Patek Philippe 'Sports/Dive' watches - who REALLY loves these models...
...and who thinks that they are an inelegant, clumsy, marketing exercise to extract funds from wealthy individuals who like the idea of owning a PP but can't stand their dress watches?
Is it a case of 'Emperors new clothes' with these models? I have to admit I think they are just plain ugly and wouldn't own one even if I had the funds - but perhaps I'm in a minority?
I am pretty happy with both my Nautilus and Aquanaut. My Calatrava isn't too bad either.
I enjoy a dress watch. Just not enough to wear one 24 hours a day. I also lead a reasonably active life like many here, hence, I imagine, the popularity of sports watches generally.
It might be worth remembering g that the majority of watch owners wouldn't know what WIS stood for, never mind identify as one. We here obsess over minute details, history, movements, things like that. Most buyers see an advert that they like, or go into a jewellers and say, 'I've got £XXXX to spend, what have you got?'
A Nautilus makes sense then, don't get your knickers in a twist! One watch to do everything. Wasn't that once the tag line for Rolex Sub? The watch you'd wear digging in the garden in the morning, to the pool in the afternoon, and out in the evening.
The Nautilus has a heritage going back to the 70's - okay it's a Gerald Genta heritage but none the less it's a lineage going back further than most brands.
As for the style it's a subjective thing.
Have you tried one on? You can never really tell if you like a watch till you've seen it in person. I liked the Aquanaut.
I'm not a fan of the Aquanaut but love the Nautilus. There's nothing else like it!
I'm glad PP make them to give owners some daily choices.
I don't think they do anything better than a lot of watches many times cheaper... but the same could be said for Omega and Rolex. The PP5711 is a distinctive watch with a beautiful dial, even if the thick bezel and 'ears' are a little clunky. I'd buy one, if I had the disposable income. The Aquanaut is somewhat more...utilitarian. I can see the appeal, but I'm not sure what it does that say, a Railmaster, does not.Originally Posted by The Hack
The Austin Allegro is a child of the 1970s too.
I had a look at some Pateks and Grand Seikos yesterday and came away wanting a couple of the Grand Seikos but with my overall opinion of Pateks still being the same; they're beautifully made but for me that's it, I can't see a single current design I'd want to wear, sports or dress. The Grand Seikos on the other hand...
There's no shortage of people looking at the Nautilus for the first time and saying 'I don't get it / I don't like it', or I've also heard 'doesn't it look a bit 70s / a bit dated'. But it's a watch that needs to be seen in context. You need to read up on the history, see where Genta's 70s luxury sports watches fit in, compare with the Royal Oak and Ingenieur Jumbo and so on... You can't look at it in the same way as a new design that's just being launched, it's a legend and a symbol as well as a watch. Personally I like it, but I like 70s Genta in general, and it has pleasantly 70s jet set connotations for me. I must admit I don't feel the same way about the Aquanaut though.
Your reaction to aesthetics are completely down to personal taste. What I like about the Aquanaut and the Nautilus (aside from the quality) is that they're unlike anything else, and there are few other watches you can say that about.
Emperors new clothes? Well at the risk of opening up a wider debate, you can probably level the same criticism against anything that costs over £100 if you've a mind too.
Same with the Allegro, which was designed by Sir Alec Issigonis, designer of the Mini, and styled by Harris Mann, who worked on the Escort and Marina and designed the TR7, Metro and Maestro. There are a lot of people who don't like the Allegro, or treat it as the butt of jokes but the car needs to be seen in context. You should perhaps take some time to read about it's history, its context within Leyland and car design of its time and compare it with the much more successful Golf. You can't look at it in the same was as a new design thats just been launched, it's a legend no matter how bloody ugly it looks!
Fortunately with the Allegro it costs a pittance to get yourself in the driving seat of a brown with beige interior or beige with brown interior example. For some strange reason there are a lot more people willing to spend a lot more money on a Patek.
I often stop at a jewellers window in Tunbridge Wells and have a look at their current PP offerings. As its Christmas Ive noticed a few more Diamond Encrusted versions. They have a few quartz PPs at the moment and I noticed than None hit the minute markers with the seconds hand!!!
Each to their own. I'm wearing my 5712 now and love it.
For me, its one of the most comfy watches to wear, build quality is what you would expect and I know that if it ever needs to go, I wont really loose on it.
Malc
Well, you have a point, though a history within Leyland is a bit less convincing than a history within PP!
In all seriousness though, our perception of a watch is always coloured by what we know about it, as well as how it looks. The way we see gold and diamonds is absolutely coloured by knowing their value. And we accept that a rare vintage watch is worth more than a ubiquitous one, sometimes to the extent that a battered old watch starts to take on an aura of fabulousness.
It's perfectly reasonable to look at the Nautilus and say 'I just don't like the look of it', which is to be honest my reaction to the Aquanaut. But it's not the whole story. It can look a bit challenging and have a bit of an aura at the same time. We can deduce that the insides will be a bit special, and to understand the watch you have know where it fits in as a symbol as well as a design. You could certainly say that the emperor has no clothes if you happen to hate it, but at the same time to dismiss an iconic design, that's been intentionally preserved, on the grounds that it looks dated might be slightly missing the point.
Cynical marketing ploy? That applies to every luxury brand. If it didn't work so damn well they wouldn't do it. That said - I love the nautilus - sadly I will never have the funds to own one
My watches mostly fall between the years 1968 and 1977, which for me was the best period of watch design for decades either way. The automatic chronograph, electronic, quartz and digital watches all came out and both space and ocean exploration influenced watch design and technology. I'm wearing my Omega Marine Chronometer today, a great piece of technology but a particularly ugly watch, one I suspect no one would ever try to mug me for. A lot of people don't like it but I'm never going to try to persuade them otherwise, or tell them the should wear it because of its great history, tradition and importance to the watch world. I'm not knocking the design because it's dated, I'm knocking it because it's ugly, very much like the Allegro. As I've said many times before, the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same things. I just can't help feel too many people find items desirable because everyone else says they are, not because they're actually attractive.
I can't disagree with you really. The Royal Oak is attractive. The Nautilus is attractive by association. It's more of an amazing object than something immediately beautiful, but as with your Marine Chronometer, that can work. Some of them I really do like the look of though - this one for instance (picture borrowed from who knows where):
Last edited by Itsguy; 2nd December 2014 at 11:09.
"Patek Philippe 'Sports/Dive' watches - who REALLY loves these models"
Me.
You know, there's no denying they're beautifully made and the detailing is fantastic, it's just like with JLC, I wish they'd make some watches I actually liked. I think Grand Seiko interests me because they make some really lovely watches (they also make some real horrors) that were they to have "Patek Philippe" or "JLC" on the dial I'd actually be seriously interested in buying one. As it is I'm now thinking seriously about a GS. Perhaps it's also because a Seiko is the direct opposite end of the brand name scale from PP and as with the Marine Chronometer I like a watch that flies under the radar.I can't disagree with you really. The Royal Oak is attractive. The Nautilus is attractive by association. It's more of an amazing object than something immediately beautiful, but as with your Marine Chronometer, that can work. Some of them I really do like the look of though - this one for instance (picture borrowed from who knows where):
I'm with you on that one. It really is worth trying to track down the GS and try them first though, as it's very hard to tell from the pictures which one you will really end up liking. Tricky since many of the more interesting ones are JDM and hard to find, but worth it.
With all due respect, Simon, you wear watches that I dare say the majority of punters would regard as ugly, yet consistently throw that accusation at other watches that are commonly regarded as some of the most beautiful around. We get it - you like large, old, clunky watches - but please stop putting down everything that doesn't fit that mould.
Honestly if the above were available, and the genuine wasn't the WIS community would say it's ugly.
They'd say:
It hasn't dated well, like a moustache and flares, it's stuck in the 70s.
The angles on the bezel, are they supposed to be curved or faceted, they're neither.
What's with the weird skew on the minute numbers, and why are the minute markers straight angles and the hands rounded.
Who decided that the date should fill every mm of it's aperture, and plain black print on white, boring.
And that sub dial, what the hell is going on there.
BUT, when the Patek logo is on the dial everyone swoons, oh isn't it beautiful.
No doubt it's a fine piece of engineering and craftsmanship but I can't honestly say it's a looker, not by a long shot.
I've been wearing my Speedy 321 all week and am usually found in Heuer Autavias or Montreals, Omega 1000M or Big Blue or rather challenging Marine Chronometer or ChronoQuartz. I'm not convinced they're considered ugly (well, the MC and OQ are) but you may be right. My point is that there's a difference between watches people find desirable and watches that are actually good looking. I'm not that interested in other people's opinion of my watches, there are a few people out there though who actively want other people's approval and look for it in their choice of watch, confusing something they want other people to see they own with something that's actually good looking.
I really like the white dial 5711, but am not keen on any other version, or the aquanaut, but I will get the 5711 if I ever find one.
I dont think those watches are particularly good looking at all. i appreciate that they are considered great watches but i really dont find them great looking. it matters not though i suppose as i would never be in the market for such an expensive watch.
if i was a much wealthier man, id look at VC and AP first whose watches i actually really like the look of.
No watch is actually ugly, that's down to taste. A watch is just an inanimate thing.That's the beauty of this interest, there's something for every taste. Now then, screw heads in non-circular bezels...........
F.T.F.A.
I'm not the biggest fan if i'm honest, granted some of this will come across as ravings of someone who's been a royal oak fan since the early 80s. (no accounting for taste ha ha)
Aesthetically the overall case design grates on my sensibilities, probably down to the fact i do a lot of 3D work, and it looks like a bad attempt at a low poly rounded rectangle.
The fit & finish is lovely and not something i can fault, but its the design that looks like it hasn't evolved in any way since the 70s. Granted on this point evolution can be a bad thing if we look at AP, where the original oak is a thing of beauty hit with the ugly stick to create some of the past/current ROO offerings.
And of course there's the small nit picky things... like, the Jumbo's, date wheel is shifted far to close to the edge of the dial and ruins the loveliness of the dial finish, lack of a second hand on some models, forcing round dial elements onto a semi-rounded rectangle dial, and so on.
Aquanaut is not my cup of tea either, not too keen on the dials, Timex looking numbers, rubber strap (looks better on a G10 :p) or the smallish case. Which is unfortunate as i tried on a Travel Time, and really loved how the watch functioned, and i really wanted to love it overall but found it hard to get past the way it looked on my wrist.
Of course there are always exceptions,
I really like the 5990 with the pushers integrated into the left hand side of the case, and overall symmetry of dial design that matches the case better than any previous designs, despite being quite busy looking.
Once you go beyond the cheap and very accurate quartz, without exception all other watches are purely down to what floats your boat and if you can afford it. Whether it's value for money or not is irrelevant.
Agreed.
The distinction between being beautiful and being desirable made earlier is a good one. Beauty is not the exact quality that attracts us to many watches - we like them because they are cool, or sexy, or well engineered, or functional, or many other things. Given that a great many of us here are men, we are not all trying to look 'beautiful' wearing our watches. Sometimes it's strength, a certain kind of 'ugly beautiful' that the Jumbo Ingenieur also did well, that we're after.
The Nautilus projects desirability and sophistication, not simply beauty. The 'ears' make it instantly recognisable, which has helped to turn it into an icon and a symbol. The fact that it still looks 70s is part of the point of it, it would fail as an icon and a symbol if it was changed too much. Arguably the Royal Oak and Ingenieur have been 'evolved' far too much, and many crave something closer to the original.
Last edited by Itsguy; 2nd December 2014 at 13:03.
I like the Nautilus, but I certainly don't regard them as sport/dive watches? They are more 'dressy' than that, and for me are the pick of the PP range.
I went to a PP event recently, they had dozens of them on display (mostly non working display versions). I confess I don't really understand some of them, particularly the perpetual calendars. Are these complications for complications sake? To get any benefit from these would mean wearing them every day. I wonder who does?
Personally, I don't think Patek's designs are keeping pace with the pricing; their current range doesn't include anything particularly compelling.
But they benefit from a perception of infallibility, so the done thing is to pretend to like them anyway, in order to avoid being considered oafish by other watch nerds.
Perhaps the incestuous relationship between the manufacturers, the auction houses and the commercialized forums/sites/blogs has an influence on this state of affairs.
I have always thought they were very ugly. Do nothing for me at all...
With PP, I like the idea that you'd only ever need one watch for life. (Us lot with only one watch.......... yeah right)
But they are the only manufacturer that guarantee they can service / repair any watch they have ever produced no matter the age.
As to the Nautilus, with it's 70's design and sticky out funny looking ears, too thin, too light I prefer a VC Overseas or APRO, I wasn't so keen, until my dad wanted one, well........... after buying it for him, examining it, trying it on, I really didn't want to hand it over.
I used to have a similar problem (would still do, but you rarely see them) with Nissan Primeras. They had this slight seam running down the middle that made it look like the guy that knocked up the model to be sent over to production made one side, mirrored it and forgot to merge the points down the centre! That would grate on me like crazy.
The only thing that makes you look oafish is not being able to consider that many people simply >do< like them :)
Obviously some do like them, and I have no problem with that.
Regrets if you got the wrong impression; I'm strictly stating my personal opinion of their post-Sandrine-Stern-as-design-director production.
I love the simplest Nautilus. 5711 with Black/Blue dial would be at the top of my list if funds allowed.
That's true!
...beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder, albeit influenced by the name on the dial. :)
No watch is actually ugly, that's down to taste. A watch is just an inanimate thing.That's the beauty of this interest, there's something for every taste. Now then, screw heads in non-circular bezels...........
Same here, I've got the white gold version and to my mind it's almost the perfect watch. Each to their own though, I can understand why people don't like it, but iconic items do tend to divide opinion.
Love the heritage,quality ....just don't actually like the watches very much...I'd choose JLC or VC every time
suppose i may "get"it all one day...
I really like the 5711, 5712 and 5167. I forgot the question, but I cannot recognize the dislikes.
Love mine!
I don't really like the normal Aquanaut, however i love the travel time variant of that model. My Favourite PP sports model is the 5980 thats for sure :)
I like them. I love the classic blue dial 5711, and also the new 5990.
+1
Black DLC coated 5711 anyone? Only 23k euros.
http://www.chrono24.nl/patekphilippe...ch%2Findex.htm
Apologies to Eddie for posting a sales post, but I was intrigued to see what the committee would make of this little number?
This really wouldn't be like anything else?
Looks like they got LTF to take the photo too... :)
Looks a big tacky to me...
...like something out of an 80's Argos catalogue. :)
I totally agree with your 2nd paragraph, the whole idea is to keep the tradition going, of its original design and not to change anything, though, one thing that was changed (I stand to be corrected) was the movement.
Originally, I guess that it was the 315 movement fitted in comparison to the 324 that is installed today, so though no outwardly changes have taken place, one very large one has underneath. Now that could open another completely different debate, was the much slower 315 better or worse then the faster 324????
Personally, when I first started looking at Patek, I couldn't see what all the hype was surrounding the Nautilus range, in fact I thought that they looked ugly and was overpriced.
Now many years down the line and after several changes in my thoughts, I appreciate more this model.
Of course spending hours reading and listening to others views, have naturally assisted me in coming to this conclusion.
I am struggling to understand why anyone could call any sort of PP a sports watch , even if it had a tiny George Best enamelled on the dial.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I find this post to be potentially summing the whole thing up. I wonder how many current PP aquanaut/nautilus wearers would warm to the Fossil aquanaut/nautilus if the former had never existed...
BUT, when the Patek logo is on the dial everyone swoons, oh isn't it beautiful.
No doubt it's a fine piece of engineering and craftsmanship but I can't honestly say it's a looker, not by a long shot.
... Im guessing, due to the branding, it wouldn't even be on the radar and, if it was, it would (sadly) be dismissed as poorly-designed tat to be worn by the common herd...
Im obviously talking looks alone here - I think we're all aware of the quality levels of a PP...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
