Does amyone else find the Patek Philippe 'sports' watches really ugly?

[Macca]

They are stunning! Congratulations on the collection

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-X50F using Tapatalk

[JP Chestnut]

Euh, you are forgetting
1. that half the world population is female and VERY few of those would care for a watch less accurate than that.
2. that the vast majority of watches has a qco with that accuracy
3. how many of the F91-W family Casio sells for no worries accurate time without need to reset
4. that it is the minimum standard since the early seventies



Almost. 'Watches' between brackets and we are on the same page.

Now there are also luxury watches; as in luxury statements AND accurate but those are uncommon unlike during the seventies, early eighties. Hayek and Biver truly pulled off a master marketing trick.

The old Stern btw was one of the keenest pushers of quartz oscilator development. He was a true horologist; striving for the most accurate technology: Patek were the world leader at one time but when his son took over the development was abandoned. He concentrated on the way more profitable ljewelry 'watches' and after mounting their crop of the Beta21s in men's watches, they only produced some small calibers for ladies' watches.
So the only luxury men's watches with the PP brand one can buy are those seventies Beta21s.

Imo the distinction is something WISdom dearly needs. Your remark about the accuracy illustrates that understanding of horologic technology is just about down the drain nowadays. The 'I' has just about eliminated the 'S'.

An inaccurate watch is still a watch. It's just an inaccurate one. Does your +/-.5 second per day Watch become a "Watch" when its deviation drifts to +/-.55 second per day? Utter nonsense.

[Macca]

Wow some people really do get a bee in ones bonnet sometimes on here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Omegamanic]

Or a whole hive ;)

[MFB Scotland]

A couple of weeks ago a forum member let me try on two PP. Got to say they were the best watches I have ever tried on. Don't think I will be ever in a position to own one but really really impressed by the fit, finish and style.

[RAJEN]

Or a whole hive ;)

Ha!!

[wolf]

I like my 5711. It's an effortless watch to wear (if that makes any sense) in the way that the DSSD, for instance, can be hard work.

However, with Nautilus models (and I feel the same with AP RO), the 'busier' the face the less I like the look of them.

I understand why WIS and horologists can enjoy the concept of complications. But personally neither the engineering nor the functions nor the looks holds any fascination for me.

However, whilst I sort of understand how someone could find the complication packed busy dials of some of the nautili etc a bit "ugly" (like an over-made up face, possibly) I don't know how anyone can find the "vanilla" version of the Genta designs (PP or AP) to be anything other than beautiful.

It's not really a 'sports' watch tho' is it?

[lawler]

At first I did but the more I see then the more I am pulled in....

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[aksing]

Very few (nobody??) needs a moonphase or a power reserve display on their (automatic re: power reserve) watch. They are fun features and make the dial interesting but that's about it. So if you're so and so on the looks, given the price differential the 5711 is the more sensible choice. This is not a sensible hobby however...

If you sell the 5711 now you could almost buy a 5711/1r anyway.

I'd take a 5712, 5164 over a D500 for sure, but a WG with panda dial would probably be first choice.

[W124]

I had the pleasure to purchase this little beauty from SC a few weeks ago



I love it - the size and weight on the bracelet are spot-on.

The 5726 has not featured significantly during this thread.

To me, the 'form-follows-function' of the annual calendar is beautifully executed.

Ugly - not to my eyes !

[Huertecilla]

I understand why WIS and horologists can enjoy the concept of complications. But personally neither the engineering nor the functions nor the looks holds any fascination for me.

Nor is the level of performance in the same order of accuracy as can be expected of a 10 Euro piece of plastic. This clearly illustrates that these 'watches' are such no longer; they are not keeping accurate time.
For those who don't GET this: have a look at the marketing campaign Hayek and Biver came up with in 1983. The inventors of the mechanical fashion said so themselves! That the mechanical luxury watches are not about keeping accurate time but that they have added value in heritage, history and craftsmanship. Note the absence of horological engineering.

There is a while lot to appreciate about them. Some even are very good vfm but please do not mention the time keeping aspect; that is not up to snuff; an anachronism. I personally love that aspect as a sort of anti modern statement and wear vintage pieces with a story to that point. Watches as in the sense of accurate clocks on the wrist they are however not. Not by the standards of the seventies of the last century! Even Rolex developed a qco watch!! Which was btw also the best they ever produced. Hence the reinvention by Hayek & Biver. And boy have they had success.

[stefmcd]

This thread has actually tipped me over into admiring the PPs a bit more. Unlikely to be able to afford one but, on the offchance I have a windfall, I could see a purchase.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[Itsguy]

This thread has actually tipped me over into admiring the PPs a bit more.

Glad to hear it - if the picture above didn't win anyone over, there's probably not much point in discussing it further. As for the one covered in bubble bath... that's verging on the indecent!

[Omegamanic]

Nor is the level of performance in the same order of accuracy as can be expected of a 10 Euro piece of plastic. This clearly illustrates that these 'watches' are such no longer; they are not keeping accurate time.
For those who don't GET this: have a look at the marketing campaign Hayek and Biver came up with in 1983. The inventors of the mechanical fashion said so themselves! That the mechanical luxury watches are not about keeping accurate time but that they have added value in heritage, history and craftsmanship. Note the absence of horological engineering.

There is a while lot to appreciate about them. Some even are very good vfm but please do not mention the time keeping aspect; that is not up to snuff; an anachronism. I personally love that aspect as a sort of anti modern statement and wear vintage pieces with a story to that point. Watches as in the sense of accurate clocks on the wrist they are however not. Not by the standards of the seventies of the last century! Even Rolex developed a qco watch!! Which was btw also the best they ever produced. Hence the reinvention by Hayek & Biver. And boy have they had success.

Im afraid you are more than missing the point. They are accurate, they are exceptionally accurate, and more accurate for their intended uses in almost every situation, in fact up to 99.999% accurate. They are simply not as inherently accurate as a Quartz watch - but they are not Quartz watches.

Its a bit like saying a combustion engine is inferior because it doesn't provide 100% of its power 100% of the time, compared to a electric powered vehicle - they are simply different!

Quartz was a fantastic revelation, and it has its uses in situations that require exceptional time keeping, but for 99.99% of the time, that accuracy is simply irrelevant.

[wolf]

If exact time accuracy was the raison d'être then we'd throw our watches in the bin and use the clock in our mobiles instead.

Don't the mobiles' clocks feed off the atomic clock?

Can't see them replacing watches tho'.

I'll stick with the Patek, ugly and inaccurate though it may be....

[learningtofly]

Nor is the level of performance in the same order of accuracy as can be expected of a 10 Euro piece of plastic. This clearly illustrates that these 'watches' are such no longer; they are not keeping accurate time.
For those who don't GET this: have a look at the marketing campaign Hayek and Biver came up with in 1983. The inventors of the mechanical fashion said so themselves! That the mechanical luxury watches are not about keeping accurate time but that they have added value in heritage, history and craftsmanship. Note the absence of horological engineering.

There is a while lot to appreciate about them. Some even are very good vfm but please do not mention the time keeping aspect; that is not up to snuff; an anachronism. I personally love that aspect as a sort of anti modern statement and wear vintage pieces with a story to that point. Watches as in the sense of accurate clocks on the wrist they are however not. Not by the standards of the seventies of the last century! Even Rolex developed a qco watch!! Which was btw also the best they ever produced. Hence the reinvention by Hayek & Biver. And boy have they had success.

Fortunately, others collectively determine the definition of tolerances and accuracy, not you. Nor are you in a position to dictate to anyone what should or shouldn't be acceptable.

I did laugh at your contention that a mechanical watch isn't actually a watch any longer though. That was very funny

[kultschar]

I had the pleasure to purchase this little beauty from SC a few weeks ago



I love it - the size and weight on the bracelet are spot-on.

The 5726 has not featured significantly during this thread.

To me, the 'form-follows-function' of the annual calendar is beautifully executed.

Ugly - not to my eyes !

I do love this one but wish it had a blue dial, I'm a sucker for blue dials on the Nautilus

[aksing]

I had the pleasure to purchase this little beauty from SC a few weeks ago



I love it - the size and weight on the bracelet are spot-on.

The 5726 has not featured significantly during this thread.

To me, the 'form-follows-function' of the annual calendar is beautifully executed.

Ugly - not to my eyes !

Very nice, congrats, the 5726 doesn't get as much love you're right, still a very nice piece esp on bracelet.

[-Ally-]

That 5726 is so much nicer than the 5712 it has to be said.

[learningtofly]

That 5726 is so much nicer than the 5712 it has to be said.

Yes, personally I think so too. It's one of my favourites although I'd be overjoyed to own either.

[Macca]

The more I look at these the more I'm warming to them and I didn't think I'd ever say that

Sent from my Lenovo YT3-X50F using Tapatalk

[Timelord]

I'm not that keen on the styling of these watches, but I'm well aware of their pedigree and craftsmanship. Therefore, I certainly respect them, but I'm not sure that I would want to own one.

[Mezza]

Definitely not for me. In fact not a fan of most of their watches

[itsgotournameonit]

I'm not that keen on the styling of these watches, but I'm well aware of their pedigree and craftsmanship. Therefore, I certainly respect them, but I'm not sure that I would want to own one.

Good answer and one that I have been searching for since this thread was made.


I cant afford one anyway.

[watchmad]

I have never seen the attraction personally. They are nice looking but don't jump out at me as at all exceptional. And they are way out of my price range I guess they are aimed at the rich and famous who don't mind parting with cash for a name.

[nickyboyo]

The date cut out is too small on all of them I say ;)

[village]

I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to discuss why they don't like any particular watch just because other people own them. There are plenty of 'ooh,that's such a stunning watch blah blah blah' threads so why shouldn't there be the odd thread or comment in opposition? Everybody's taste is different and they should be allowed to express that.
As many people are very quick to point out,you don't have to read or participate in that thread,and certainly not take it personally.

ps personally,although I can appreciate the quality and workmanship of PPs,they generally don't do much for me.

[RAJEN]

I see no reason why people shouldn't be allowed to discuss why they don't like any particular watch just because other people own them. There are plenty of 'ooh,that's such a stunning watch blah blah blah' threads so why shouldn't there be the odd thread or comment in opposition? Everybody's taste is different and they should be allowed to express that.
As many people are very quick to point out,you don't have to read or participate in that thread,and certainly not take it personally.

ps personally,although I can appreciate the quality and workmanship of PPs,they generally don't do much for me.

I agree with most of what you say.
I think the push back was more about the way it was framed and said and the implication that the buyers were like some sheep deluded by marketing and branding and not really the watches.
For me a 5711 is something I just cannot get along with but wouldn't call it ugly or say that those who like it are mugs taken in by what it says on the dial.

[Itsguy]

I agree with most of what you say.
I think the push back was more about the way it was framed and said and the implication that the buyers were like some sheep deluded by marketing and branding and not really the watches.
For me a 5711 is something I just cannot get along with but wouldn't call it ugly or say that those who like it are mugs taken in by what it says on the dial.

Quite right, if someone doesn't like something personally, it's a bit much to insist that no one else possibly could, they must be buying for the name. Just look at the pictures on this thread - surely it's clear the owners like the way they look, not just the brand name.

[hafle]

Yup. I find most of them ugly. And then someone posts a photo from a different angle under different lighting and I think they look brilliant. Like with many things in life, photo's often don't do them justice.

[McNulty]

I cannot interpret these watches as sportive.

As "casual" style watches, they are elegant and nice. Moreover, I like they are, as other Genta creations, very solid as they are steel massive pieces.

Obviously, not for my budget at those prices.

[PatrickJ]

Glad to hear it - if the picture above didn't win anyone over, there's probably not much point in discussing it further. As for the one covered in bubble bath... that's verging on the indecent!

Stunning piece

[aksing]

I agree with most of what you say.
I think the push back was more about the way it was framed and said and the implication that the buyers were like some sheep deluded by marketing and branding and not really the watches.
For me a 5711 is something I just cannot get along with but wouldn't call it ugly or say that those who like it are mugs taken in by what it says on the dial.

Yes, for example I don't really like the look or shape of the RMs but I know a lot of serious WIS are into them and I can appreciate a lot of their innovations and skill, they just don't do it for me on the wrist, but the Nautilus does, esp on a glorious day.

[aksing]

Double

[learningtofly]

I think they're pig ugly.

[kaiserphoenix]

I think they're pig ugly.

I think the white is so damn cool!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skyman]

^^^^I have concluded the white/silver dial of my 5711 is why I prefer that watch to my 5712, whose blue dial can on occasions look a little lack lustre. Beautiful.

[-Ally-]

I would never have a white dial as a daily watch but every collection should have one and if you can afford for it to be a 5711 then lucky you. They are very nice.

[kultschar]

Over the countless threads ive looked at over the last few years here and the Rolex Forum (Patek section). Ive seen the following stated by a few Nautilus owners

5712 is not as blue as the 5711 counterpart. Some people say its the same blue but due to the busy dial less reflective and sometimes gives it more of a grey colour. Others say its simply a diff shade of blue

However I also saw a recent post where one guy says his new 5711 is not as blue as the one he previous flipped therefore Patek are varying the shades etc

Any thoughts from owners here?

[lawnmowerman78]

It certainly wouldn't surprise me for there to be different dials over the life of the 5711, especially given the 3712 had at least two variants and they made less than 1000 of them in total!

More info here if you're interested:

http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...or-Three/page2

All the best,

Paul

[Jdh1]

I've given lie to the advertising slogan having owned (and sold) six Patek sports watches (3 Aquanaut and 3 Nautilus). There's obviously no answer to the ugliness question, since opinions vary, but my problem with them has always been over function rather than form.

We refer to them as sports watches but they're not really - too highly polished, easily scratched and expensive to perform that role for me at least. And yes they can be worn in a more formal/dressy environment, but that's not really what they're made for. And for for me at least, there was always something else more suitable for the job and so they didn't get worn.

The big issue I have with them though, is the straps/bracelets. Buy an Aquanaut and you have to cut the strap to a length - and then you're stuck with it. No chance of a second chance or adjusting it in warm weather. The only alternative is to buy another strap at a cost of £200. The Nautilus is little better. The watch comes with full links and no micro-adjustment to the bracelet. Want a bit more adjustment? Well £175 will get you a 1.5 link, but even that doesn't gives the fine adjustment you get with other brands costing a fraction of the price. I could never get the damned thing quite right, and in any event, right in December isn't right in August. To my mind, it's just arrogance to make no effort in this area. I suppose it's an arrogance that comes from having a huge waiting list!

Having said all that, I wouldn't rule out having another go. But I'm daft like that.

[Neil.C]

I've given lie to the advertising slogan having owned (and sold) six Patek sports watches (3 Aquanaut and 3 Nautilus). There's obviously no answer to the ugliness question, since opinions vary, but my problem with them has always been over function rather than form.

We refer to them as sports watches but they're not really - too highly polished, easily scratched and expensive to perform that role for me at least. And yes they can be worn in a more formal/dressy environment, but that's not really what they're made for. And for for me at least, there was always something else more suitable for the job and so they didn't get worn.

The big issue I have with them though, is the straps/bracelets. Buy an Aquanaut and you have to cut the strap to a length - and then you're stuck with it. No chance of a second chance or adjusting it in warm weather. The only alternative is to buy another strap at a cost of £200. The Nautilus is little better. The watch comes with full links and no micro-adjustment to the bracelet. Want a bit more adjustment? Well £175 will get you a 1.5 link, but even that doesn't gives the fine adjustment you get with other brands costing a fraction of the price. I could never get the damned thing quite right, and in any event, right in December isn't right in August. To my mind, it's just arrogance to make no effort in this area. I suppose it's an arrogance that comes from having a huge waiting list!

Having said all that, I wouldn't rule out having another go. But I'm daft like that.

My thoughts exactly, they are neither fish nor fowl.

Dressy but too fancy for a sports watch in the real sense.

Also, I never consider a sports watch to have a display back.

[Tom-P]

The big issue I have with them though, is the straps/bracelets. Buy an Aquanaut and you have to cut the strap to a length - and then you're stuck with it. No chance of a second chance or adjusting it in warm weather. The only alternative is to buy another strap at a cost of £200. The Nautilus is little better. The watch comes with full links and no micro-adjustment to the bracelet. Want a bit more adjustment? Well £175 will get you a 1.5 link, but even that doesn't gives the fine adjustment you get with other brands costing a fraction of the price. I could never get the damned thing quite right, and in any event, right in December isn't right in August.

Absolutely agree with that - a definite shortcoming.

[Itsguy]

My thoughts exactly, they are neither fish nor fowl.

Dressy but too fancy for a sports watch in the real sense.

Also, I never consider a sports watch to have a display back.

But what is a sports watch 'in the real sense' anyway? Surely just a bracelet watch that can be worn with casual clothes, in contrast to a dress watch. Not that anyone actually sticks to such rules these days, like the pirate code they are more guidelines. The Nautilus fits well enough in this category, within the context of the brand and the collection - it might be a bit too fancy for my casual downtime personally, but I'm not really the intended audience, who should also have a Calatrava for looking smart.

[verv]

I think they'd be better described as casual watches tbh.

[kaiserphoenix]

Also people seem to dismiss the Nautilus as "not a serious" sportswatch, but it is even more water resistant than say an Exploer I or Explorer II. The movement is also very robust and accurate. I agree the bracelet and finishing on the case is silky and dont take scratches as well but the watch itself is not just a super expensive delicate ornament, its actually very "sporty" and has the specs to back it up.

[Fords]

They're great for caravaning.

[stefmcd]

They're great for caravaning.

Hahahahaha

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[Skyman]

I think they'd be better described as casual watches tbh.

If we must categorise (which is a moot point in itself), then this sounds right.

[ingenioren]

Personally never liked the 'port hole' design of the Nautilus range, never floated my boat.

The Ellipse, on the other hand, is an extremely elegant dress-watch.