# Worlds Thinnest Watch



## JMS

Well got to be damn close!! 18K pink. Not a mark and no wear to the lug pins. Heavy and a real nice feel to it  few spots on the dial and dust specs that will come off


----------



## Janne

Very nice! How do you attach a strap, not seen that arrangement before! 
Just do not bang it, way too beautyful!


----------



## JMS

tks. with female spring bars. always have a bunch around, you will see this on a lot of gold 50's chronos

it looks delicate but is deceiving, is pretty heavy. even the crown and stem is rock solid no wobble at all


----------



## Janne

Showing my age: I just wish and hope watchmaking will go back to the artform you are showing us here! That watch must be so nice to wear!!


----------



## Chascomm

That is a gorgeous piece!

The only mechanical watch I can think of that's thinner is the ultra-rare Poljot 2200 (search the Russian forum for the one confirmed example in captivity), but that was not really a practical watch.

Of course there was the even thinner Concord Delerium quartz in the late 1970s, but again a scarcely wearable watch. The thinnest watch currently in production is the Titan Edge made in India, and that really is a practical watch.

... but nowhere near as elegant as yours :-!

By the way, what's the movement?


----------



## JMS

I don't know the movement yet lol not had it apart. but feels real nice, 17 jewels. dial is actually an even light beige, my pics are weird today


----------



## Eeeb

The Longines 990 is less than 3mm thick. The couple that I have are made thicker by the casing, obviously. 990s are fairly common. Fairly uncommon though are the Longines L961 which is only 1.75mm thick... they were used in ladies watches. I've never even seen one.


----------



## JMS

this one is 4.3mm without the crystal :-d


----------



## Hartmut Richter

I don't know about the "world's thinnest watch" but according to G.L. Brunner, the world's thinnest watch movement is still the Cal. 1200 by Jean Lassale (Geneva, first presented 1978) - only 1.2mm thick, diameter is 20.4mm. A link to one is here (auction has already ended):

http://cgi.ebay.ch/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230265511282&indexURL=

Hartmut Richter


----------



## jedanzoom

JMS said:


> this one is 4.3mm without the crystal :-d


Nice watch.:-!

I own "Du Bois 1785.",14.K,with a similar thickness without the crystal.


----------



## Janne

I believe the thinnest manual movement produced today is the Jaeger leCoultre Master Ultra Thin movement, 1.85mm thick. It is a thing of great beauty.
Correction! Just read on a lesser watchforum, that Pierre Mathis, the designer of Cal 1200, is assembling a limited batch of the Cal 1200, from old parts. (But it is IMHO quite ugly)


----------



## Roland Ranfft

Hi,

little less than 2mm is not exciting for present manufacturing facilities.
J.F. Bautte (later Girard Perregaux) was by good reasons fameous for
thin watches. He made movements with 1mm height, and even ladies
movements, which didn't allow to arrange all parts in one layer, were only
1.8mm high, and this in the early 19th century without CAM facilities.

Here an examle from ca. 1830 - 1.8mm high, 22.2 diameter:









Regards, Roland Ranfft


----------



## Eeeb

I'm impressed! ... a real achievement. We stand on the shoulders of giants...


----------



## vardjuin

Eeeb said:


> I'm impressed! ... a real achievement. We stand on the shoulders of giants...


maybe at the feet of giants.
with all our technique and still we are not better than our predecessors.


----------



## Marrick

Great thread showing some neat watches.

And a chance to show off my Universal Geneve White Shadow - the thinnest automatic of its day (1966).:-!


----------



## Watchbreath

:think: Is it thinner than 4.8mm?


Marrick said:


> Great thread showing some neat watches.
> 
> And a chance to show off my Universal Geneve White Shadow - the thinnest automatic of its day (1966).:-!


----------



## Marrick

Watchbreath said:


> :think: Is it thinner than 4.8mm?


No. But its automaticb-).

http://pictures.watchfans.org/weekly/week.htm


----------



## Watchbreath

b-) Eighteen months ago I measured a Piaget automatic that was just a
knats hair over 4.8mm thick. It was in the vintage case and I haven't
seen one since 1962 or 3. I believe it won the thin wars of the early
sixties. My Lucien Piccard was claimed to be the thinnest, but to the 
Piaget, it looks like a bagel.


Marrick said:


> No. But its automaticb-).
> 
> http://pictures.watchfans.org/weekly/week.htm


----------



## JMS

some nice pieces


----------



## Chascomm

You're lucky to have the original crystal. Mine (a 1961 Vympel-branded version) needed a replacement glass and the only available was too tall. A flat watch needs the right glass.

For all those on this forum not aquainted with Russian watches, to give an idea of how thin the calibre 2209 was; when the Minsk watch factory decided to convert to a quartz movement in this thin case in 1988/89, they had to deepen the caseback to accomodate the battery.


----------



## JohnF

Hi -

Surprised no one has mentioned the Swatch Skins: 3.95mm thin. With case.

And the Titan Edge is an interesting movement: 1.15mm in height. There is also a Titan Slim, 1.75mm in height. Not easy to find pix of the movement though, but they are both quartz movements.

What is especially interesting is that these are coming out of the Tata group in India, out of their Precision Engineering Division (PED), which is where Tata aims to take India into the 21st century.

But still using watch designs of the 1970s, it seems... :-(

JohnF


----------



## pacifichrono

My 1970s Soviet-era Sekonda...about 4mm including case but excluding crystal:


----------



## pacifichrono

Chascomm said:


> You're lucky to have the original crystal. Mine (a 1961 Vympel-branded version) needed a replacement glass and the only available was too tall. A flat watch needs the right glass.
> 
> For all those on this forum not aquainted with Russian watches, to give an idea of how thin the calibre 2209 was; when the Minsk watch factory decided to convert to a quartz movement in this thin case in 1988/89, they had to deepen the caseback to accomodate the battery.


Here's the movement and case back:


----------



## tomshep

And one sold on the bay today for a fiver! The 2209 is a fine (indeed, award winning) movement that keeps good time and lasts well. Those others are lovely and super slim but I don't expect them to be affordable, so if you like slimlines and have resources to match, then the old Sekondas are worth a look.


----------



## vardjuin

this is the thinnest most affordable watch that you could buy
nice watch indeed


----------



## aditya

Beutiful watch Jim :-!

Here's what I came accross the other day.....

http://www.horology.ru/dir/golay.htm

a cylinder escapement movement made c.1850 *1mm thick !!!

*Kind regards

Aditya


----------



## Kingmatic

Beautiful all your thin watches !!

I had a _deja vu_, since my father used to wear a Miramar in the 60´s (steel , and not so thin) . Good memories


----------



## Gansan

Here is the thinnest watch in the Universe!
http://www.titanworld.com/titan/Sto...asp?Files=BRS&catalogId=titan&categoryid=Edge


----------



## pacifichrono

gansanspic said:


> Here is the thinnest watch in the Universe!
> http://www.titanworld.com/titan/Sto...asp?Files=BRS&catalogId=titan&categoryid=Edge


I dunno...at 3.6mm I doubt it's the slimmest ever (when my lowly Russian is 4mm), plus it's not even a mechanical movement (quartz). JMHO.


----------



## Eeeb

pacifichrono said:


> I dunno...at 3.6mm I doubt it's the slimmest ever (when my lowly Russian is 4mm), plus it's not even a mechanical movement (quartz). JMHO.


Yes, good point. One thing I did not mention earlier in the thread, the Longines 990 is not a winder... it is a very very thin automatic. As Dr Ranfft says "When introduced in 1977, the 990 with all features was the thinnest automatic movement with date and sweep second; even in 2003 it is only underscored by movements without date and/or sweep second."


----------



## Hartmut Richter

The Longines Cal. 990 is 2.95mm thick which is certainly an achievement. However, the Girard-Perregaux Cal. 3xxx series nearly matches it (2.98mm) and both only have unidirectional winding. Also, in a review on slim automatic movements in "Chronos" a few years back, the drawbacks to such an ultra-thin design were highlighted. An older Cal. 990 was taken apart and serviced by a professional watchmaker who was asked to comment on the state of the watch and the utility of the design. He stated that there was considerable wear on some of the parts, probably caused by very low tolerance limits which proved too difficult to stay within. All in all, a slightly thicker design would in his opinion have been better.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## bjohnson

Was it ever mentioned what movement was in the OP's watch?

I'd guess a Peseux based on a watch I have from the same brand (Miramar) having a AS movement (another Swiss ebauche manufacturer) and the fact that the Peseux 330 being fairly common but quite thin at 3.1mm

I find when you break the 4mm barrier, the watch always seems very thin.

I have a Ouvi with a Peseux 320 (3.1mm)








http://s157.photobucket.com/albums/t50/bjohnson00/Ouvi/

a Sekonda with a Luch 2209 (2.9mm)








http://s157.photobucket.com/albums/t50/bjohnson00/Sekonda_2209/

and a pair of Princeton's with a Poljot 2409 auto (3.9mm)








http://s157.photobucket.com/albums/t50/bjohnson00/Princeton/


----------



## Chascomm

It is odd that the dial is marked '25 jewels' when the Poljot cal 2415 has 29 jewels.


----------



## bjohnson

Odd but not unusual

I have several watches with movements that I believe are original that have more jewels than noted on the dial.

I've also seen other examples on the internet

There's been some discussion about it on forums and it was decided that for assembled watches (company buys cases, dials, and movements from different vendors and assembles them) that supply of movements intended for use with the dial became unavailable (possibly even for short periods of time) and other movements were substituted with the idea that nobody would complain about getting a "better" movement.

This is the first (and second) 2415 I've seen. I sent the photo to Ranfft for listing


----------



## pacifichrono

Even very recently Vostok-Europe dials said 31 jewels while the movement said 32. Gotta get rid of that old stock of dials, I guess! <|


----------



## Hartmut Richter

pacifichrono said:


> Even very recently Vostok-Europe dials said 31 jewels while the movement said 32. Gotta get rid of that old stock of dials, I guess! <|


It works the other way too, I'm afraid. The most recent issue of "Chronos" has a comparative test between a Bell & Ross and a Doxa diving watch. The Doxa has an ETA 2892 in the 21 jewel version but has "25 Jewels" on the dial!

Hartmut Richter


----------



## Eeeb

Here is one of my Longines 990s... this one needs to go in for a COA. I just hauled it in from Asia. My other one is +- 10 sec/day... this one is too dirty to do that.


----------



## pacifichrono

Hmmmmmmm...maybe NOT the thinnest.


----------



## Chascomm

bjohnson said:


> Odd but not unusual
> 
> I have several watches with movements that I believe are original that have more jewels than noted on the dial.
> 
> I've also seen other examples on the internet
> 
> There's been some discussion about it on forums and it was decided that for assembled watches (company buys cases, dials, and movements from different vendors and assembles them) that supply of movements intended for use with the dial became unavailable (possibly even for short periods of time) and other movements were substituted with the idea that nobody would complain about getting a "better" movement.


The only problem in this situation is that Poljot never made a 25 jewel movement, and the case of this watch was created specifically to fit the 2415. Only the inscription on the dial is non-Soviet.

With a name like 'Princeton', it's likely that this watch was branded for the US market, which would explain the lack of 'USSR' inscription usually seen on Sekonda watches. 25 jewels was not a common standard for Swiss autos back in the 1960s, so they're not trying to fool the buyer in that way (and most customers wouldn't know anything about that). Could there have been additional taxes for extra jewels?


----------



## Gansan

pacifichrono said:


> I dunno...at 3.6mm I doubt it's the slimmest ever (when my lowly Russian is 4mm), plus it's not even a mechanical movement (quartz). JMHO.


 The thread topic didn't mention "thinnest mechanical watch" any where!


----------



## Chascomm

gansanspic said:


> The thread topic didn't mention "thinnest mechanical watch" any where!


It didn't, but I think the implication is that it is easier to make a quartz watch thin.

The Edge is not the thinnest watch ever, but it is the thinnest currently in production. And it is an utterly amazing watch to see up close.

Getting back to mechanicals, I still want to know what is powering that Miramar.


----------



## gjlelec

Interesting thread guys, the mechanicals cant really compete with the quartz watches for thinness by their very nature. In the early 80s the race was on between Switzerland and Japan to produce the "worlds thinnest watch", the result was a solid 18ct gold cased watch produced by ETA-commonly known as the Delirium (in fact a model name owned by Concord) only 1.98mm thick .This case was then branded and sold by various Swiss companies Concord, Longines, Sarcar, IWC, Eterna- to name a few. The thinnest i have come across however is the Omega Dinosaure, a hugely expensive quartz just 1.48mm thick. Omega produced a few "collectors" watches even thinner at 1.35mm but these were found to break/bend when worn !!
Heres a few pics of some of mine including my mechanical Piaget (cal P31) just 3mm thick
(measurements are total case thickness not just movement)
Omega Dinosaure 1.48mm (pound coin each side)








Sarcar Gloriums 1.98mm








Sarcar (side view)








Longines "Golden Leaf"








Piaget "Tradition" mechanical 3mm








Concord "Delirium" as retailed by Tiffany in the 80s


----------



## Eeeb

That is a nice collection! The advert ads a nice touch to the presentation. Thanks for the data and pics. Stop back again!!!

I love the Concord with the transparent dial so you can see part of the PCB (printed circuit board).


----------



## James Haury

My thinnest is a Georg Olsen quartz 5.5mm thick.That is case crystal and all, the whole shebang.


----------



## JMS

The Miramar I started this thread with had an issue. Face down it would stop dead and positionally it would loose time otherwise, showed up after a couple days running. I noticed the seller has put it back up on ebay without having it serviced so beware if you go to grab that piece. I know the seller, he stopped the original listing and sold to me, used to live near me B4 moving back to HK, but I feel for the guy who ends up with this piece, I was simply not willing to play with it and the issues will show up again. He said there seems to be no problem yet it was consistent issue after a couple days I had it



Jim


----------



## can't find the time

Don't you hate it when you are reminded of somthing but just can't put your finger on it? All this thin movement talk- especially mechanical movements (I don't look at quartz watches the same way I do at Mechanical, the mechanical to me seem ALIVE)
I was sure it was Girard Perregaux but I can't find it on thier site, that made the world's thinnest automatic in the late sixties- all records are made to be broken of course, but this watch had a solid gold rotor and was only made in limited run, who knows what the hell I am recalling here? Cant be too many watches had a solid gold rotor.


----------



## JimH

can't find the time said:


> D
> I was sure it was Girard Perregaux but I can't find it on thier site, that made the world's thinnest automatic in the late sixties- all records are made to be broken of course, but this watch had a solid gold rotor and was only made in limited run, who knows what the hell I am recalling here? Cant be too many watches had a solid gold rotor.


Universal made the thinnest automatic movement, the Universal 66, introduced in 1966. It was 2.5 mm in height.

Checkout the entry on Roland Ranfft's site: Universal 66


----------



## Watchbreath

How thick was the final product?


JimH said:


> Universal made the thinnest automatic movement, the Universal 66, introduced in 1966. It was 2.5 mm in height.
> 
> Checkout the entry on Roland Ranfft's site: Universal 66


----------



## Marrick

Watchbreath said:


> How thick was the final product?


Measuring by eye (and with a plastic ruler), mine comes in at about 6mm including the crystal. But the crystal might not be the original - its a bit more domed than necessaery.


----------



## gjlelec

I was browsing this old thread and thought i'd post what i consider IS "the worlds thinnest watch"-the definitive answer, though it would be great if someone proved me wrong

Concord Delirium IV-toal case thickness 0.98mm
As a fellow collector put it "like wearing a piece of bog-roll that tells the time" :-d


----------



## Henry T

Here are two from the Zenith catalogue year 2000. 

1) _Elite_ auto, winding in both directions, height: 3.28 mm.









2) Manual _Elite _HW movement: 2.83 mm.


----------



## Watchbreath

3.28, is that the caliber or the case?


Henry T said:


> Here are two from the Zenith catalogue year 2000.
> 
> 1) _Elite_ auto, winding in both directions, height: 3.28 mm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Manual _Elite _HW movement: 2.83 mm.


----------



## Henry T

Watchbreath said:


> 3.28, is that the caliber or the case?


Calibre. 

Here is a pic of the case thickness. More of a dress diver, this one.


----------



## David Kleinfeld

Hi guys,

I recently made acquisition of 2 watches well known for their thin cases and just would like to share with you few pictures that I just took of it.

On the first hand, there is a Concord Delirium with manual winding movement in platinum case.

This watch is one of the ninety seven produced in 1997 by Concord to celebrate the Hong Kong handover, which explains the special engravings of the case back design.

It is not the thinnest delirium around but probably the thinnest to include a manual winding movement, which is besides very nicely decorated.

The movement is very accurate and the feeling of the watch on my wrist is excellent. The contrast between the extravagant case back and the very simple dial is also something which I appreciated very much.

Concerning the platinum case, I have to say I am very pleased because it would not scratch as easily as gold would do and it feels also much more special. It is useless to say however that considering the caliber of the watch I am not planning to wear it on an everyday basis.

On the second hand, I just bought this Swatch Jelly Skin dated 1998. As it is very common to hear that Swatch Skin was inspired by Concord Delirium I found pleasant to put both together.

Obviously there is no competition between those watches;not only because one is quartz movement and the other one is manual winding but also due to the gap between the level of quality of each time piece.

Nevertheless, the Jelly Skin is also interesting because it gives a better idea on how all the Skin series were made.

I hope you enjoy the pics.

Cheers,

DK


----------



## Eeeb

Very interesting juxtaposition!! The Swatch seems just as thin... wow. Both are very nice looking.


----------



## David Kleinfeld

I am glad you appreciate the juxtaposition. In the pictures both watches have a thickness of approximately 4mm. 

The Swatch skin remains therefore very far from the 0,98 mm thickness which was once reached by the Concord quartz delirium.


----------



## jay3429

Chascomm said:


> You're lucky to have the original crystal. Mine (a 1961 Vympel-branded version) needed a replacement glass and the only available was too tall. A flat watch needs the right glass.
> 
> For all those on this forum not aquainted with Russian watches, *to give an idea of how thin the calibre 2209 was; when the Minsk watch factory decided to convert to a quartz movement in this thin case in 1988/89, they had to deepen the caseback to accomodate the battery*.


Actually this could give a better indication of the battery size they used at the time.


----------



## obsidian

I remembered coming across this small article a while back, about the Concord Delirium and the arms race that watch companies had in the 70's to develop the thinnest wristwatch:

http://www.capetowncorp.com/whatsnew/concordarticle.html

The trick to the Delirium is in last paragraph:
"The chief reason the Delirium was so skinny was that the movement had no main plate. Instead, the watch components were fitted into the case back. It was an ingenious idea, one ETA used later when it designed the Swatch."
And the best part:
"....the Delirium IV, was an amazing .98mm thick, so delicate it could not be worn because the case would bend when you strapped the watch to your wrist."
So ETA won the thin wristwatch wars by making a watch that couldn't actually be worn!
:-d
Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that, like the Delirium IV, some of the watches with the Poljot 2200 were so thin that they could be easily damaged because the case would flex while being strapped on.

I have 3 Luch watches with Poljot 2209 movements-- the machinery was transfered from Poljot to the Luch factory in 1975, I believe.
They all use the same classic case: the watches are about 7mm thick-- but 3mm of that is the domed crystal.


----------



## Chascomm

jay3429 said:


> Actually this could give a better indication of the battery size they used at the time.


Equivalent to a Renata 373 i.e. 9.5x1.6mm. Not a fat battery.


----------



## Chascomm

obsidian said:


> "....the Delirium IV, was an amazing .98mm thick, so delicate it could not be worn because the case would bend when you strapped the watch to your wrist."
> So ETA won the thin wristwatch wars by making a watch that couldn't actually be worn!
> :-d


Unlike the Titan Edge currently in production, which with a 3ATM water resistance, steel case and sapphire crystal (probably to stiffen the case :-x) probably makes it the thinnest _practical_ watch of all time.



> Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that, like the Delirium IV, some of the watches with the Poljot 2200 were so thin that they could be easily damaged because the case would flex while being strapped on.


Maybe this is why Mark Gordon's 2200 is the only one known to still exist.










1.85mm movement height









3.5mm case height









(check out the entire collection |> http://www.ussrtime.com)


----------



## robert11

Marrick said:


> Great thread showing some neat watches.
> 
> And a chance to show off my Universal Geneve White Shadow - the thinnest automatic of its day (1966).:-!


Worlds thinnest automatic _with a date _of its day.
Oh look it's a white shadow:roll:


----------



## obsidian

Chascomm said:


> Maybe this is why Mark Gordon's 2200 is the only one known to still exist.


The problem with the plates deforming seems to be a well known problem, but perhaps there were not many were made to begin with-- they were expensive to produce for the times. If I remember correctly, I read that the movement alone cost 100 rubles to produce (in mid-1960's prices)-- this was what the average worker in the USSR earned in a month-- so it was not really a cost a communist system could justify. The watches were obviously produced for export rather than internal consumption.


----------



## Chascomm

obsidian said:


> The problem with the plates deforming seems to be a well known problem, but perhaps there were not many were made to begin with-- they were expensive to produce for the times. If I remember correctly, I read that the movement alone cost 100 rubles to produce (in mid-1960's prices)-- this was what the average worker in the USSR earned in a month-- so it was not really a cost a communist system could justify. The watches were obviously produced for export rather than internal consumption.


I think the 2200 watch was only ever signed in Cyrillic. I supect that the Poljot 2200, like the tiny Chaika 1200, was created primarily to explore the limits of the technology, and secondly to win awards :-d


----------



## robert11

Thought you might be interested in this one. It is not the worlds thinnest watch, but it may be the worlds thinnest, most accurate watch.

This houses a Citizen HEQ movement with an accuracy of +/- 10 seconds a year dating from the early 80's. I find it quiet amusing that my new Citizen Exceed is much much fatter at 10mm than this svelte Exceed which is under 5mm. The level of finish on this is extraordinary.


----------



## Bulldozer

Chascomm said:


> The thinnest watch currently in production is the Titan Edge made in India, and that really is a practical watch.


I have seen that in person. Looks quite good actually. Just not automatic though. :-(


----------



## jam.kuno

robert11 said:


> Worlds thinnest automatic _with a date _of its day.
> Oh look it's a white shadow:roll:


this is my vintage watch UNIVERSAL WHITE SHADOW COME WITH FULL ORIGINAL PART :


----------

