- Mar 30, 2009
- Reaction score
As an aside, Foversta has very, very, very small wrists.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
^^^ Beautiful watch. What all was done in the restoration?
The 15300 wears a bit bigger than it's actual size. The shape of the bezel, the shape and thickness of the watch head, and the bracelet all make the watch wear a bit bigger than it's actual size.I actually just googled wrist photos of the 15400 and holy crap does it ever wear big for a 41mm watch. Does the 39mm wear big as well? I didn't even give the 15202 any consideration, because I've always considered anything under 40mm to be too small for me (which is a shame, because if Rolex offered the Explorer in a 40 or 42, it would be on my wrist right now).
I like Cal 240. The length of its production, or its relative lack of rarity in the world of Pateks doesn't bother me. I like the micro rotor and being able to see more of the movement.Nice discussion here from PuristS for another "Patek workhorse" - the cal 240. Found in Calatrava, Nautilus, perpetual calendar and even celestial pieces in various forms, the 240 has been around since 1977 and still powers some of Patek's mainstays. Does that mean it is less beautiful or somehow less desirable? In some people's minds, yes. To me, not so much. I love its finish, the beautiful 22K microrotor that allows you to see more of the movement versus, say, the 315 or the 324, and I love the pieces I have which it powers.
Newcomer, I saw that video too. And that son did look rather young when he walked out the door with a Nautilus (dressed like no teenager I know would want to be dressed too, unless he were European royalty).
This was posted back in late 2011 but it's a worthwhile read. A cynical take on Patek's ads, from the point of view of someone who seems clearly averse to modern advertising's ways (after "Mad Men," who wouldn't be - hyuk hyuk hyuk).
The author actually gets a ton of factoids wrong ($10,000 would be a really cheap Patek hah hah) but it's worth a read for anyone who's willing to spend anywhere from hundreds to thousands to tens and hundreds of thousands on mechanical watches. Which basically means readers of TWAT.
Mimo, I may disagree on the above. I don't think the difference in price has anything to do with finish. Depending on who you talk to Patek may or may not have an edge when it comes to the finish on their version of the movement, however there were actual modifications that Patek made making it a tad different from others using it. It was the modifications that some people appreciated. In addition, the price difference today is based on Patek's new status in the last 8 years of being a producer of complicated watches that appreciate in value more than their competitors (there are plenty of 5070s people bought kept in boxes and never wear waiting for prices to go up). The price difference is greater today than it was when the 5070 was new around 1999. Back then a VC Historique had a list price of about $17,000 in YG and a 5070 in YG was about $28,800. In addition, you could get some VC dealers to discount Historiques b quite a bit. Initially Patek dealers wouldn't discount 5070s very much, maybe 10% at best. In addition, for a while say in 2001/2002 you could get a LNIB or nearly new 5070 for around $19K. However that all started to turn around by 2005 and prices on new metal 5070s went up and values on preowned ones started to incease with them. In the end, the VC, Patek, and ALS are all nice watches, and each seems to be favored by different types of collectors.Frillster, I agree with you about the lovely development and finishing of the movement - PP seem to have taken that rather further than VC have, comparing the pictures I put up last page (maybe that's why it costs five or six times more!). But I think the specialness of the AL movement in the Datograph is beyond production numbers and even beauty, in that it was a completely new and original movement rather than an iteration of something that had gone before (so I'm told). They're all wonderful though, of course. One day I'm going to buy something very silly.
Agreed, APs do wear a bit larger than their measurements would suggest.The 15300 wears a bit bigger than it's actual size. The shape of the bezel, the shape and thickness of the watch head, and the bracelet all make the watch wear a bit bigger than it's actual size.
While the 15400 isn't for me for several reasons, you owe it to yourself to try one on. You can't go by someone else's photo. I generally favor a 40mm watch and have worn Subs, GMTs, Explorer 2s, etc for years. I really don't find an appreciable difference in size of a 39mm AP RO and a 40mm Rolex. I find the difference between say a 39mm 15202 RO and a Submariner is the thickness or heft of the Rolex. If you like a slightly beefier thickness of case and bracelet, you might like the 15400 or the 15300 (out of production...its 39mm and thicker than a 15202). If you are really hard on watches and bang them around a lot, a 15400 or 15300 might be a better choice for you as both case and bracelet are considerably thicker. I like the slimness of the 15202, IMHO it transitions even better from sporty clothes to suit and I like having a somewhat sporty watch that is not very thick for a change. The down side to the 15202 is also the jump in price of around $5,500. You can easily find a better discount on a 15400 because they are more plentiful. When I was looking some places wouldn't offer a discount on a 15202 and I've heard 15202s have become tougher to come as much of its production is going to the boutiques.I actually just googled wrist photos of the 15400 and holy crap does it ever wear big for a 41mm watch. Does the 39mm wear big as well? I didn't even give the 15202 any consideration, because I've always considered anything under 40mm to be too small for me (which is a shame, because if Rolex offered the Explorer in a 40 or 42, it would be on my wrist right now).
I was being a little frivolous in the price comparison, but I did say "development" and finish. I am no expert to understand the differences, but the Patek version is clearly, visibly more modified than the VC, as you said. As for the way the branding's gone, well...they got Frilly. It's working, right? In the mean time, at least I can still maybe aspire to the VC some day.Mimo, I may disagree on the above. I don't think the difference in price has anything to do with finish. Depending on who you talk to Patek may or may not have an edge when it comes to the finish on their version of the movement, however there were actual modifications that Patek made making it a tad different from others using it. It was the modifications that some people appreciated. In addition, the price difference today is based on Patek's new status in the last 8 years of being a producer of complicated watches that appreciate in value more than their competitors.
All sports watches have their fans and haters. I like the original RO line of watches, but I don't like the Offshore models. I don't care for their use of rubber, carbon fiber (politically correct term for expensive plastic), or the countless numbers of limited edition ROO's they roll out simply because 3-6 months have passed since their last limited edition. However, I may be biased as I don't like rubberized/plastic watches be it ROOs, Hublots, or GP Laureatos. In addition, while I like the Nautilus 5711 and 5712/A1, I don't like the Nautilus Chronograph at all, and when it comes to VCs I don't care for any of their current Overseas models. I preferred the previous model, although its bracelet had issues with links locking up. The new one I find bloated, and although the bracelet doesn't have any issues with locking up, I find it a garish and too blingy. But no watch can be everything to everyone.As for the Royal Oak, I can't say it jumped at me the first time I came across it. And I stil don't like the ROO at all. But those simple, clean lines on a modest steel RO, in pretty much all its guises (though I especially like the simple three hand, or the chrono), regardless of size, are really speaking to me. It's definitely one of those watches where less is more - the ROOs, the contrasting bezels and gold and whatever, all speak of insecurity and Death Row Records. But that brushed steel..that classic shape..that clean, eternally fresh-looking "tapisserie"...in simple stainless on a bracelet, they're all stunning. I'll be lining up behind Stitchy...one day...
Don - that vintage Omega two-hander is sweet. EmJay - very nice Stowa. If they made a no-date version of that watch, I would have a hard time resisting.