Patek Philippe

Mark in Paris
[Purist]
10488

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Thoughts about the 5070's place in Patek recent history

Gentlemen,

While I was looking at the 5170 reference, I was thinking about the huge place the 5070 holds in Patek's chronographs modern history and why it has become quite recently such a big success.

I don't want to compare here the 5070 to the 5170 as we already talked about it here: patek.watchprosite.com /

Furthermore, this is just a thought, not a truth.




Credit: Amanico (hope you don't mind I borrow your great "quatuor" picture)

Some may bring forward that it is a good looking watch (as I do) but I think we maybe make a mistake here thinking it is the main reason why it is so successful. Every icon is to be considered in its context and, hence, in the subjective way we see, compare and judge things: the difference between intrinsic and relative values.

What was iconic once may lose that aura in another context or era. This is true in any artistic field too.

What we find looking much better today is the result of the influence of being in the presence of (or "exposed" to) elements over a long period.

Of course there are rules in aesthetics too, but I don't think that the watches we consider today as beautiful are "absolute" beauties.

Hence, there is room for opening to new designs.

In the same way, vintage is not always the reporting basis to consider if something is legitimate or looking nice.

In that regard, it is easy to understand how the introduction in 1998 of the 5070 was "coldly" perceived back then in comparison to previous references. It was really a new thing compared to other Patek's references. But it perfectly corresponded to the aesthetical context and evolution during that period, even until now. That's why it is so desirable today.

Remember also that Patek's chronographs have been launched in the 30's and 40's mainly. These references have known a very long period of production and, often, all remaining in the catalogue at the same time.

For instance:

- The 130 reference (first regular chronograph reference): from 1934 to at least late 40's

- The 530, 533: from late 30's to at least mid 50's

- The 1463 (first waterproof model): from 1940 to late 60's

- The 1579: from early 40's to at least early 60's

Nothing new was presented in terms of simple chronograph in the 70's and 80's.

Why do I mention this?

Well, it means that the first 5070 reference launched was quite a phenomenon and, being the new and only one at that time, the return of this complication that Patek masters so well, it is easier to understand why it has such a strong presence still today after the 5170 reference has been in the catalogue for around five years now. And, in that context, five years are nothing, we'll need much more time to appreciate it fully.

Not to mention, as we already said it before on Purists, that the 5070 didn't please Patek admirers at first. The appeal for this reference and the excitation today, came much later for the reasons I explained above.

Hence, the 5070 will still remain the chronograph of the rebirth of this complication ( classical chronograph-only Patek).

Furthermore, the way it was presented, in a big sized 42mm case (especially at that time) and quite daring style (which I like a lot by the way) compared to much rounder cases from the brand, make it quite unique and strengthens its legend.

(By the way, the "style" element is why I think the 5975's case is a future icon too)

Anyway, it is easy to understand that it is very hard for a new reference to take the helm. Especially when the style mainline of the new 5170 is a comeback to classical Patek aesthetics.

But I'll come back to this later with an article about the 5170 and why it should not be underestimated.

In my opinion, the 5070 is not as successful today only because of its characteristics (which are good of course) but also because it was the only and new one.

But I haven't talked about the calibers yet.

Many Patek fans have a soft spot for the Lemania based CH 27-70. Is it better finished than the new CH 29-535? Difficult to say ("six of one, half a dozen of the other" to me) and I have heard both opinions.

What is true is that on a technical basis, the new caliber is definitely an improvement and some of the new patented features remain simple and clever ideas: not necessarily more complicated just in the purpose to be so. The Lemania is a legend but the In-house 29-535 is the work of Patek's team. I like that.

The bigger size of the new movement is more impressive too. They have a very similar finishing (chamfering, beveling...), however everyone will have his own opinion on that matter of course.

As far as I'm concerned, I prefer by quite far the CH 29-535 as technical elements have a high priority in my list.

However, I'll stop here for now as we already talked about this matter in the 5070 versus 5170 thread (link at the begining of this thread).  

Don't get me wrong, I love the 5070 and would really be happy to have one, a good watch is still a good watch and a bad one would not have had success anyway, but I thought there is an overestimation of this reference over the new 5170.

My aim here is not to say which one I (or we) prefer but just to say it is important to give time to the 5170 to blossom with an open mind. Anyway, time will do the job in the end

Next time, an article about the 5170 and its place regarding Patek Philippe's history.

I'll be curious to see the way you wish to react to this, maybe you had personal examples in the past to share.

Thanks for reading 

Cheers, Mark