Thanks for sharing the video! It is interesting to note that in this video 778 with modern hands. Also, it's nice to see PAM113 and PAM778 in the same frame, which means that both models were made anyway (maybe even 660 too, but they didn't change anything for it except for the hands). Also, anyone can notice that a quick measurement showed a difference in thickness of almost 1 mm, although I think this difference is due to the applied caseback + perhaps not a similar hit of the ends on the crystal.
In any case, all the shortcomings of the PAM778 as a whole are described, and the caseback is a failure for all options, be it 113, 778 or 660.
I think the issue of the texture of the dial and fonts will be the last point of control, after which it will be possible to draw final conclusions.
In any case, all the shortcomings of the PAM778 as a whole are described, and the caseback is a failure for all options, be it 113, 778 or 660.
I think the issue of the texture of the dial and fonts will be the last point of control, after which it will be possible to draw final conclusions.