Advertisement

There are many „open“ questions that people, watch and brand enthusiasts, „conaisseurs“, want to ansers themselves …

 

However „Thierry“ already gave us the answers. And they are straight forward!
Apparently he himself is responsible for the design (sic), it was not fruitful to work with partners. Ok. Maybe he was not aware anymore that his best ever modern design was from a „Partner“… And maybe he forgot also that not so many internal designs in the past 50 years proved the test of time! The Aquanaut in fact was a positive exception, despite the first strange dial design (strange offset markers and impossible setting of the 3 next to the date), which they corrected relatively fast! 👍🏻
I do understand that brand lovers try to justify what Thierry said, and justify this square Nautilus design. Yes I do understand!
I also understand , that it is hard to come up with an alternative to Nautilus. However, PP decided this movment. Nobody forced them this way!
With AP and Code 11.59 it was different. They tried hard to come up with something new! It was not a round Royal Oak! Not at all! They looked for modern alternatives! They dared to do something new! And lost! At least iinitially! But I see it more like the initial fail of the PP Aquanaut dial design. And after Cubitus I am almost certain that Code 11.59 will futher take off…
I am sorry, despite the product quality of the Cubitus* - afterall it´s a PP - I do not find (m)any positive design aspects of this model.
If I bring again the interview of Thierry into play, it might have simply been an ego thing of a brand owner, that wanted to set a testimonial…


*one more thing about the product quality: This supposed to be a sports watch. The Original was a sports watch! The „ears“ was more than design - it was a concept by the designer to increase water resistance! And successfully. It had a WR of 120m initially. Almost 50 years later, the square model of it, with the same ears, has a WR of 30m.

  login to reply