Debate? "True Perpetual Calendar"

I have seen a few posts since JAN regarding the IWC DaVinci Perpetual Digital Day-Date that regard it as "not a true perpetual calendar".

What is meant by this?

By my definition, the DaVinci Perpetul Digital Day-Date is a perpetual calendar, and accurately corrects/advances the month/date correctly for all months over a 4-year leap year cycle, except on each hundredth year is not divisible by 400, like 2100.

This is how the Portuguese Perpetual, and other IWC perpetual modules work too - or is there a special circumstance with the DaVinci Perpetual Digital Day-Date I am not aware of?

Best regards,

Richard

Perhaps>>>

having a leap year indicator on the dial and the missing four digit year counter are affecting people's definition used for the new day - date model.

I would like to hear what others have to say as well.

Bill

i though when i first saw it...

that it was closer to an annual calendar but it IS a perpetual by definition.

True Perpetual Calendar it is!

Some people do not like the four digit year has been replaced by a indicator showing which of the 4 years of the Leap year cycle, we are in.

I like this watch very much, with it large day/month format. I find the Leap year indicator very useful too. What one needs is this new DaVinci Perpetual and a Portugieser Perpetual...One for each wrist. Something Richard is sure to approve of!

Also, the design needs to add a 24 h indicator for both models, which could event be a coloured dot in the dial.

I am 100% with you Richard.
--
Best from Isobars

At the Collector's Meeting in January....

this issue was raised by several members. Most agreed that it was a true perpetual. If you like seeing the year on the dial there are other perpetual watch choices available. But perpetual it is.

Real perpetual for me too! nt

I was sloppy with my language (see MFs drawing)>

It is of course perpetual in that the calendar accommodates leap years. For me, a perpetual calendar must show the year, not just that it is a leap year, but that is just my opinion.
It is, nonetheless, a great achievement and the large day/month display is attractive (to non-North American eyes, anyway; how will this sell in the USA with the date "the wrong way around"?)

Ross

Technically it is, perhaps somebody

could assume by the absence of the moonphase it is not (just guessing).

To my knowledge there's no technical or official definition that mentions the moonphase as mandatory for a ppc.

We've been spoilt by Herr Klaus

My expectations of a perpetual calendar has been set by the IWC module designed by Kurt Klaus. The new digital Da Vinci perpetual calendar, indicating the leap year cycle and requiring some adjustment, complies with the description of a perpetual calendar used by many other watch companies, including Patek Philippe. One can get very religious about this: "There is only one true perpetual calendar! All others are inferior!"

Before I bought my 5022, I looked at several other perpetual calendars but kept coming back to the sheer brilliance of Kurt Klaus's design. I put my money where my faith is. Nevertheless, I have to be horologically tolerant nowadays. I would agree that a watch with a leap year indicator constitutes a perpetual calendar.

Ok. Thanks for the clarifications...

..So, as I understand, the issue is merely individuals' "personal classification" based on the year display - but this watch certainly meets the horlogical classification of "Perpetual Calendar".

Best regards, from "the road".

Richard