Patek Philippe

there have been a number of repetition a minutes made by pp. many were made upon request. i speak of the tonneau shaped platinum case minuter repeater for henry graves jnr,  refs 2421, 2524, ref 3979, 3974,3939,5013, 5016, 5074  and toubillion ref 3834, 3939, 5101, 5016

i have noted that that a number of comments on here that suggest that these master complications are useless in a watch and can not justify paying so much for a reference with them. 

it is admitted that the movement of the wrist takes the place of a tourbillion and is therefore redundant in a watch and it can be successfully argued that non one cares to listen to the chimes and gongs of a wrist watch, as this was for when electricity was uninvented and darknes reigned.

my arguement is that it is not the use of the complications that counts but the audacity a feat as to defy horology logic by placing so much in so little space. surely that is what kindles a flame inside the mind of a horology collector, afterall if we are to discuss the logic of acquisition then why would anybody in their right mind spend tens of thousand of dollars/euro on any watch, let alone hundreds of thousands, when you can get a cheap quartz watch that will tell you the time or even better still, utilise our cellphones clock.

most of us presumably use our watches to solely inform us of the time and at the same moment admire the beauty of the watch we have on. how many of us actually use the complications regularly is another question. i for one rarely use the chronography but doodle over the other complications that i have on my other watches. most collectors will not even use the watches (straight into the safe in plastic nib), others use their watches but do not correct the complications (if perpetual, annual calendar).

so when you consider a watch to buy, is it important that the complication is useful for you or is it the horology feat that gives you the kicks?

I like those watches but I would never buy them, even if I could ( winning a lottery would probably help )

Tourbillons and minute repeaters are little wonders but I just don't like them as much as for example a chronograph. I really would prefer a chronograph, pertpetual or worldtimer above such a super complication.

I have never felt or seen a PP repeater in my life but I have seen some others like IWC and GP. Even when I saw these I coulnd not understand why they are so expensive. Besides, I could hardly hear the thing. For that amount I can name a dozen other watches which I like a lot more

I would spen money on a PP sky moon or aBreguet Tourbillon, but i would not spend money on a ferrari, Personal preference.......a ferrari is not practical in the city and a tourbillon is as stated not really practical for use in a wristwatch...................................A ferrari  is a status symbol, A PP or Breguet is a work of ART....... worth every penny. say no more

I make a big difference with mechanical watches and Quartz watches...

Witth a Quartz Watch, I ask it to be useful, to give me the hour, and if possible, like in a Tissot T Touch to be funny, too, but the most important is the utility for a quartz Watch.

As for Mechanical Watches, Utility is not the first thing..The Dream is more important, the magic of a true piece of Mechanical Art.

A Minute Repeater kicks me all the time, a Tourbillon also, as a pc, a Chron, a world time or an Alarm.

Do we really need them?

No, for sure.

Except if we consider that we need dreaming, and I'm one of those who need dreams, who love dreams.

With that criteria, no quartz watch can beat a mechanical one...

BTW, a Tourbi is not a complication, but a sophistication, that not at all the same.

But it makes me dream...Go and try to fight against a Gyro II, resistance is futile!

What do you feel when you see a Gyro I, a PP 5102 Celestial, a UN Sonata, a Freak, or a VC Malte Chrono perpetual calendar, not to speak about some Independants as KV, De Bethune, for example?

I feel a great happyness, a deep respect, and sincere hate for my banker...LOL

That's Horology for me with a Capital H.

That's why we are here, IMO.

Best, and thanks for this interesting post!

Nicolas, " eternal lover "...

 

 

Like a number of members have already stated.

I prefer my watch to be practical,such as a Chronograph or a Perpetual Calendar.

Though the Tourbillons and the Minute Repeaters are certainly two of the most complicated movements that you can have.

I probably - fingers crossed wouldn't buy one.

Though the chances of that happening, is the same as me going to the moon!!!!!

In my opinion it is a mammoth stretch to call a perpetual calendar "practical" (though I have made the argument to She Who Must Be Obeyed).  For watches that have a date quickset feature, it takes all of 10 seconds to change a date.  It takes as much energy as using the chronograph feature that you are raving about.  I love perpetual calendars for what they accomplish mechanically, but their added practicality relative even to a Calatrava with date is completely out of proportion with the added cost.

for a right minded individual to fork out these astronomical figures for such complicated watches.However, there are things we cannot buy,such as time and we cannot put a value on love, passion and our dreams.If one can extract a certain amount of happiness and joy in listening to the chimes on his MR or watching the date jump on his PC, then is the price too high?Time waits for no one and doesn't it also fly?LOL.

I think it's up to each individual to decide the balance between practicality and passion and to act in a responsible manner: don't sell the house for a PP5002!

The way I view it is, these complications are definitely not utility pieces, they are works of art made by artisans that dedicate a huge chunk of their lives to creating something so intricately delicate ,beautiful and perfectly balanced for some lucky individual to possess, appreciate & enjoy.So for those who can afford and appreciate them, I'd say ,why not?It's not harming anyone and does not pollute the atmosphere.It's even good for the economy, providing jobs to many.

After all, they owe it to themselves if they are successful in their careers and have provided well for their families.Such frivolity should be put in its rightful place though IMO and one should not neglect his/her responsibilities and priorities for the sake of haute horology.

For me, my watches are all dispensible and will not take priority over family and good friends.

Thanks for listening.

cheers

fernando

 

 

 

am i therefore to assume that there are people out there remortgaging their houses and putting their families in harms way all for the sake of a master complication from a high end horology maker? i would hope not although i have heard of people that are not prepare to sell their collections when times are hard in the family.

all th best

to your health and wallet and I'm just trying to remind myself to stay firmly planted and not wish too hard for that PP 5207.You know what they say about being careful of what you wish for.LOL

I sure hope there aren't anyone leveraging themselves or getting into debt because of this crazy passion.I used to think cars, motorcycles or other gizmos were a drain on one's finances but didn't realize that watches can also take a heavy toll.

Thanks for an interesting post.

Fernando

 

LOL

Madness against Reason?

ROFL...

You're totally right, Fernando, there are some VITAL priorities, and Horology is not one, of course.

BUT, this is so good to have these futiles pleasures without which life wouldn't be Life...

Best, my friend.

Nicolas

Enjoy what we can while we can. If it brings a smile to our face that is all that matters.

Life's too short not to indulge in one's passion. What was the question again? LOL

Have a good one

fernando

Spoken beautifully ..like a true burgoise

Lol

 

Rabi'

Thanks for your nice words, Marcelo!

Best.

Nicolas.

This message has been edited by amanico on 2008-09-10 22:49:13

Hope to learn some French while in Canada so we can speak in your mother language when I have the opportunity of visiting Paris and meeting you for a common passion’s chat

 

Have a nice weekend!

Marcelo

As other have pointed out in this thread, a tourbillon is completely useless, and a minute repeater is at best only slightly useful occasionally.  Enthusiasts point out though that they are valuable as works of art, because they are so diffucult to make.

But, there is a complication that surpasses the tourbillon in difficulty and is around the difficulty of a minute repeater, but is much more useful.  I'm referring to the rattrapante.
Eric von Schonberg

We may say that even a simple Chrono is more complex to realize than a Perpetual Calendar...

not sure that it's more complex than a Minute repeater, as the technology used for a MR is something impressive, and if you want a nice result, you really have to work hard on it...

Best, Eric

Nicolas

A chronograph can be done much more simply that any sort of perpetual. There is care needed in the design, but as the 7750 demonstrates, you can crank one out with no human interaction.  The most important distinction is variable: Everything in a chronograph happens at the same rate all the time, A perpetual needs to handle the jump of the end of the month and properly advance 1/2/3/4 days, the right amount at the right time, no more and no less.  This requires a care in not just design, but in manufacturing, that is not needed on a chronograph. 

IWC implemented a rattapante on top of an existing chronograph in about 11 or so parts, no?
A

You seem to know your stuff ragarding perpetual calendars and their greater complexity compared to the basic chronograph complication.  But, you're mistaken in thinking that the rattrapante is a trivial 11-piece addition to a basic chronograph.  While there are fairly simple non-column-wheel rattrapante designs (what you're apparantly alluding to) the classic 2 column wheel rattrapante is very difficult to execute, much more difficult than even a tourbillon.  In fact, the classic rattrapante is around the difficulty of the minute repeater.

Here's a reference about the difficulty of the rattrapante in rleation to the basic chronograph:

www.hautehorlogerie.org


Here is one of the reasons why a rattrapante is difficult to adjust (see Alberto's comment):

Edited by Dje:  as per forum rules:

March, 2007 - Effectively immediately: Certain publications and their related websites have shown consistent belligerent and antagonistic behaviour towards this site and its moderators/admin.

Thus, we no longer welcome nor allow any mention of their magazine or website.

If your post is deleted, where it contained such references, that is the reason why.

Thank you for your understanding.

Here in full:  www.network54.com l

Eric von Schonberg
This message has been edited by Dje on 2008-09-13 06:10:23

The movement of a 5959 is made intentionally as small as possible, and that increases the care which must be made for that center pinion.  I'm not at all saying that it is simple to make a piece like that, look at all the problems the 5004 had when it originally came out.  On the other hand that's not an issue of "complexity", it is an issue of care in industrial design, good metalurgy and tight tolerances in manufacture and QA. 

Compare the 5959 to the rattapante module that f. piguet uses on the 1185 and similar, which has been in production for at least 15 years.  It uses a classic column-wheel design, and adds approx $10k to retail pricing of a watch.  That implies not a very high degree of complexity, compared to the original cost of the 1185.

A

Unless I've misunderstood you, it seems you are trying to make the case that a rattrapante is not much more complicated than a simple chronograph.  Is that really what you're trying to argue?  You realize there would not be many people who would argree with such a position, don't you?

Let me see if I can follow your argument anyway.  The first point seems to be that rattrapantes aren't really all that complicated, but that they just require a lot of care puting together.  So, what do you think makes a watch complicated?  Is it the parts count that really matters, or do you think the difficulty of puting it together might have something to do with it?

Your second point seems to be that since the 1186 doesn't cost much more than the 1185, a rattrapante couldn't be very complicated.  The problem with that argument is thar price and degree of complicated are only loosely correlated at best.  Some simple Pateks can still be quite expensive, and some brands offer quite complicated pieces for amazingly low prices.  You could spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars buying a Patek tourbillon, but you could get an even more complicated tourbillon watch from IWC for a fraction of the cost.

Rattrapantes and minute repeaters are highly complicated and beyond the reach of most watchmakers' abilities.  While tourbillons are also quite complicated and also beyond the reach of many watchmakers' abilities, there are plenty more watchmakers who can make a tourbillon.  The fact that so many brands can offer tourbillons, but much fewer can offer minute repeaters and rattrapantes is indicative of just how much farther out of reach rattrapantes and minute repeaters are than tourbillons.
Eric von Schonberg

Hi Eric,

My question would be: what is the market for rattrapante watches?

I agree with Aaron that a rattrapante can be made at a very moderate price. IWC does it in the Portugaise.

So if you want a rattrapante you can catch the IWC for a low price. You can also catch a perpetual calendar chronograph from IWC for a low price.

Then there is refinement, finish, positioning, and many other factors.

A rattrapante is not something expensive in itself, nor is a tourbillon. Chronoswiss has/had a Progress tourbillon in steel at less than 15000 euros retail. It is/was not a piece of crap, but a nice watch. Of course it can hardly compare with a PP tourbillon, for reasons other than complexity (same situation between the IWC Portugaise and the 5959).

PP has a positioning in product definition and price that makes their rattrapante watches extremely expensive, but that doesn't mean that rattrapante watches are expensive.

I have to confess that I see little interest in the IWC rattrapante watches, for myself. What I like in the rattrapante is best expressed by Patek Philippe. And indeed when you want to make that kind of rattrapante the offer is much smaller. Breguet makes a nice rattrapante too, for a much more accessible price (not to me though) and RM has a formidable one that can be considered more expensive than a 5004! So.....

Cheers

Dje

You haven't mentioned anything in disagreement with the points I was making, and now you asking about the market for rattrapantes.  Yes, I agree rattrapantes can be inexpensive like IWCs or expensive like Pateks.
Eric von Schonberg

I guess my basic point is that a Rattapante is not inherently complex, in the way a repeater might be thought of.  This isn't to take away from the skill that it takes to make a truly fine one, in the way a chinese Tourbillon does not detract from a Patek Tourbillon. The existance of affordable rattapantes indicates that the care and precision, and accompanying value, that Patek, or say UN, puts into their work is extra, that is above and beyond the minimal complexity in order to make it truly fine. 

A
ps and just a point of reference on the previous price arguement.  The only watch I could think of where there was a matched pair of a perpetual and a rattapante was the IWC GST line.  The GST steel perpetual was about 50% more that the equivilant Rattapante, although I'd think anyone would agree that IWC's perpetual mechanism is far nicer that that Rattapante.
This message has been edited by aaronm on 2008-09-13 17:23:20

Most people will agree that rattrapantes are complex.  You seem to have a different definition of complexity.  How do you define complexity?
Eric von Schonberg

But I look at the complexity as the number of parts, the difficulty of making those parts, and the initial difficulty in designing the mechanism. When talking about complications, one has to compare the most minimal form of something to get an idea of it's inherent complexity, it wouldn't be fare to compare a Gyro-tourbillon to a 7750, and say that a Tourbillon is way more complicated based on that, nor would it be fare to compare a Franck Muller Aeternitas (1000 year perpetual) to a STT/Progress Tourbillon, and discount the complexity of the Tourbillon on that basis.

So I was comparing the Rattapante module that is used by IWC, or the F. Piguet one (that makes a 1180/1185 into a 1181/1186), as they are pretty much the mechanism stripped down to it's minimal state. In the case of of Piguet: a button, a lever arrangement to move the column wheel, the column wheel, the pincers, the split hand wheel, the heart cam and the follower, along with the hollow pinion for the normal chronograph sweep hand. There is also a disengagement mechanism to keep the amplitude from dropping when the split hand is arrested.

A

The parts you list for a rattrapante are pretty typical, and there are certainly fewer than the parts of a tourbillon.  But, it's not parts count that makes it complex.  It's the difficulty of assembling and regulating the movement with a rattrapante that makes it difficult.  Some kids jig-saw puzzles have 1000+ pieces, but can be put toghether by a kid.  Those jig-saw puzzles have a greater parts count than either a tourbillon or a rattrapante, heck even more than the ultimate grand complication, but the jig-saw puzzle is not more complicated.
Eric von Schonberg

...I questioned at a recent trip to the manufacture and that troughout the year only builds turbillons: "In a PP, a turbillon escapement will outperform every time a convencional escapement". This means that a torurbillon at PP will allways be a more accurate timekeeper than another PP with a "normal" and conventional escapement.

Carlos Torres

I think what makes a difference more than the tourbillon is whether the watch is automatic or manually wound.  Most Pateks with tourbillons are manually wound.  Is it the tourbillon or the fact that it's manually wound that made the difference.  I know all of my manually wound watches are incredibly accurate.  My 3970 is so accurate that twice a year when I have to set it back to/from daylight savings time, it has gained at most 5 or 6 seconds.  That's less than 1 second per month!  By the way, my 5970, which has the same movement is also very accurate, and gains about 2 seconds per week.
Eric von Schonberg

My current most complicated watch is a Longines. In addition to h-m -s it has 24 hr indication, moon face, triple date & chrono with 30 min & 12 hr indicator.

If I had a choice of a single additional complication, I would like power reserve indicator.

FWIW, I would be unhappy to trade any of the features on my watch for an annual or perpetual calander. The 12 hr indicator is more useful on the chrono, in day to day activities than the double chrono.

Of course, I could do all this on the cell phone, but........

 

fnk