ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rollieo · Yesterday, 10:45 AM

https://youtu.be/3SiMyO6qKPg?si=yq5cRxUrFPtI-x_H

A lot said that’s been said, but well put together.

A few highlights that I haven’t heard anyone mention:

1. Maybe Patek was going for a good watch, but not a watch that would be so desirable as to be another 5711. TS did after discontinue the 5711 so Patek wouldn’t be a one watch company.

2. It’s a slow evolution in design, which is safe and expected from Patek. Similar to Rolex.

3. First iterations of new lines are hard to be wide crowd pleasers and it takes future iterations.

No one is giving Rolex shit for making the YM which was derivative of the Sub. Maybe they did when the YM was released. Also personally I think the Aquanant was quite ugly in its early iteration, it has similar design aesthetics today but is much more refined.

Armis · Yesterday, 11:01 AM

Interesting points about how a model slowly evolves in its refinement, perhaps as we are even seeing to some extent with the AP Code line. Although in the case of Cubitus, despite negative or lukewarm comments, this new release appears to be on fire in terms of desirability from the start.

Ichiran · Yesterday, 11:15 AM

Patek is not MB&F or Urwerk and it has never attempted to be one. The "new" Nautilus line in 1976 was closely based on the 1972 Jumbo and the 1997 Aquanaut was a simplified Nautilus case with a rubber strap. Both "new" lines were hardly revolutionary then.

Even then, Legacy Machines and Urwerk models all have similar aesthetics in their subsequent releases. Maybe it's due to the same design language for both brands applied to their watches.

The Cubitus is also not meant to be a replacement for the Nautilus and Aquanaut and it is a complement to the existing line up.

nyc2la · Yesterday, 03:32 PM

The Nautilus looked (in 1976) and looks (for the recently retired 5711) different in nearly every way than the Royal Oak. The case shapes are different. The bezels are different. The dials are different. The bracelets are different.

The wearing experience of the two watches is very different as well. The Nautilus is softer and silkier, the RO is very industrial and rigid.

Aside from them both being designed by the same, renowned third party designer, they were, and are, different.

Regardless if the Nautilus is “an evolution” of the Royal Oak, they are very different watches. The same can’t be said of the Cubitus when compared to the Nautilus. The Cubitus is simply a squared off (and lazy) copy of the Nautilus.

As a fan and owner of Patek, it’s a very disappointing release.

Ichiran · Yesterday, 03:38 PM

Imagine the hoo-ha today if TS releases the 3700 4 years after the 5402 and call the 3700 a new model line. Imagine both the 3700 and 5402 side-by-side in the same Patek catalogue. Obviously they are designed by the same person and they have the same octagonal case shape, brushed bezel, integrated bracelet, same dimensions, same 2-hander and even the same JLC-based movement.

I struggle to look at the Patek 3700 and call it a revolutionary release. It's a matter of perspective and we can agree to disagree. We look at watches differently.

vliberman · Yesterday, 10:55 PM

The issue is depth of bench and willingness to tap it at PP to improve upon design. If TS considers this design as successful then there is nothing to improve upon. Mkt won’t send a signal as people still buy PP on strength of perception. However, significant portion of collectors is turned off and goes elsewhere. At that point, salvaging situation gets tough as anyone internally who can design is gone to setup indie shop or works for MB&F and you are left with “yes” men who can’t design.

Remember, PP didn’t design its most successful offering in the first place! It has made many right decisions along the way to capitalize on the design which is great. However, ability to design is in question.

Calatrava r · Yesterday, 11:33 PM

This model is a home run for Patek. People who try them on love them. Although big, I suspect they balance very well and are a joy to wear. Regrettably, I will never be allocated one.

smugtech · Today, 12:37 AM

https://youtu.be/3SiMyO6qKPg?si=kg-mRfRKENZOfknn

Interesting review of the Cubitius

Russell996 · Today, 01:42 AM

https://youtu.be/XPMR5-0GI7w?si=rlHUcMDElU4amjVx

A balanced review, what ever next.

Yesterday, 10:45 AM	#1
Rollieo "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: USA Posts: 1,164	Interesting analysis on the Cubitius https://youtu.be/3SiMyO6qKPg?si=yq5cRxUrFPtI-x_H A lot said that’s been said, but well put together. A few highlights that I haven’t heard anyone mention: 1. Maybe Patek was going for a good watch, but not a watch that would be so desirable as to be another 5711. TS did after discontinue the 5711 so Patek wouldn’t be a one watch company. 2. It’s a slow evolution in design, which is safe and expected from Patek. Similar to Rolex. 3. First iterations of new lines are hard to be wide crowd pleasers and it takes future iterations. No one is giving Rolex shit for making the YM which was derivative of the Sub. Maybe they did when the YM was released. Also personally I think the Aquanant was quite ugly in its early iteration, it has similar design aesthetics today but is much more refined.

Yesterday, 03:32 PM	#4
nyc2la "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Real Name: Stephen Location: Beach Watch: 16660 Posts: 9,373	The Nautilus looked (in 1976) and looks (for the recently retired 5711) different in nearly every way than the Royal Oak. The case shapes are different. The bezels are different. The dials are different. The bracelets are different. The wearing experience of the two watches is very different as well. The Nautilus is softer and silkier, the RO is very industrial and rigid. Aside from them both being designed by the same, renowned third party designer, they were, and are, different. Regardless if the Nautilus is “an evolution” of the Royal Oak, they are very different watches. The same can’t be said of the Cubitus when compared to the Nautilus. The Cubitus is simply a squared off (and lazy) copy of the Nautilus. As a fan and owner of Patek, it’s a very disappointing release. __________________ "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." --- RWE

Yesterday, 11:01 AM	#2
Armis "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: . Posts: 1,560	Interesting points about how a model slowly evolves in its refinement, perhaps as we are even seeing to some extent with the AP Code line. Although in the case of Cubitus, despite negative or lukewarm comments, this new release appears to be on fire in terms of desirability from the start.

Yesterday, 11:15 AM	#3
Ichiran 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Real Name: Michael Location: Near beach Watch: PB1967 Posts: 8,048	Patek is not MB&F or Urwerk and it has never attempted to be one. The "new" Nautilus line in 1976 was closely based on the 1972 Jumbo and the 1997 Aquanaut was a simplified Nautilus case with a rubber strap. Both "new" lines were hardly revolutionary then. Even then, Legacy Machines and Urwerk models all have similar aesthetics in their subsequent releases. Maybe it's due to the same design language for both brands applied to their watches. The Cubitus is also not meant to be a replacement for the Nautilus and Aquanaut and it is a complement to the existing line up.

Yesterday, 03:38 PM	#5
Ichiran 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Real Name: Michael Location: Near beach Watch: PB1967 Posts: 8,048	Imagine the hoo-ha today if TS releases the 3700 4 years after the 5402 and call the 3700 a new model line. Imagine both the 3700 and 5402 side-by-side in the same Patek catalogue. Obviously they are designed by the same person and they have the same octagonal case shape, brushed bezel, integrated bracelet, same dimensions, same 2-hander and even the same JLC-based movement. I struggle to look at the Patek 3700 and call it a revolutionary release. It's a matter of perspective and we can agree to disagree. We look at watches differently.

Yesterday, 10:55 PM	#6
vliberman "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: los angeles Posts: 308	The issue is depth of bench and willingness to tap it at PP to improve upon design. If TS considers this design as successful then there is nothing to improve upon. Mkt won’t send a signal as people still buy PP on strength of perception. However, significant portion of collectors is turned off and goes elsewhere. At that point, salvaging situation gets tough as anyone internally who can design is gone to setup indie shop or works for MB&F and you are left with “yes” men who can’t design. Remember, PP didn’t design its most successful offering in the first place! It has made many right decisions along the way to capitalize on the design which is great. However, ability to design is in question.

Yesterday, 11:33 PM	#7
Calatrava r 2024 ROLEX SUBMARINER 41 Pledge Member Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: United States Watch: Rolex and Patek Posts: 11,211	This model is a home run for Patek. People who try them on love them. Although big, I suspect they balance very well and are a joy to wear. Regrettably, I will never be allocated one.

Today, 12:37 AM	#8
smugtech "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2022 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 35	https://youtu.be/3SiMyO6qKPg?si=kg-mRfRKENZOfknn Interesting review of the Cubitius

Today, 01:42 AM	#9
Russell996 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2016 Location: UK Posts: 4,240	https://youtu.be/XPMR5-0GI7w?si=rlHUcMDElU4amjVx A balanced review, what ever next.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)