5066 vs 5065 Aquanaut sizes

[Mk2rick]

ive been thinking of getting an aquanaut as my first Patek.

i’ve recently had the opportunity to try both the 5066 (36mm) and 5065 (38mm) on my wrist and i’m honestly still undecided on which model suits my wrist more. The 5066’s 36mm size feels right , but the dial feels a bit congested as compared to the 5065 and the wrist presence loses out to the 5065 too.

I’m wondering what the esteemed folks of this forum would think between the two sizes. thanks in advance !






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[geoach]

since I have 5066 that's my choice I'm 6 foot 200lbs love the vintage size on me........most here are going to vote for the bigger size.....btw 5066 is really 35 not 36

[jgottsman11]

Get the 5065 if you're going to get a vintage one.

[MRBolton]

I think the 5066 looks better with the dial being a little more spread out, but either size works on you. The 5066 is what I'd opt for.

[sampelligrino]

5065 is my vote, pretty cool look to have the "flat" strap versus molded and flush to the case as is with all modern Aquas

[aa_watch]

5065 is the best in my opinion. Case size feels modern and aged very well.
Current Aquanauts are even larger.

[fsprow]

I favored my 5065 very much, but it is currently sitting in deep water in Lake Malawi, sad to say.

[aa_watch]

Originally Posted by fsprow

I favored my 5065 very much, but it is currently sitting in deep water in Lake Malawi, sad to say.

How did it happen ?

[cascavel]

Either is good but my preference is the 5066. It looks superb on your wrist and doesn't dominate your arm.

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by aa_watch

How did it happen ?

Sailing with a friend and a wind gust came up, pulled the boom over and a piece of hardware on the boom tore the watch, happily on the rubber strap, off my wrist. In about 150 meter water depth so there it sits.

[djona]

Originally Posted by fsprow

Sailing with a friend and a wind gust came up, pulled the boom over and a piece of hardware on the boom tore the watch, happily on the rubber strap, off my wrist. In about 150 meter water depth so there it sits.

Sad to hear this but makes for a great story.

OP, they both look great on your wrist. I’d probably go for the 5065.

[Mk2rick]

Thx all for your views and recommendations.

Its crazy! The price difference that 2mm in case size can make. Its a USD 15.2k difference between the 5065 and 5066 that i had the chance to view last week.

[fredfiga]

I love my 5066. The smaller size is perfect. Interestingly it’s the only watch that I’ve received complements wearing. Not the 5711, not any other patek or rolex, but the small aquanaut!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mongrelnomoad]

5066 looks better on your wrist. No overhang - it fits perfectly.

[Mk2rick]

Originally Posted by fredfiga

I love my 5066. The smaller size is perfect. Interestingly it’s the only watch that I’ve received complements wearing. Not the 5711, not any other patek or rolex, but the small aquanaut!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Awesome !

[ts3]

Agree with others that the smaller size looks better on your wrist. Personally I prefer the current Aquanaut design and like the size of 5065. As a result my answer would be 5165.

[Mk2rick]

Originally Posted by ts3

Agree with others that the smaller size looks better on your wrist. Personally I prefer the current Aquanaut design and like the size of 5065. As a result my answer would be 5165.

yes i was potentially considering hunting for a 5165 IF the 5065 size fits well on my wrist. I read that the 5165 case size was exactly the same as the 5065 at 38mm and the only difference would be the revised dial and integrated rubber bands.

however, im leaning to the 5066 which means the only way for me is to go vintage given there isnt a 36mm modern equivalent.

[mdtddd2007]

Originally Posted by aa_watch

5065 is the best in my opinion. Case size feels modern and aged very well.
Current Aquanauts are even larger.

[nbmc5]

5065A strikes the right balance IMHO.