FabR[Senior Patek Moderator]
26166
Hi Mike, it might be an interesting topic of study, but alas, the "numerology" just doesn't seem to be regulated in a predictable/consistent way... I'd safely call that a "general rule" since many limit examples are quickly coming to mind.
May 25, 2023,07:17 AM
For instance, this year we announced the new Ref. 5189G, which going by the info I was given, appears to have the same case as the earlier Ref. 5177, with the only exception of the addition of a solid case back. There are then (numerous) other examples where a reference changes solely because of the addition of precious stones, again while retaining the same "bare" case: for instance, 5960 vs. 5961, 5303 vs. 5304, 5270 vs. 5271, etc. etc..
However, the latter instances are inconsistent with the situation you encounter with (among others) the recent Refs. 5374 and 6300. If you look at their specs, there's a difference in case size between the new 6300GR (same size as both of the earlier 6300G versions) and the three 'Haute Joaillerie' Refs. 6300/40xG. Again, this difference is uniquely due to the addition of precious stones, but now the reference number is unchanged. Same for Refs. 5374G vs. 5374/300P, etc..
Your 2499 example seems yet of a different nature -- of a "bare" case that would differ in size (I would have to confirm this though) while retaining the same Ref. number. I started looking into this more closely after seeing your post, but since I view Patek as the best approximation of "perfection" in this field, I confess that I'm a bit bothered to see these obvious inconsistencies in the numbering. Chances are there is no clear pattern beyond a "general rule" that allows for many random exceptions....but I'll look into it a little bit longer!
Cheers.