Wrist Check 2017
Discussion
So said:
Is it though? Or is is just an expensive, expensive watch from a well-regarded maker? To my eye there is nothing intrinsically beautiful about it.
I wanted to say this, but expected to get flamed. So I'll stand behind you 
I had an Accurist when I was a teenager, and it looked exactly like that PP. I really don't think it looks anything special, but for the name. Some PPs do, and many don't, which is, I suppose the case for many watch brands, high-end or otherwise.
It's quite common on PH for somebody to post a picture of a car they saw, and in the background is something else, possibly of interest. Somebody always posts "Nice Xxxxx in the background", and I always think "How do you know it's nice? You can barely see it, and it might be a total shed." I know that all they are doing is pointing out that it's there, and that they can be 'nice' cars, but I read the PP comments here in the same way.
Just because it's a PP doesn't make it "beautiful, beautiful." I know everyone has their opinions, and that's a good thing, but it is beautiful because its a Patek or is there something else about it that I'm not seeing?
No offence meant to anyone (least of all the people who spend billions of pounds on them
), but it does look an awful lot like my old Accurist.Doofus said:
I wanted to say this, but expected to get flamed. So I'll stand behind you
I had an Accurist when I was a teenager, and it looked exactly like that PP. I really don't think it looks anything special, but for the name. Some PPs do, and many don't, which is, I suppose the case for many watch brands, high-end or otherwise.
It's quite common on PH for somebody to post a picture of a car they saw, and in the background is something else, possibly of interest. Somebody always posts "Nice Xxxxx in the background", and I always think "How do you know it's nice? You can barely see it, and it might be a total shed." I know that all they are doing is pointing out that it's there, and that they can be 'nice' cars, but I read the PP comments here in the same way.
Just because it's a PP doesn't make it "beautiful, beautiful." I know everyone has their opinions, and that's a good thing, but it is beautiful because its a Patek or is there something else about it that I'm not seeing?
No offence meant to anyone (least of all the people who spend billions of pounds on them ), but it does look an awful lot like my old Accurist.
Agreed and as can be seen form many expensive and cheap watches taste is very subjective. Big price doesn’t automatically mean beautiful watch. If I like something then I like it, I just then have to hope it’s within budget! One thing I would never pay ££££ for is a watch that is made of precious metal. I just don’t get it. Movement, style, design yes but precious metal just adds unnecessary to a watches price. Thankfully we are all different. I had an Accurist when I was a teenager, and it looked exactly like that PP. I really don't think it looks anything special, but for the name. Some PPs do, and many don't, which is, I suppose the case for many watch brands, high-end or otherwise.
It's quite common on PH for somebody to post a picture of a car they saw, and in the background is something else, possibly of interest. Somebody always posts "Nice Xxxxx in the background", and I always think "How do you know it's nice? You can barely see it, and it might be a total shed." I know that all they are doing is pointing out that it's there, and that they can be 'nice' cars, but I read the PP comments here in the same way.
Just because it's a PP doesn't make it "beautiful, beautiful." I know everyone has their opinions, and that's a good thing, but it is beautiful because its a Patek or is there something else about it that I'm not seeing?
No offence meant to anyone (least of all the people who spend billions of pounds on them
), but it does look an awful lot like my old Accurist.Doofus said:
So said:
Is it though? Or is is just an expensive, expensive watch from a well-regarded maker? To my eye there is nothing intrinsically beautiful about it.
I wanted to say this, but expected to get flamed. So I'll stand behind you I had an Accurist when I was a teenager, and it looked exactly like that PP. I really don't think it looks anything special, but for the name. Some PPs do, and many don't, which is, I suppose the case for many watch brands, high-end or otherwise.
It's quite common on PH for somebody to post a picture of a car they saw, and in the background is something else, possibly of interest. Somebody always posts "Nice Xxxxx in the background", and I always think "How do you know it's nice? You can barely see it, and it might be a total shed." I know that all they are doing is pointing out that it's there, and that they can be 'nice' cars, but I read the PP comments here in the same way.
Just because it's a PP doesn't make it "beautiful, beautiful." I know everyone has their opinions, and that's a good thing, but it is beautiful because its a Patek or is there something else about it that I'm not seeing?
No offence meant to anyone (least of all the people who spend billions of pounds on them
), but it does look an awful lot like my old Accurist.tgclowes said:
Power of the brand I suppose. I would argue there's the materials, the craftsmanship and the heritage which add to the value, and for me that's what the name brings, but of course there's always going to be something cheaper and similar to any luxury watch that, at the end of the day, tells the time.
Surely you're not saying that it's beautiful just because of the name printed on it?A brand such a PP can create products which are aspirational, valuable, covetable and even desirqble, but none of that necessarily makes them beautiful.
Just look at Ferrari's output of recent years
Interesting. The 5146 is widely regarded as a Patek classic. I won't go into discussion of the materials, movement, heritage or brand...so let's take it at face value...
Sometimes it's a case of trying to pick fault with something...and if you can't then maybe you will begin to develop an appreciation for everything they have done right.
By the way, I love the fact mine looks like a steel Accurist to the untrained eye
Sometimes it's a case of trying to pick fault with something...and if you can't then maybe you will begin to develop an appreciation for everything they have done right.
By the way, I love the fact mine looks like a steel Accurist to the untrained eye
Doofus said:
Surely you're not saying that it's beautiful just because of the name printed on it?
A brand such a PP can create products which are aspirational, valuable, covetable and even desirqble, but none of that necessarily makes them beautiful.
Just look at Ferrari's output of recent years
That is absolutely what I'm saying. But I believe it does that subconsciously, if you get me?A brand such a PP can create products which are aspirational, valuable, covetable and even desirqble, but none of that necessarily makes them beautiful.
Just look at Ferrari's output of recent years
dimots said:
Interesting. The 5146 is widely regarded as a Patek classic. I won't go into discussion of the materials, movement, heritage or brand...so let's take it at face value...
Sometimes it's a case of trying to pick fault with something...and if you can't then maybe you will begin to develop an appreciation for everything they have done right.
By the way, I love the fact mine looks like a steel Accurist to the untrained eye
I don't deny the 5146 is a classic. I don't think it's fair that I;m trying to pick fault, and I don't want to poke an open wound, but the materials, movement, heritage and brand, along with appreciating everything they have done right doesn't necessarily equate to beauty.Sometimes it's a case of trying to pick fault with something...and if you can't then maybe you will begin to develop an appreciation for everything they have done right.
By the way, I love the fact mine looks like a steel Accurist to the untrained eye
It's evident that you subjectively think it's beautiful simply because it exists. Objectively, I don't.
Doofus said:
It's evident that you subjectively think it's beautiful simply because it exists. Objectively, I don't.
No, I think it's beautiful because it's a moonphase design that I cannot find fault with. And I can be very hard to please. I considered Breguet (too fancy, too spidery, beautifully decorated movements though), JLC (truncated numerals - a cardinal sin in my eyes) and more...I ended up with this. Why? Because it was as near as I could get to perfect.
dimots said:
No, I think it's beautiful because it's a moonphase design that I cannot find fault with. And I can be very hard to please.
I considered Breguet (too fancy, too spidery, beautifully decorated movements though), JLC (truncated numerals - a cardinal sin in my eyes) and more...I ended up with this. Why? Because it was as near as I could get to perfect.
Fair enough I considered Breguet (too fancy, too spidery, beautifully decorated movements though), JLC (truncated numerals - a cardinal sin in my eyes) and more...I ended up with this. Why? Because it was as near as I could get to perfect.
I can't justify a Patek anyway...
Doofus said:
I wanted to say this, but expected to get flamed. So I'll stand behind you
I had an Accurist when I was a teenager, and it looked exactly like that PP.
No offence meant to anyone (least of all the people who spend billions of pounds on them ), but it does look an awful lot like my old Accurist.
Was it this one? I had an Accurist when I was a teenager, and it looked exactly like that PP.
No offence meant to anyone (least of all the people who spend billions of pounds on them
), but it does look an awful lot like my old Accurist.
Interesting comments on the PP. Certainly no need for any flaming of contrary opinions; beauty will always be subjective. It’s one of the things that’s great about this thread – there’s always something interesting to see, even if you wouldn’t wear it yourself. I bought a PP because I like it – and that’s all that matters to me. All I would say is that the phone pic doesn’t do it justice. If you get the chance to inspect one in detail you’ll see far more than the poor quality image on this thread could possibly convey. You’ll also get to see the movement through the crystal case-back. I also like the subtle detail of the small diamond set into the case on platinum PP models. And that’s just the surface details – the movement/calibre and the annual calendar complication is a fascinating mechanical device in itself. I don’t wear any jewellery, apart from a wedding ring, so the fact that this watch is made from a precious metal and a diamond appeals to me. I had originally I’d intended to buy the 5146 in white gold but when it came to it I didn’t like the fact there was no ‘6’ numeral because of the date aperture. To my eyes it looked imbalanced with the ‘12’, ‘3’ & ‘9,’ but no ‘6’. The baton markers on the platinum model look nicer to my eyes.
Anyway, back to the wrist check. Wearing this today
Anyway, back to the wrist check. Wearing this today
Guycord said:
Well its nearly Christmas and work is done for this year......may as well join the party.
Very nice.... is there a display back to that?I can understand why there are different opinions on Patek - I have one, and you wouldn't know what it was, it's quite ordinary looking. But it's the knowledge that it's at the top of the watchmaking art, that brings joys to owners. Subtle looking watches (mostly) and beautifully made.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff