It looks like Alpina took your review to heart; the released version of the watch has more appropriate hands.

Ariel,
I found the right version of this Alpina on their website (in the virtual catalogue section). You should have a look at the page 93 http://www.flipdocs.com/showbook.aspx?ID=10004839_574557

This timepiece has the same hands as the other timepieces of the Pilot collection: then your article make no sense to me!

Regards

Finch

Ariel, I found the right version of this Alpina on their website (in the virtual catalogue section). You should have a look at the page 93 http://www.flipdocs.com/showbook.aspx?ID=10004839_574557 This timepiece has the same hands as the other timepieces of the Pilot collection: then your article make no sense to me! Regards Finch

Ariel, I agree with you 100% as far as the pint-sized hands go. Watches with hands that are too short for their dials are one of my cardinal design peeves, with the 2010 Rolex Explorer (214270) being one of the most recent high-profile culprits. While the Explorer's hands are nowhere as bad as the Alpina you lambasted, they're short enough to have turned people back to the discontinued 114270, myself included.

My (admittedly stringent) readability rules when it comes to watch hands: the minute hand must extend far enough to overlap with the dial's minute markers, but not so far as to touch the second markers (presuming the dial has them). If there are second markers, a central second hand must extend far enough to overlap with them. Finally, the hour hand must be short, wide, or different in shape enough to readily distinguish it from the minute hand.

A classic example of watch hands done right: the Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.00.

Ariel, I agree with you 100% as far as the pint-sized hands go. Watches with hands that are too short for their dials are one of my cardinal design peeves, with the 2010 Rolex Explorer (214270) being one of the most recent high-profile culprits. While the Explorer's hands are nowhere as bad as the Alpina you lambasted, they're short enough to have turned people back to the discontinued 114270, myself included. My (admittedly stringent) readability rules when it comes to watch hands: the minute hand must extend far enough to overlap with the dial's minute markers, but not so far as to touch the second markers (presuming the dial has them). If there are second markers, a central second hand must extend far enough to overlap with them. Finally, the hour hand must be short, wide, or different in shape enough to readily distinguish it from the minute hand. A classic example of watch hands done right: the Omega Speedmaster Professional 3570.00.

Weren't the Swiss big on form follows function? Looks like you need to hold up a straight edge to make sure you get someone's pulse right - doesn't a watch have to follow the Hippocratic oath and do no harm? I have a new term for this design idea - T-Rex Hands.

Love the crown, but where are the chrono pushers?
umeone is trying you on about the hands Ariel, so I'll leave that alone - I do hope it is a prank, because its actually a very attractive piece, but I also hope they brushed the pushers out of the photo as well.

Love the crown, but where are the chrono pushers? umeone is trying you on about the hands Ariel, so I'll leave that alone - I do hope it is a prank, because its actually a very attractive piece, but I also hope they brushed the pushers out of the photo as well.

In the Art World there are numerous Art Critics but they are basically in two camps; those who love Art and those that love to hate Art.
The first type, such as Andrew Graham-Dixon convey enthusiasm, erudition and insight to both classical and contemporary Art. By having a deep understanding of both visual and written language, he makes a substantial contribution to our cultural life.
The second type, such as Brian Sewell is very keen on Classical and Renaissance Art and is a proponent of ‘the aesthetic constant’ i.e. classical proportions are, and always will be, beautiful. As such, he is not keen on any Art made after 1650 but is keen on writing about contemporary Art.
He sets about this task with a kind of imperious glee and rants against what he sees as any effrontery to his aesthetic. Of course, there is an appetite for this rejection of contemporary work, which is often challenging and misunderstood. Personally, I am dubious if this approach contributes much other than to confirm parochial prejudices.

In the Art World there are numerous Art Critics but they are basically in two camps; those who love Art and those that love to hate Art. The first type, such as Andrew Graham-Dixon convey enthusiasm, erudition and insight to both classical and contemporary Art. By having a deep understanding of both visual and written language, he makes a substantial contribution to our cultural life. The second type, such as Brian Sewell is very keen on Classical and Renaissance Art and is a proponent of ‘the aesthetic constant’ i.e. classical proportions are, and always will be, beautiful. As such, he is not keen on any Art made after 1650 but is keen on writing about contemporary Art. He sets about this task with a kind of imperious glee and rants against what he sees as any effrontery to his aesthetic. Of course, there is an appetite for this rejection of contemporary work, which is often challenging and misunderstood. Personally, I am dubious if this approach contributes much other than to confirm parochial prejudices.

Who do you think you are to criticize that way?! Whether you like the hands or not you are absolutely not entiteled to talk about the work of Alpina in such a bad way. Call yourself a "trusted independent watch media"... do you really think the brands will confide in you after this.... ? Expressing your opinion is great. That way not.

I agree, it's repulsive.

Lilliputian hands are not to be desired! It's practically impossible to tell the time accurately on this watch, unless it's 12. This watch sucks (and I like other Alpinas). Ariel is right.

:) temper ,temper Ariel

How about tooth pics and duct tape ?

:) temper ,temper Ariel How about tooth pics and duct tape ?

WOW, that is truly horrific. What were they thinking?!

Despite the hopes that this is fake, I would assume not. The reasoning might be that they came to a firm conclusion on how the dial should look. With that in mind they looked at hands as a after thought. Possibly if they used hands from the previous aviators, the hour hand would come and meet the dial numerals. Possibly inhibiting the readability of the watch (not like it's good in it's current state). The hands work when considering the hour markers. However, the seconds hand would have to be longer to function with pulsograph. It could have been a nice watch.

I think the hidden pushers are the more interesting feature here...even more hidden than the JLC Amvox 2!

Who are we kidding? ...Really, it does look to be a terrible mock-up. If you're trying to trick the FC / Alpina group into sponsoring a watch giveaway to restore their reputation...well I think that would be am excellent idea for both parties.

I think the hidden pushers are the more interesting feature here...even more hidden than the JLC Amvox 2! Who are we kidding? ...Really, it does look to be a terrible mock-up. If you're trying to trick the FC / Alpina group into sponsoring a watch giveaway to restore their reputation...well I think that would be am excellent idea for both parties.

that dial is from a PP. the 5170J.

you can spoof an email address; if they really wanted to; Nothing on Alpina's Facebook page or their news release section on their website.

Dunno.
They state that there are four pieces in the collection, and NONE look like that, is this a "fifth piece"?

Further that complication, pulsation is NOT a traditional Pilot's complication/dial.
That would make it a "Doctor's watch".

you can spoof an email address; if they really wanted to; Nothing on Alpina's Facebook page or their news release section on their website. Dunno. They state that there are four pieces in the collection, and NONE look like that, is this a "fifth piece"? Further that complication, pulsation is NOT a traditional Pilot's complication/dial. That would make it a "Doctor's watch".

Are we sure this is a real watch?

I have read lots of reviews on this site targeting small hands on watches. I was not always (but sometimes) in agreement that the hands were as bad as you suggested.

But.

This review is spot on!

This watch must be a joke being played on you Ariel...

I have read lots of reviews on this site targeting small hands on watches. I was not always (but sometimes) in agreement that the hands were as bad as you suggested. But. This review is spot on! This watch must be a joke being played on you Ariel...

Haha, I love your passion, Ariel. It's so refreshing to see someone take a watch/watch manufacturer to task for their missteps, as the tendency for most people who review watches is to be as diplomatic as possible.

Haha, I love your passion, Ariel. It's so refreshing to see someone take a watch/watch manufacturer to task for their missteps, as the tendency for most people who review watches is to be as diplomatic as possible.

Everyday I find myself agreeing with you more and more on the small hands issue. I do however like the dial itself. What's your stand on no hands by the way?

It's a lovely watch. Hands, you say? What hands? Where are they? Ariel is quite right though - it's completely obvious that the hands are far smaller than anyone would expect. This is why I am leaning towards thinking this is a joke. As for those "arm-reduction" photos... why? They look like victims of thalidomide.

It's a lovely watch. Hands, you say? What hands? Where are they? Ariel is quite right though - it's completely obvious that the hands are far smaller than anyone would expect. This is why I am leaning towards thinking this is a joke. As for those "arm-reduction" photos... why? They look like victims of thalidomide.