Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 vs Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002

In-Depth Comparison

The Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 and the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 represent two compelling options in the luxury watch market. Both timepieces have earned devoted followings among collectors and enthusiasts, but they approach horology from distinctly different perspectives. Let's break down how these two watches compare across the key dimensions that matter most to buyers.

Heritage And Brand Prestige

Chopard and Chopard is a brand that needs no introduction. Comparing two models from the same manufacturer comes down to purpose, design philosophy, and intended use case. Both watches hail from Switzerland, benefiting from the region's deep horological tradition. This particular L.U.C reference was introduced in 2015, while this L.U.C reference debuted in 2019. The Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 is the newer release, potentially featuring more modern technology and finishing.

Movement And Mechanics

At the heart of the Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 beats the Chopard L.U.C 96.13-L caliber offering a 65-hour power reserve running at 28,800 vph with 35 jewels. The Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 is powered by the Chopard L.U.C 96.01-L with a 65-hour power reserve operating at 28,800 vph featuring 29 jewels. Both watches offer identical power reserves, making them equally practical for daily rotation.

Dimensions And Wearability

The Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 features a 43.0mm case at 12.2mm thick with a 50.0mm lug-to-lug measurement, crafted in 18k Rose Gold. The Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 comes in at 40.0mm and 7.7mm thick with 47.0mm lug-to-lug, constructed from Stainless Steel. The Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 wears more compactly on the wrist, making it potentially more suitable for smaller wrists or those who prefer understated proportions. At 52g, the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 is the lighter of the two.

Materials And Construction

The Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 uses a Sapphire with anti-reflective coating crystal paired with a Fixed, polished bezel, while the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 features Sapphire with anti-reflective coating crystal with a Fixed, polished bezel. On the wrist, the Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 comes on a Brown alligator leather strap with 18k rose gold folding clasp, while the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 is fitted with Blue alligator leather strap featuring Stainless steel pin buckle.

Water Resistance And Capability

The Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 is rated to 30m / 98ft and the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 to 30m / 98ft. Both watches share the same water resistance rating, making them equally suited for aquatic activities.

Pricing And Value

At retail, the Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 lists for $62,800 compared to $9,950 for the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002. The Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 is the more accessible option at MSRP, saving $52,850 at retail. On the secondary market, the Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 trades around $48,000 while the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 commands approximately $7,500.

The Verdict

Choosing between the Chopard L.U.C Perpetual Calendar 168523-3001 and the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 ultimately comes down to personal priorities. For value-conscious buyers, the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 delivers excellent quality at a lower price point. for dress occasions and smaller wrists, the Chopard L.U.C XPS 1860 Steel 168583-3002 is more versatile. Both watches are exceptional timepieces that will serve their owner well for generations. We recommend trying both on the wrist at an authorized dealer before making your final decision, as comfort and emotional connection are ultimately just as important as specifications.