slim mechanics

I just read the extremely well documented article: Slim is in.

I like slim watches very much (and own 2 vintage thin wrist watches).

I have read that the calibre 1003 was originally (in the 50s) made by Jaeger-Lecoulre. It was (and may be is) common practice of brands to source this or that calibre from the other side of the little swiss valley. Nothing wrong with that (at least in my opinion).

Now the 1003 in the ultra thin 1955 is made at the manfuacture V.C, right?

I love the simple dials and extreme readibility of the dials of ultra thin watches, and I do appreciate their weight on the wrist. One feels nothing yet, one wears a mechanical marvel that ticks very accurately.

Cal 1003
06/27/2010 - 10:04
Hi time2tic. I'm pretty sure Cal 1003 is a VC movement as it's stamped with Poincon de Geneve (Geneva Seal) and movements which are not VC manufacture (based on Lemania, Piguet etc.) tend not to be. Alex or one of the other guys on the Lounge will be able to confirm whether I'm right about that.  I got to see the 1955 today at the London Masterpiece Salon and the movement is beyond belief: if you ever get the funding to add to your 'slim' collection, I would definitely recommend it. Which slim watches do you own?
Re: Cal 1003
06/27/2010 - 20:09

Edu, it is a coincidence but I was admiring today the 1003 that powers the maki-e watches (well a pictrue of the calibre anyway) and it is really impressive. what I meant was that it could be possible that Jaeger-Lecoultre woudl provide the calibre in the early days (1995 or so) not fully finished, for example, and Vc would finish it. i hope an expert can clarify. my slim collection: I own 2 JLC ( indicently ;) ) one is an automatic from the seventies (fast date, high beat), one is a more classique ultrathin from the end of the 60s (if I remember correctly: no picture from the ultrathin manual wound, sorry!).JLC slim auto1JLC slim auto 2

I meant ...
06/27/2010 - 20:13
what I meant was that it could be possible for Jaeger-Lecoultre to provide the calibre in the early days (1955 or so) not fully finished, for example, and VC would finish it. I hope an expert can clarify.  (sorry for typos)
cal 1003 was developed for VC and AP but exclusively used by the
06/28/2010 - 11:47
2 brands and never by JLC. Today VC has the full rights to cal 1003 which it builds inhouse. hope this answers your question
Re: cal 1003 was developed for VC and AP but exclusively used by the
06/28/2010 - 17:21
thanks for the detailed answer. The latest squeletonized version with dark grey color is simply amazing.
Alex, You wrote, that cal. 1003 was...
06/28/2010 - 21:18
...developed for VC and AP and has never been used by JLC. You're right but in the past, JLC used cal. 818 / 819 and that was archer for cal. 1003. Really JLC never used cal. 1120.
In fact...
06/29/2010 - 00:42
the cal. 1014 is a direct clone of the JLC movement, while the 1003 was extensively modified to achieve it's record thinness.
I beg to differ JLC cal 818/819 were the base for VC cal 1001 and 1002
06/29/2010 - 11:53
respectively 2.94mm and 3.44mm thick
No argument from me!
06/29/2010 - 19:38
Absolutely agree Alex .  VC added finger bridges to the base JLC caliber 818/819 to make the beautiful 1001/1002 family.  These calibers were dropped with introduction of the 1003, but for some reason (cost, I suspect) the 1014 was later introduced which was a clone of the 818, without even the finger bridge. JLC caliber 818 V&C caliber 1001 V&C caliber 1014 While the JLC 818 and V&C 1003 (AP 2003) share some similarities, you can see the basic layout is reversed.  Furthermore, V&C performed numerous horological tricks to reduce height from 2.94mm to 1.64mm. V&C 1003 vs JLC 818
I know it. But calibres 1001 and 1002...
06/29/2010 - 21:15
...are very similar to calibre 1003. Sadly, my English is so-so therefore I write laconically.
I can understand what you mean but even though there are
06/30/2010 - 11:21
aesthetical similarities between the 1001/1002 and the 1003 going from a 2.94mm cal to a 1.64mm is impossible with just some modifications that's why the 1003 was conceived and developed from the beginiing as an ultra thin and not a thinner modified version of the 1001/1002 
Alex, in my opinion, cal. 1003 is thinner because...
06/30/2010 - 15:54
...doesn't have a bridge above ratchet wheel and crown wheel. By the way, I described part of VC's newness on my website.http://www.vacheronclub.pl/sihh2010.html I hope that a website will be a basic source of knowledge in Polish about VC's watches . Regards Mariusz
Alex's article explains...
06/30/2010 - 17:21
the design features that achieved the caliber 1003 were as follows: 1. initially, shock protection on the escape wheel was eliminated, 2. the pallet lever was on a lower level than the fork horn,  3. the pivots and jewels were also on a lower level, 4. the impulse roller was eliminated and the impulse jewel placed directly into the balance arms. If you return to the pictures I posted of the 1001 vs 1003, you will see that the layout of bridges and jewels is similar but reversed 180 degrees between the two.  This does lead me to wonder if the same machinery was modified to produce the base plate of the 1003.
Re: Alex's article explains...
06/30/2010 - 20:25
"If you return to the pictures I posted of the 1001 vs 1003, you will see that the layout of bridges and jewels is similar..." Therefore it isn't possible to say these are two completely different calibers