Patek Philippe

For nearly fifteen years, I’ve been a regular on forums.  And during that time, many of my purchases have been followed by a post addressing any such purchases.  Personally, I enjoy thinking about, and memorializing in writing, what led me to buy a particular thing.  It helps me to refine my perspective and engage with the things that I purchase.

I bought the 5712 more than two weeks ago and, for some reason or another, I have not had any desire to write this post.

I have been trying to get to the bottom of why that is the case.  More on that later.

For nearly as long as I’ve been a regular on forums – probably closer to twelve years – I have wanted a Nautilus.  Here is a post from 2013!

Back then, as many here know, the Nautilus was not cool.  Nautilii were sitting in cases.  They could easily be purchased for 15-20% off.  Inclusive of tax, you could walk out the door with a 5711 for well under $20,000.  Indeed, I – a law school student from the South on vacation in New York – walked into an AP boutique and could have walked out with a 15202!  Different times, man.

Even so, I had not even started my first job, and the prospect of parting with $20,000 I did not have for a watch just was not possible.  Plus, I had other things to spend my money on, i.e., women (I guess some things, a decade later, do not change).  So, I took a step back from watches.

From the perspective of those newer to the watch-world, it might be crazy to think of the Nautilus as anything but a hot watch.  However, from my perspective, it is crazy to think of the Nautilus as anything but a niche, watch-nerd watch.  Sometimes, when I take a step back, I am truly surprised that the Nautilus and the Royal Oak have become what they are today.

I returned to watches in earnest in 2019 or so, and on July 21, 2020, made the following post:

Since then, I have jumped back into the watch world headfirst.  Over the past 3 years, I have added my BVLGARI Octo Finissimo S, my Patek Refs. 5205G-013 and 5212A, Rolex Explorer, and Tudor Pelagos 39.  And now, of course, my 5712A.

Much, much ink has been spilled on Patek’s Nautilii – and I do not want to rehash that which has been said ad nauseum.  So I will try to keep it interesting.

Impressions:

The 5712 shines on the wrist.

On paper, the 5712 seems like it would wear large – it is wider than it is tall, in fact it is approximately 43mm wide!  However, it wears far, far smaller than its dimensions.  With its corresponding thickness of 8.52mm, and equally thin and slinky bracelet, the 5712 truly wears shockingly small – dare I say, the watch veers on dainty.  The thicker bezel and sculptural case means the dial is smaller, which may contribute to the watch’s perceived compactness.  Given my preference for smaller watches that easily fit underneath my shirt cuff, I love it.  However, I can see why others prefer the abomination that is the 5726 (I say this somewhat tongue in cheek).  The 5712 feels like a watch that was born in the 2000s (duh, because it was).  In terms of feel, the 5712 kind of reminds me of a 5-digit Rolex reference – I love it.

To me, the 5712 and the 5740 are the best extensions to the Nautilus line.  In my opinion, it is absolutely critical that a Nautilus be thin – I do not mind the 5726 or the 5990 aesthetically, but in my opinion, they deviate too far from the original.  They are something different altogether. 

As a result of its dimensions, and the thin and slinky bracelet, the 5712 wears extremely well.  I thought my BVLGARI Octo Finissimo S wore well, but this is plainly a major cut above.  The clasp does not have any quick-adjustments, which in my opinion is inexcusable.  After owning the Tudor Pelagos 39, I have become a quick-adjustment snob.  But the small links, combined with the larger watch head that wears flat on my wrist, means the lack of a quick-adjusting clasp does not bother me.  That said, I am blessed with a flat wrist so I can usually wear watches comfortably.

Aesthetics:

Aesthetically, the 5712 is something of a love-it or hate-it reference – you need to get behind the asymmetrical dial, which is undoubtedly quirky.  I do have a penchant for asymmetry, but I never cared for this dial layout on the 5055.  However, with the already strange Nautilus case, the asymmetric dial just works.

I don’t know, it kind of feels like how two negatives, multiplied, make a positive.

For me, one of the largest draws is the movement, the 240, which was born all the way back in 1977!  The 240 is a gorgeous and important movement to Patek and I wanted a watch with the 240 movement in my collection.  From what I understand, the 240 is not long for this world and I am glad to have a piece of history in my collection.  Some people have complained about the winding efficiency of the 240, but I have not had any issues.  Maybe it is because I have lived with the BVLGARI Octo Finissimo S.

The hype:

It is impossible to own this watch and ignore the hype.  10 years ago, no one recognized a Nautilus.  The first day I wore it – alright, maybe Whole Foods was the wrong venue – I had two strangers ask about it.  Not ideal.

Personally, I am ready for the hype to die down.  I wish we could return to the good ole’ days, when this watch was something of an ugly duckling and nobody knew what a Patek Philippe Nautilus was.  I do not particularly like the fact that a watch that I love is seemingly wanted by so many.  I feel like less of a special snowflake.

My opinion still waivers when I think about the trajectory of the integrated-bracelet sports watch (“IBSW”).  On the one hand, interest seems to be waning and secondary prices appear to be dropping.  On the other hand, there is no denying that an IBSW fits so neatly into day-to-day life.  It can be dressed up, it can be dressed down, it has some water resistance, it slips under a sports cuff, it is comfortable – there are a whole lot of reasons why an IBSW just makes sense.  10 years from now, will the IBSW still be a segment of the market?  Will the following chart, last updated in 2021, be even larger?  (Note, it does not contain numerous watches that have since been added).

I really am curious to see whether the IBSW becomes a mainstay of watch brands, like the dive watch or the pilot watch, or whether it fades into obscurity.

While I would prefer for the Nautilus to garner less attention, the 57** series of Nautilii do feel important from a historical perspective.  These are the watches that are partially responsible for changing this hobby, for better and for worse.  So, it is kind of interesting to own the 5712 for that reason.

Finally, I find the future of the 5712 to be somewhat interesting.  At the same time Patek released the 5811, it also released the 5712R – with a new bracelet!  That release is so perplexing to me.  In light of the 240 movement likely being phased out, I wonder whether we will see a 5812.  The 5712, unlike the 5711, has a short history – specifically, the 5712 was preceded by the 3712, which was introduced in 2005 and only ran into 2006, when it was replaced by the 5712.  A 5812 – if it ever comes to fruition – could use the Caliber 31-260 – however, that movement is slightly thicker than the 240 and it has a much, much larger diameter, so I wonder whether that movement could be plugged into a 5811 or 5811-adjacent case.

What, if anything, next?

Now, I think I will take a break from Patek.  I’ve got a fantastic trio and I cannot think of another watch, that is within striking distance, that I want.  To be honest, it is kind of refreshing.

Right now, something vintage or neovintage sounds interesting.  But I always feel the call of the independents.

I have a watch from KV on order, which theoretically is on pace for 1Q 2025.  So I think I will wait for that and then see where I want to go.

Conclusion

So, to bring this full circle, why did it take me so long to write this?  Why did writing words feel like pulling teeth?  I think it is because, for the very first time in my time collecting watches, I purchased a watch that I have been organically and viscerally drawn to for as long as I have been into watches.  There is no need for me to write my impressions because I already know my impressions.