ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
1 August 2018, 11:11 PM | #1 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Ben
Location: SIN & JKT
Watch: Rolex, AP, PP
Posts: 9,874
|
Question about Patek Complication
Out of curiosity, does anyone knows exactly why Patek classify a Perpetual Calendar as "Grand Complication" whereas a manual winding chronograph is classified as only "Complication"?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's just as hard if not more difficult to make a manual winding chronograph.
__________________
Follow me on Instagram : benlee789 |
1 August 2018, 11:48 PM | #2 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Real Name: Jorge
Location: Ohio, USA
Watch: Rolex,Patek and AP
Posts: 4,707
|
I really don’t know Ben, but Maybe they see Complications as more common in the market and grand complications as less common. Not necessarily less effort at every variety of complication because clearly like the manual Chronograph it has a very complicated movement. But since in the market Chronographs can be done by many and can be automatics movements they can’t really separate them as a true grand complication, maybe ?
Maybe others can chime in .... here but Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Nothing happens until something moves " Albert Einstein |
1 August 2018, 11:59 PM | #3 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
|
no idea. AP has it right. If its not a PC, split seconds, chronograph, and a minute repeater its not a grand comp. Its black and white and completely justified in the name.
Why is a 5524G listed as a "complication" and not listed with the other calatravas but a 5164 isnt a "complication" but is listed with the other aquanauts. That one keeps me up at night.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches current collection: Patek 5164A, Patek 5524G, Rolex Platinum Daytona 116506, Rolex Sea Dweller 43 126600, Rolex GMT II 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver), Panerai 913, Omega Speedmaster moonwatch, Tudor Black Bay (Harrods Edition) |
2 August 2018, 12:09 AM | #4 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
|
I always thought a basic rule was it requires three complications or more to be a classed as GC!
Maybe not rule as I don’t believe there is a solid definition on what’s required to be a GC but for me it’s three or more complications |
2 August 2018, 12:16 AM | #5 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
|
Quote:
video starting at 18 seconds in https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/in...udemars-piguet
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches current collection: Patek 5164A, Patek 5524G, Rolex Platinum Daytona 116506, Rolex Sea Dweller 43 126600, Rolex GMT II 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver), Panerai 913, Omega Speedmaster moonwatch, Tudor Black Bay (Harrods Edition) |
|
2 August 2018, 12:25 AM | #6 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
|
Quote:
|
|
2 August 2018, 12:28 AM | #7 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Watch: addiction issues
Posts: 37,330
|
It’s only a complication for me on watches with a 4:30 date
__________________
|
2 August 2018, 12:35 AM | #8 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
|
Quote:
I guess 3 if you are counting a split second chronograph as one.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches current collection: Patek 5164A, Patek 5524G, Rolex Platinum Daytona 116506, Rolex Sea Dweller 43 126600, Rolex GMT II 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver), Panerai 913, Omega Speedmaster moonwatch, Tudor Black Bay (Harrods Edition) |
|
2 August 2018, 12:47 AM | #9 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
|
Quote:
In my head it was along the lines of PC, chronograph and minute repeated hence where the 3 count came from. |
|
2 August 2018, 12:47 AM | #10 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
|
|
2 August 2018, 12:48 AM | #11 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,350
|
It is probably a matter of semantics as to which category of complications are considered GCs.
It would be a good question to ask a watchmaker if a PC is more complicated to manufacture compared to a manual chronograph. Many watch manufacturers make chronographs, buy not many make PCs. So it was always my understanding that a PC was harder to make than a chronograph. AFAIK Rolex has never made a PC and not sure if Omega has ever made one either. |
2 August 2018, 12:54 AM | #12 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Watch: addiction issues
Posts: 37,330
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2 August 2018, 01:00 AM | #13 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Real Name: Michael
Location: Near beach
Watch: PB1967
Posts: 8,156
|
My guess is maybe Patek wants to put the split-second chronograph on a higher pedestal, to differentiate it from a "normal" chronograph.
Let me confirm with Mr Stern the next time I see him. |
2 August 2018, 01:32 AM | #14 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Ben
Location: SIN & JKT
Watch: Rolex, AP, PP
Posts: 9,874
|
Ahh... I think this assumption makes the most sense. If Patek is to put manual winding chronograph into grand complication, it will be same category as the split second chronos which doesn't quite make for sufficient differentiation. Yet if it downgrades the perpetual calendars into the complication category, it will then share the same stage as annual calendars. Same problem.
__________________
Follow me on Instagram : benlee789 |
2 August 2018, 02:15 AM | #15 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Mars
Watch: 5712
Posts: 11,509
|
Yes Patek has a very wide understanding for the word GC, AP has it better defined for me, I also don't see in what a simple PC is a grand complication TBH...
|
2 August 2018, 02:45 AM | #16 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: East Coast
Watch: PP, Rolex
Posts: 268
|
I wonder if it has something to do with the number of parts and the difficulty of servicing. While there are exceptions, I think the majority of GC have more parts than the manual wind chronos.
|
2 August 2018, 02:51 AM | #17 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,350
|
For most watch enthusiasts (including myself), it is difficult to understand what makes the PC that much more complicated than an AC and why it costs twice as much. Even if a watchmaker explained it, it is probably not easy to follow his/her explanation without a strong foundation in watch movements. Also the same for a chrono vs a split second chrono and the 2-3x price jump.
A couple of years ago, when the 5370 was introduced, there was a discussion here as to whether it should be considered a complication or a GC. There was even a question of whether a single pusher and double pusher split second chronos deserve a separate category. Ultimately I feel the PC is not an easy movement to design and manufacture, with only a dozen or so watch companies making them. As to Patek classifying them as a GC, it may be a marketing tactic and/or to give the impression to clients that they are buying a very special piece. |
2 August 2018, 09:58 AM | #18 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jun 2018
Real Name: Jace
Location: Boca Raton
Watch: Platinum DD 40
Posts: 329
|
Grand complications are generally considered perpetual calendar, minute repeater and tourbillon and some combination of above. Why? Who knows. The perpetual calendar complication has been around for a long time and the annual calendar came in the nineties by Patek.
A complication is anything above time. This includes date moon phase chronograph, GMT, etc. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk |
2 August 2018, 03:35 PM | #19 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: May 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 4,264
|
In terms of servicing, a Chronograph and a PC can be done at Worldwide service centres, Split-second chrono and other GC’s has to go back to the factory.
The rest is marketing. |
2 August 2018, 04:09 PM | #20 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Asia & US
Posts: 1,551
|
Quote:
As for only a few making PCs, like GB said, it’s probably due to a small market. I think there is a difference between not knowing how to make a movement vs not wanting to make a movement. If Bvlgari can make minute repeaters and tourbillons, how is it possible that Rolex can’t? Rolex is the biggest private watch company, I’m sure they can make anything if they wanted to. |
|
2 August 2018, 04:15 PM | #21 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
|
Quote:
COSC has set criteria if you want to sell a COSC certified watch. ISO has set criteria if you want to sell a certified dive watch. If you want a geneva seal it has specific requirements. It makes sense that some standard criteria should define a grand comp however its such a tiny percent of the watch industry it will never happen.
__________________
Instagram: tyler.watches current collection: Patek 5164A, Patek 5524G, Rolex Platinum Daytona 116506, Rolex Sea Dweller 43 126600, Rolex GMT II 116710LN, AP 15400ST (silver), Panerai 913, Omega Speedmaster moonwatch, Tudor Black Bay (Harrods Edition) |
|
2 August 2018, 05:03 PM | #22 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: California
Posts: 2,176
|
I've wondered about this as well.
I've also read that it's considerably more difficult to make an in-house chronograph than it is to make an in-house perpetual calendar or an in-house tourbillon and if one really looks at the movements, that seems to hold true. Regarding annual calendars v. perpetual calendars, the Lange Saxonia Annual Calendar movement has 476 parts while the Lange Saxonia Perpetual Calendar has 478 parts and both feature the same number of jewels. That's about as apples to apples as you can get, so it seems the mystique of the perpetual calendar is overblown to say the least. I think Patek places their watches into tiers more for marketing than for actual manufacturing reasons. |
2 August 2018, 11:16 PM | #23 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,350
|
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.