Mark in Paris[Purist]
10488
What I find interesting in watches is that they are related to their time very much
Oct 12, 2017,15:32 PM
They express, as in many art fields, the standards and philosophy of their time.
That's why, for me the movement issue is not about better or worse. They all work well, within similar standards considering a mechanical watch is not very accurate. A good watchmaker can tune I think an old designed caliber as well as a newer one (in terms of accuracy for a simple hour and minute display). I don't talk about lubrification power reserve etc... only about seconds loss or gain.
So, what would make them differ for me? The history and the style mainly. I wouldn't like a 1940's exact watch in today's collections and I wouldn't like a 2010's watch exactly in the 1940's collection (if it was possible :p ). I don't talk about re-issue or neo retro as their lines have changed. I say exact same model.
Hence, the history of a 13''' Valjoux in the 1518 or 2499 (or the 130 reference etc...) is something unique for a brand. The 27-70 is another thing unique for the brand attached to another era of watchmaking and Patek's history. And the 29-535 is unique as well though very young.
This 27-70 versus 29-535 is nonsense to me, considering an objective base of course. If we prefer style, size, technical evolutions and so on then to each his own.
A question: Why don't we talk about the 12-600AT versus the 324 then? A chronograph is maybe something different but that shows imho that it is quite an internet subject :p
I personally would like to have a caliber of each period if budget allowed. They represent what brands did at their time, where calibers came from, what where the standards of the industry, why this choice, etc...
Each calibers are a sort of Madeleine de Proust in a way
As a side note Joe, I'm not sure that the difference between the 27-70 vs 29-535 is like the one of DB11 vs DB5. Indeed, the 29-535 is still a very traditional caliber (material, design, craftmanhip...) with a few (6 if I recall well) changes in levers, column wheel hat etc... (and features' positions of course). Hence, it is more like comparing a Porsche 356 A with the B or C engines (and not the case itself) that received a few and progressive evolutions (specs). Not really accurate as the parts placing and optimization has changed as well but that's the idea.
About the DNA, I think it is an element which evolves each time a new element is offered by the brand. Hence, the DNA is not a constant element to me but changes smoothly, slowly. I think that the perception of DNA in 1950 was not the same than the DNA perceived in 1980 or today.
About the 1518 and 2499, I don't know what makes a watch an icon or not, if it comes "naturally" or if it is the actors of a sector who participate in encouraging that impression (watch "enthusiasm" of these 2 last decades). I imagine both are true, I don't know... But they have a certain charm that, while discovering and exploring vintage watches, provide something very interesting. Not forgetting what their place was in 1941 as the first PC-Chronograph that other brands have followed afterwards, hence what the PC-Chronograph combination stands for today.
About the past inspiration, this is true, even if your example shows a very close link for the 5070 compared to other references, while some watches have evolved very much as a 5227, 5230 cases for instance. But we can certainly "feel" that there are family similarities.
Studying Patek Philippe's history is understanding what evolves and why. Those steps shaped by the political, economic events are interesting to see and this is a brand that never stopped developping and training its skills.
As I tried to emphasize these last years, the taste and perception of good or bad is really something subjective (proportions, sizes, colors, symetry, style etc...), depending on what we used to see and how our experiences have shaped this perception versus the standards of a specific period (that evolves as well). Understanding this, helps understanding why others may differ in their opinion, that it is not necessarily wrong and especially that it can help us to like what we didn't at first.
Thanks Joe.
Best, Mark