88 of 92 people found the following review helpful
Old versus New Model,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Invicta Men's 9211 "Speedway Collection" Stainless Steel Watch (Watch)
You probably read that some models do not have tachymeter function, while others have. After reading the reviews and doing research on the web, here how to differentiate between the old vs new version of 9211. I believe it is correct, but not guaranteed.
The old version of 9211 uses Miyota OS20 movement. This is the movement with true tachymeter function. The large second hand is used only for chronograph function. The small second subdial at 6 o'clock is used for counting seconds. You can tell the difference on the dial. The subdials are closer together. There are room for small index at 3, 6, 9 o'clock, just outside the subdials. The stock photo used by Amazon is a photo of the old version.
The new version of 9211 uses a different movement. As far as I can tell, it does not match any of the Miyota movement. It is very similar to JS20, except JS20 has 30 minute total counter while 9211 has 60 minutes. The large second hand is used for normal second counting. The subdial at 6 o'clock is used for timing. The tachymeter is not usable. So this really defeats the purpose of the 9211 bevel design. With this new movement, the subdials are further apart and are closer to the dial's edges. There are no room between the subdial and the dial's corner. So there are no index at 3, 6, 9 o'clock.
If you look on eBay where the actual watch photos are posted, you can differentiate between the 2 types. Look to see whether small index (indices) exist at 3, 6, or 9 o'clock positions. Old 9211 model with tachymeter function has these indices. New 9211 model does not have these indices.
Miyota OS20 is a very common movement used in chronographs. You can search for videos on this movement. When you reset the chronograph after using it, the second hand will flyback to the 12 o'clock zero position in 1 rotation. On the new 9211, the second and minute hands will wind backwards (at a high speed) to the zero position. It is not just single rotation, it will rotate as many turns as the timer was used. So if you had the timer running for 10 minutes (10 rotations), it will take couple minutes for the timer to wind around and around and around (10 turns in high speed) back to zero. It is pretty weird and interesting to watch, but really defeats the use of timer feature.
I purchase 9211 from Amazon in Nov 2010. I was hoping I would get lucky and get the old version. No such luck. I didn't keep the watch as I wanted the chronograph/tachymeter function, which is how the watch was designed originally.
Here is my take of the watch. The watch is decent, but you get what you pay for. Invicta cut some corners with this watch, as you can tell by the actual sale price. Where did they cut corners? (1) Movement. Described above. (2) It does not have solid end links. The last link, where the bracelet is connected to the lugs by pins, is made of rolled metal piece, rather than solid piece. (3) The buckle or clasp is thin. (4) The crown is really flimsy. On other watch with screw down feature, I can feel the screw down engage. On the 9211, it is spongy and I cannot feel the screw down engage at all. I suspect this can easily cause cross threading. Or maybe the unit I got was already cross threaded.
On the positive, the watch case and bracelet links are solid. The watch and bracelet weigh 155g. Solid and hefty.
Also, the watch size can be a bit small for some. This really on your preference. But I will provide the detailed measurements here. The case measures 39.5mm without the crown; this is not large by today's standard. With crown, it measures 42.5mm. And because the watch has wide bezel taken up by tachymeter marking, the crystal and dial only measures 30.5mm in diameter. Because of the small crystal/dial size, 9211 appears smaller than it's almost 40mm case would suggest.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 25, 2011 10:01:28 PM PDT
Thanks for a well written expose on the watch!
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 29, 2011 6:54:50 PM PST
Anthony J. Tarquinio says:
Sir, I do have one question. The Item description indicates model#9211.
However, on the caseback, it clearly is shown as model# 9212.
I wonder if this matters.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›