Patek Philippe

Could have been better if the leap year window didn't cut into the "15" and "17" of the retrograde day dial. Or was it done on purpose ?

would you mind to enlighten us what you are meaning?


You like it better than Ref. 5496P-001, because of the new salmon dial?



Cheers,
Oliver

The 5496 P is a definite improvement in design.  In my opinion the new dial layout is simply better because the  moon aperture has been finished appropriately.  It has always bothered me( on the previous design) that the circle underneath the aperture is not completed.  It was this way on some of the 5050's as well and just does not look finished in the traditional way.  If you look at the new dial configuration ,underneath the  moon aperture. the circle is continued in the traditional sense and in my view is a huge improvement over the previous model.  

Are you speaking about the two different dials (001 and 014) of the same reference?

The Ref. 5496P-001 was not my cup of tea on pictures, but I found it quite interesting (to say the least) in the metal and especially on my wrist.

Cheers,
Oliver

Yes,  I am speaking of the Salmon dial versus the white dial.  I am sorry to have been obscure.  It is early here in Phoenix and I should have wiped the "sleep" from my eyes. Thank you Oliver.  

the moon phase thus making the dial more balanced. Patek must have agreed as they changed it. Just my opinion.

It (partly) hides the fact that all the displays are squished towards the middle.

Saw this one this weekend and the person with me, who is not a watch expert at all, liked this one also.

Just for its beauty.

And there were many, many other Pateks in the window at display.

 

Wish you can buy it one day.

 

Moritz

 

Congrats and amazing piece, definitely agree!!

No message body

this piece imo ruined the exquisite 5050 with grossly oversized case, resulting in the chopping of the date (at 15) AND disproportionally tiny day and month windows. To me this is a textbook example of how to ruin a timeless classic by forced contemporarization. I had many opportunities to wear and buy this piece, and every time I declined without hesitation. My daily wears 5125 and 5140 are so much more understated. What else can I say. Yes, I admit 5140 also suffers some from contemporarization with squished dates, but at least it still is not chunky compared to 3940. Hope at the 175th anniversary, we will see PP starting to go back to their roots in manufacturing timeless and elegant classics and refrain from fitting movements into huge and chunky cases with large markers. I really miss the understated elegance of PP. Cheers, Jim This message has been edited by jimjenkins on 2014-08-27 01:09:09 This message has been edited by jimjenkins on 2014-08-27 01:09:48

Yes,

that the demand for the 5050 peaked a few years back. In fact prices have plummeted recently. Great time to buy one.

have issues with design since the movement size is still 29 to 31 mm for most watch movements. Take a look at the new MontBlanc PC which is advertised so much. The dials are in the middle of a big space. Most Pateks have the same issues in the quest to make 39mm plus cases which is what the market wants. Most companies offer simple manual winds at 42 MM. lots of air in those cases.

Having said all that the 5496 is magnificent in the flesh. I like the older version far better. I do not like the frames around the day and months or the circle on the moon phase. Plus platinum to me doesn't work well with salmon dials or brown straps. P just exudes white, black or gray dials and black straps. This watch really doesn't wear big and balances very well to me. My only concern is the 96 genre case with the flat angular bezel in platinum is easy to nick and scratch. I do not wear my much for that reason.

you. As mentioned earlier on with the post, 

why the dates at 15 to 17 are cut off. The movement is the exact same size as the 5050 and the size of the case really should not affect the positioning of the displays which are fixed by the mechanics Cleary, they had the room as before.. I am really at a loss to understand why the date cutoff is so pronounced on the 5496.

Agree they should have not cut off even though so slight. 

No message body