# Longines Conquest Heritage vs Longines Conquest?



## sailon01 (May 20, 2015)

I am considering adding a Longines Conquest to my meager collection however I have a few questions. There seems to be a large price difference between this one 35mm:

Longines Heritage L1.611.4.75.2
and this one 40mm:
 
Longines Conquest Heritage L1.645.4.75.4
They look the same other than the case dia difference, one is a Heritage model the other is not. I can't seem to find any meaningful difference between the two model but there must be something other than case size. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated! 
Thx


----------



## 4236 (May 28, 2010)

The bigger one has a sapphire glass instead of hesalite. I recently bought this Flagship Heritage, the size is bethween those two you mentioned (38,5mm), and this one also has a sapphire glass


----------



## 3th3r (Jul 20, 2011)

Here is a trick... Get the one that suits your taste, and then pretend the other never existed. If do that, then you won't be troubled by the price difference.


----------



## cuthbert (Dec 6, 2009)

I would go with the 35mm or the Flagship.


----------



## 4236 (May 28, 2010)

Conquest has a movement cal 633, based on ETA 2824-2, Flagship has a cal 619, based on ETA 2892-A2. Some may consider a cal 619 slightly better.


----------



## cuthbert (Dec 6, 2009)

I think the main reason for the different movement is that the Flagship has always been a thin watch, while the Conquest is thicker, so they had to use the 2892 like on my Silver Arrow.


----------



## sailon01 (May 20, 2015)

Thanks to everyone for the reply; its greatly appreciated!


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

3th3r said:


> Here is a trick... Get the one that suits your taste, and then pretend the other never existed. If do that, then you won't be troubled by the price difference.


+1


----------



## mgennone (Aug 9, 2014)

Go w the one that looks best on your wrist. If you go w the cheaper option but you do not love it will regret it.


----------



## Watch Box (Aug 25, 2015)

It depends on your wrist size. 
I tried both on and the 35mm feels too small for me. The 40mm looks good and has a sapphire crystal as opposed to the hesalite on the 35mm.
That (and the size) is literally the only difference, so in my opinion the 2x cost is NOT justified.
Also, for THIS type of watch, 38,5 would have been the perfect size, so I don't know why they decided to go 35-40... Sometimes sizing choices just don't make sense to me... Bit like Rolex DJ... either 36mm or 41mm... WTF?????


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cuthbert (Dec 6, 2009)

Watch Box said:


> It depends on your wrist size.
> I tried both on and the 35mm feels too small for me. The 40mm looks good and has a sapphire crystal as opposed to the hesalite on the 35mm.
> That (and the size) is literally the only difference, so in my opinion the 2x cost is NOT justified.
> Also, for THIS type of watch, 38,5 would have been the perfect size, so I don't know why they decided to go 35-40... Sometimes sizing choices just don't make sense to me... Bit like Rolex DJ... either 36mm or 41mm... WTF?????
> ...


The traditional dimension for dress watches IS 35mm, when they reissued the Conquest Longines wisely decided to keep the original measurement, but later a lot of people complained about the size and the plastic crystal (which is one of the most important qualities of vintage watches IMO) so they launched the big 40mm with sapphire crystal.

As I and other people already mentioned the 38.5 mm niche is occupied by the Flagship Heritage (and the Silver Arrow which is out of production) so at this point I suggest you to consider it:


----------



## sailon01 (May 20, 2015)

Thanks for the info. I have a 7" wrist and my Bulova SS is 36mm and seems to work fine so the 35mm size would probably work as well...


----------

