will remain untouched but the outer minute numbers and indices will be altered. Please don't ask when this will be available; the change is planned for the next production run of the watch which hasn't been scheduled as of yet. With regard to the image used in the Laco Shop, I'm told that the 45 mm wasn't available for photography when the new models were added to the website, so those responsible for the Laco Shop worked with what they had to give us some type of representation of the upcoming 45 mm watch. This is understandable considering that the delayed shipment to Laco of the hands for the 45 mm caused production of the watch to fall behind schedule, unfortunately however, the image they used wasn't an exact likeness of the new B-Muster dial.


----------



## AustinOX (Aug 23, 2009)

While the 45mm dial does look a little odd to me (inner ring looks too small, arrow too high), my biggest problem with it is still the thickness of the case, especially after seeing the wrist shot on page one. It is Archimede flat... The 42mm does appear to be the gem between the two, which is sad since the 45mm was so long awaited for so many.


----------



## fachiro1 (Jan 24, 2007)

Yeah, I wish the watch case was thicker......say 14-15mm, but it still looks good. The 45mm case diameter paired withthe 22mm lug width is spot on. I'll be able to view an A-Dial 45mm next week in person. I'm hoping this will be the one for me. Either that or I'll go for the 42mm A-dial. I think the pics of the A-dial with the blue hands are superb.


----------



## bparker170 (Jun 5, 2010)

i decided to stick with the B42mm and return the B45mm,the 45mm was SO much bigger than the 3mm extra would suggest,even for my 8 inch wrist,unsure about the B dial on the 45 as well,but MORE than happy with my 42!!


fachiro1 said:


> Yeah, I wish the watch case was thicker......say 14-15mm, but it still looks good. The 45mm case diameter paired withthe 22mm lug width is spot on. I'll be able to view an A-Dial 45mm next week in person. I'm hoping this will be the one for me. Either that or I'll go for the 42mm A-dial. I think the pics of the A-dial with the blue hands are superb.


----------

