quattro's detailed comparison of Patek Philippe's square calibers addresses critical community questions about the 28-28 Q SQU movement. This analysis is crucial for understanding the brand's approach to movement design in shaped watches. His work provides a foundational visual and technical breakdown that informs deeper discussions on horological innovation.
In my
post yesterday, I said that
Patek Philippe's
creation of a
square caliber for the
Cubitus Perpetual Calendar ref.
5840P-001 earned my
respect.
In the comments, several of us raised some interesting questions and doubts:
- Isn't the 28-28 Q SQU caliber simply a 240 caliber hastily squared off?
- Didn't Gerald Charles or Bell & Ross do a much better job with their calibers GCA11000 (Gerald Charles) and BR-CAL.389 & BR-CAL.390 (Bell & Ross)?
Well, let's take a look.
To begin with, let's
answer the
first question –
isn't the
28-28 Q SQU caliber just
a 240 caliber in disguise? – by
comparing these
two calibers.
CALIBER 240 SQU vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU The
juxtaposition of the two
images clearly shows that the
position of the
screws and the
jewels is
rigorously identical: the
caliber 28-28 is therefore
indeed a
variant of the
240.
The
difference between the
28-28 and the
240 is that the
bridges and the
balance cock as well as the
mainplate have a
design of their own, giving the movement its
square shape.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased (the watch on the left is ref. 5180/1R-001)
Front view encased
Now, let's
compare the
28-28 with the
240 PS CI J LU, which is
not skeletonized and is found in the
Cubitus Grande Date, Day and Moon Phase ref.
5822P-001CALIBER 240 PS CI J LU vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU Of course, the
basic structure is again the
same, undeniably, but this allows us to better appreciate the work done to
skeletonise the
bridges and the
mainplate.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased (
left: ref. 5822P-001 -
right: ref. 5840P-001)
For me here, even though the 28-28 is based on the 240 caliber, the
transformation work is clearly
apparent and makes a real
difference.
Front view encased
Let us now turn to the comparison between the 28-28 and the GCA11000 caliber which equips the Masterlink Perpetual Calendar Sapphire Dial by Gerald Charles.
NB: the Masterlink has an insane ref. number: ML11.0-TNBR-TNSB-SP31PS-TNDP ;-)
CALIBER GCA11000 vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU
Aesthetically, I personally tend to prefer the Gerald Charles caliber because the openwork aesthetic has never been my taste.
But I don't find it very appealing either, to be honest, and, more importantly, are the corners less empty?
You be the judge.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased
Front view encased
Finally, let's
compare the
28-28 with the
BR-CAL.390 &
BR-CAL.389 calibers that equip respectively the
Bell & Ross BR-X3 Micro-Rotor and the
BR-X3 Tourbillon Micro-Rotor.
CALIBER BR-CAL.390 vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU The BR-X3 Micro-Rotor is ref. BRX3M-MR-ST/SCA
The
modern geometric architecture is
interesting.
However, here
again: are the
corners less empty? You be the
judge.
Rear view encased
Front view encased
CALIBER BR-CAL.389 vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU The BR-X3 Tourbillon Micro-Rotor is ref. BRX3M-TRB-ST/SCR
A rear view of this Tourbillon Bell & Ross isn't available, so we can only compare with the dial view.
But what I find interesting here is to see how obviously the corners of a square movement seem to be almost always left empty.
Here, the four corner screws are clearly filling the void.
credit: Patek Philippe, Gerald Charles and Bell & Ross
In conclusion, while it's clear that Patek Philippe used the existing structure of the caliber 240, I still appreciate the effort they made to produce a square movement, even if the effort could certainly have been more refined.
And from an aesthetic standpoint, even though I'm not into openwork design and find the design of the Bell & Ross bolder and more interesting, I do not consider the 28-28 to be completely unworthy.
Thanks for reading.
Best, Emmanuel
