How much does watch thickness factor into Patek choices?

[FrançoisCzapek]

Many posts giving advice on choosing a Patek focus on watch diameter relative to one's wrist. However, I rarely see advice on thinking about thickness. Is this something people are conscious of? I'm less conscious because I'm partial to chronographs, but recently appreciated wearing a thin watch for a change.

I can think of two ready contexts.

First, imagine someone is thinking of a grail perpetual chronograph dress watch. Your default choice would be the 5270, which is about 12 mm, typical as far as complications go. But if you look at "double" grand complications like split second perpetual chronographs, these are going to be at least 14 mm. I think people would be conscious of something thicker than 12 mm, and a watch would feel unusually thick beyond 14 mm. It may not change your mind especially if you're specifically looking for that complication, but it's noticeable.

Same applies to the annual calendar chronographs.

Second, this is apparent with the steel Nautilus. The classic 5711/1A is classic not just because it's the clean, basic, time only model, but it's also the thinnest at 8 mm. The 5712 is the only one with a complication that is almost as thin (the perpetual 5740 is also thin, but only comes in gold). The complications are about 12mm, with the 5990 slightly thicker at 12.5 mm.

So the Nautilus complications excluding the 5726 are different because they are noticeably thicker.

Thoughts?

[Vasco]

It's very personal as thickness impacts sleeves position and/or weight (hence comfort). On my side, comfort tends to prevail on the long run. Some thicker watches, more expensive, tend to become "event" watches (fency dinners, weddings... watch GTGs lol), hence with little wearing time.

The 5740 (the thinnest of their QP) is 8.4mm while 5711 is 8.3 and 5712 is 8.5.

The 5270 (41x12.4) comes with the new 29-535 (slightly wider than 27-70). The 5172 (41x11.4) too.

Yet, the older 5204 (40x14.3), with the same 29-535 has different proportions. The older 5170 (39.5x10.9) is very different as well.

The previous 5070 (42) had a smaller caliber (27-70).

My conclusion is that Patek can make a wide range of complications whatever the case (especially the harder i.e. smaller). Hence, regarding the "decision", I tend to think that, for aesthetical reasons, in other words because some clients ask for bigger watches, Patek can decide to introduce bigger watches. While respecting a kind of general proportion (thick vs diameter), some models are getting thicker cases but I think it's to follow the demand/fashion.

[JR16]

I value lug-to-lug length higher than thinness but both are importantly to me. One of the reasons I love my 5167a and 5712a is how thin they are - adds to their comfort and overall on-wrist asthetic IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[0nly5iv3Digits]

I do not care for a "top-heavy" wrist-watch - no matter what it is. That's exactly what you're going to have when you start talking 13mm +. Like the member above, lug-to-lug is my first consideration; thickness comes second. More than 12.5mm is usually a deal-breaker for me though.