Originally Posted by dddrees
[...]They also do a marvelous job of providing some complications in metals such as steel that helps to allow them to provide a cheaper alternative to Patek. I personally don't own a perpetual or annual calendar at this time. However if I were to get one, I think I would personally hold off until I could afford a Patek.
Absolutely. Exotic complications like perpetual calendars, minute repeaters and tourbillons don't interest me much, but I'd go big or go home if I was looking at one too. That, or stick with JLC but go for a simpler movement in platinum.
Speaking of complications, I think that the tourbillon should have stayed in pocket watches, and is way overdone... especially by companies that outsource them in hopes that it will add horological credibility to their range (*cough* Panerai). It's a truly senseless feature in a wristwatch. I think the industry is doing itself a disservice by implying that above a certain price level, a tourbillon complication is a must-have.
Back to semi-reality, the price point of something like a perpetual calendar from JLC is about where I'd start looking at a simpler watch from Patek instead. It's a feature that I think is more hassle than it's worth, adds a lot of clutter to the dial, and requires a hell of a lot of extra parts... which I don't think is a good thing, owing to my Neanderthal sensibilities. If I'm going to have a bunch of subdials and/or apertures, I'd rather have a top-quality chrono.
Minute repeaters are straight-up mo-fuggin' baller
Particularly from a company like Patek.