New Larger JUC!
- Thread starter jwlrylover333
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Good point. I did not have a scale obviously but both are not way too much off each other. If the 33 g are correct I would guess 30 to 35 g or the like. In my view 59 g definitely cannot be true .... not sure if I can be THAT wrong.
The 59 g could be the large one?
Thats sucks that it’s hollow, I was looking to pick one up when my size came back in stock but idk how I feel about it being hollow. I like my gold prices to be solid.
@scheurin It’s actually 52g according to this post. Sorry about the 59g.
Did the SA say the new size is hollow or do you assume based on how it felt?
The XL is even heavier if that spec sheet is correct.
Uhhh, cannot remember if either I read it somewhere o my SA told me. I think it was the latter in Paris.
It is likely that the new medium follows the original large/XL models and have some portions hollow. The nail head of the XL is distinctively hollowed-out that you can even keep something tiny in that "compartment" (the locking mechanism of that bracelet is totally different from the classic/ new medium where by the bottom section of the nail head separates, with the nail body).
If we guess-timate based what we all know about the bracelets so far (assuming the final production did not deviate from the leaked spec sheet from DiamondsinDubai), the difference between the two classic and medium styles (YG, no diamonds) is around 1.57x across the width, weight, price:
classic 3.5mm width vs medium 5.5mm width = about 1.571x
classic 33g weight vs medium 52g weight = about 1.575x
classic US$7,500 vs medium US$11,700 = about 1.56x
If we guess-timate based what we all know about the bracelets so far (assuming the final production did not deviate from the leaked spec sheet from DiamondsinDubai), the difference between the two classic and medium styles (YG, no diamonds) is around 1.57x across the width, weight, price:
classic 3.5mm width vs medium 5.5mm width = about 1.571x
classic 33g weight vs medium 52g weight = about 1.575x
classic US$7,500 vs medium US$11,700 = about 1.56x
Okay, thank you. Good work. Let's go on from there - even if I doubt the masses.
The width is 1.6 times greater so the VOLUME is 2.5 times more. I assume here that the medium circumference of the two (which size you are talking about btw?) is identical. Unless they are using a new magic Gold which is 1.6 times lighter
with your numbers it has to be a tube. 
p.s. we can even go further calculating that the hole is a bit larger than the classic JUC is in size
The width is 1.6 times greater so the VOLUME is 2.5 times more. I assume here that the medium circumference of the two (which size you are talking about btw?) is identical. Unless they are using a new magic Gold which is 1.6 times lighter
with your numbers it has to be a tube. p.s. we can even go further calculating that the hole is a bit larger than the classic JUC is in size
Last edited:
Okay, thank you. Good work. Let's go on from there - even if I doubt the masses.
The width is 1.6 times greater so the VOLUME is 2.5 times more. I assume here that the medium circumference of the two (which size you are talking about btw?) is identical. Unless they are using a new magic Gold which is 1.6 times lighter
p.s. we can even go further calculating that the hole is a bit larger than the classic JUC is in size
Not sure on the sizing unless someone from Cartier is able to provide the reference on the spec sheet on how 52g is derived.
I apologise if my post had meant that I disagreed with you. I agree with you totally; it would be hollow by design. It is not possible for the volume to be 1.57x if the width increases by the same amount. At least they kept the price in a similar ratio based on width/weight difference and not volume
Here's a photo of the XL's closure mechanism (source auction link, which also listed the XL's weight as 87g)
Finally we see a REAL LIFE mod shot.
I love it! Not my style however I can't deny it gives a different vibe from JUC regular and in WG, I'm wowed.
Didn't I post mine last week? w/ and w/o diamonds. Damn I think I'm getting old
Was nice but wasn't impressed either
Was nice but wasn't impressed either
I can't help but feel that this was a bad move on their part. People are either into stacking these days or toning it down due to the current climate of our world. Having said that, I still think a solid gold JUC bracelet between the SM size and the regular size would be the best option.
Agreed and well said. The new size just can't do it ... for me and others I talked with. Yes, the classic is a bit too large - not even to speak about the new one - and the small tube is too tiny / flimsy / eclipsed.