Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by gdl203, May 20, 2007.
Obligatory wrist shot...
Thanks Frills, I was beginning to think I must have really gotten under your skin for you to repeated post a response to my rather basic post.
Frills, I think you have taken a bit of what I said too literally in terms of wearability. I might find some watches too bulky or too large, making them somewhat uncomfortable for me to wear and of limited use as they either won't fit under a dress shirt cuff, or they bulkiness might make them look less compatible with my wardrobe or sense of style. I appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into making any beautifully engraved item, be it a watch, a knife, a rifle, or whatever. I know that engraving or making things such as beautiful enamel cloisonnes (sp?) require incredible talent, patience, and skill.
IMHO, just because something requires a great deal of labor and skill to produce, doesn't mean the end result is a beautiful work of art. There are probably countless hours spent designing automobiles from beginning to end, and many of them are just plain ugly.
Sadly, I find the 6002 is just an ugly mess. Yes, lots of engraving, yes the dial probably took a great deal of work (although I don't like Smurf blue), but overall I can't help but think this looks like a watch designed for someone like Liberace, with ridiculously frilly and flamboyant clothing.
I can respect that you appreciate the work that went into making the 6002. I appreciate the work, just not the end result.
Hey Scott, Congrats and thanks for the wrist shot! Hope you enjoy many great years of wearing it.
this. looks very nice indeed.
Hahaha I love the Liberace reference!
Yeah, I'm thinking I do not like the 5160 either. I can't post pics from where I am, but check it out when you have time. It's basically a more elaborate 5059 or 5159, and I simply don't like the end result. Let me know what you think.
Cool. I am really eager to hear how you find the legibility of the calendar function. I assume it takes some time to get used to reading.
Super congrats. This is one of the more interesting pickups I've ever seen
Wanna see more please!
I APPROVE OF THIS THREAD.
Actually, I pretty much have it. The date is easy because the hash marks are every five dots, so 2:00 = 5th, 4:00 = 10th, etc. The month I mentally split into two half circles of six dots each so it is easier to calculate. The day of the week is probably the most difficult to read, but I use the top dot as Sunday, so the rest of the circle is split into three days each. Not sure if that all makes sense, but it works for me.
I'm not a fan of the 5160 either. All of the engraving reminds me of when people buy an modern piece of jewelry that is intentionally made to look like an antique. If that is someone's taste so be it, but it just doesn't sit well with me. Also, I just find all of the engraving very distracting, and I really don't like it on the lugs. I think the only part that I found acceptable, was the engraving on the clasp (although I'd prefer the old style with the Calatrava Cross).
Quote:I'm totally with you on this. I'm just not a fan of the engraving and detailing. Here are comparison pics for others to judge for themselves, from http://www.watchtalkforums.info/forums/patek-philippe-forum/54640.htm: Patek 5159 case/dial: Patek 5160 case/dial: (Comment: Might just be the picture angle, but check out how the 5160's crown just JUTS out in what for me is an aesthetically unpleasant way, at least compared to the 5159). Patek 5159 deployant clasp: Patek 5160 deployant clasp: The final "kick in the head" for me is relative pricing: I already find the 5159's retail prices rather exorbitant ($96,000 to $99,200 depending on the metal). For that kind of money your range of choices for timepieces gets very, very broad. The 5160's retail price is a staggering $160,900 for yellow gold and $163,500 for white gold or rose gold. That's a $60K+ premium for all that extra engraving and detailing... which I personally don't care much for. Whoa. Personally, I much prefer the 5059 versus these two. Simpler? Sure. "Flatter" looking dial? Yes. But for the very same set of reasons why I find the 5159 and 5160 a bit too ornate for me, I like the simplicity of the 5059. Gawd-f*ng-darnit. Did I just convince myself to start hankering for a 5059 again??!???!?
Wahahaha. Add it to the list, eh?
Anyway, you two sound like a reactionary pair of old farts. Which, frankly, is normally my role.
The price difference is rather silly, but no sillier really than charging $20k more for a platinum watch than a gold one. It's just a differentiation to make it inherently more exclusive, and reflect the small production numbers and handwork. But. It's still an extreme difference, granted. $160k would be a fair budget for a whole collection in my mind!
However, I don't dislike it. The only thing I dislike is the silly deployant clasp. Reminds me of an old time sweet shop sign, and feels so contrived, when the original was already so nice. But overall, I like all that engraving. It's just a different flavour, like gold versus steel, or a croc strap versus a bracelet. OK, an expensive flavour. I like the 5059 too. But if one had, say, three PP perpetual calendars already, you know, like a real crazy PP baller, then the 5160 would certainly be a way to add a different kick to the collection. Then again, depending what the first three were, so would the 5159. Maybe both?
i love the 5059 and i dislike the 5160 in almost every way. BUY THE 5059 NOAW!!
Of the watches you mentioned, the only one I would consider would be the 5059. Overall, even with the window for the year cutting into the date, I do like its overall design.
Been a favorite of mine for years. I remember seeing it in the wild on a gent next to me on the Gatwick Express around 2006 or so. Wanted one ever since.
Separate names with a comma.