The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Old 1 August 2018, 11:11 PM   #1
benlee
"TRF" Member
 
benlee's Avatar
 
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
benlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 August 2018, 11:48 PM   #2
JorgeCCW
"TRF" Member
 
JorgeCCW's Avatar
 
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
JorgeCCW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1 August 2018, 11:59 PM   #3
tyler1980
"TRF" Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
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)
tyler1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:09 AM   #4
SC11
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
SC11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:16 AM   #5
tyler1980
"TRF" Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
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
4 for AP.

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)
tyler1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:25 AM   #6
SC11
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
4 for AP.

video starting at 18 seconds in

https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/in...udemars-piguet
Interesting video, to be honest until looking now I didn’t class the date function as a complication
SC11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:28 AM   #7
GB-man
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GB-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Watch: addiction issues
Posts: 37,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
Interesting video, to be honest until looking now I didn’t class the date function as a complication
It’s only a complication for me on watches with a 4:30 date
__________________
GB-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:35 AM   #8
tyler1980
"TRF" Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by SC11 View Post
Interesting video, to be honest until looking now I didn’t class the date function as a complication
a date is a complication i guess on its own but its part of a PC on a GC. I suppose they can have more, but the major 4 are the minimum as they cover various areas of watchmaking... short-time measurement, striking mechanisms and astronomical indications. So basically it has to cover all the bases in one watch.

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)
tyler1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:47 AM   #9
SC11
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyler1980 View Post
a date is a complication i guess on its own but its part of a PC on a GC. I suppose they can have more, but the major 4 are the minimum as they cover various areas of watchmaking... short-time measurement, striking mechanisms and astronomical indications. So basically it has to cover all the bases in one watch.

I guess 3 if you are counting a split second chronograph as one.
No I meant when I looked up the definition of complication it was anything past hour, minute and seconds.

In my head it was along the lines of PC, chronograph and minute repeated hence where the 3 count came from.
SC11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:47 AM   #10
SC11
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real Name: Sam
Location: UK
Watch: AP ☠️
Posts: 6,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by GB-man View Post
It’s only a complication for me on watches with a 4:30 date
Well you are a fussy bugger!!
SC11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:48 AM   #11
jon_jon
"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.
jon_jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 12:54 AM   #12
GB-man
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
GB-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: USA
Watch: addiction issues
Posts: 37,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon_jon View Post
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.
I always thought that was a function of the low demand for PCs vs chronographs.
__________________
GB-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 01:00 AM   #13
Ichiran
2024 Pledge Member
 
Ichiran's Avatar
 
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.
Ichiran is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 01:32 AM   #14
benlee
"TRF" Member
 
benlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Ben
Location: SIN & JKT
Watch: Rolex, AP, PP
Posts: 9,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichiran View Post
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.
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
benlee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 02:15 AM   #15
lapince
"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...
lapince is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 02:45 AM   #16
gmstevenson
"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.
gmstevenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 02:51 AM   #17
jon_jon
"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.
jon_jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 09:58 AM   #18
Jace
"TRF" Member
 
Jace's Avatar
 
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
Jace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 03:35 PM   #19
Russell996
2024 Pledge Member
 
Russell996's Avatar
 
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.
Russell996 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 04:09 PM   #20
tom2517
"TRF" Member
 
tom2517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Asia & US
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon_jon View Post
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.
It’s mostly marketing. It’s in watch companies best interest to make these movements sounded as complicated as possible so they can charge you $$$$.

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.
tom2517 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 04:15 PM   #21
tyler1980
"TRF" Member
 
tyler1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by lapince View Post
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...
maybe the problem is the word is used to sell watches by making them appear more complicated instead of being properly defined. Its almost like a marketing tool to put certain watches in the highest category regardless of merit.

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)
tyler1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 05:03 PM   #22
Justindo
"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.
Justindo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2 August 2018, 11:16 PM   #23
jon_jon
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 4,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justindo View Post
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.
Interesting comments about ALS and their AC/PC. I have noticed ALS likes to mention numbers of parts in a watch and seemingly to promote a thought that the higher the number, the better. However I have read that it is more technically challenging for a watch manufacturer to build the same complication for less number of parts. And supposedly Patek uses a lot less number of parts in their AC/PC than ALS. ALS makes some nice complicated watches, but the watch tends to be a lot thicker than the equivalent complication in a Patek watch.
jon_jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Takuya Watches

My Watch LLC

OCWatches

Asset Appeal

Wrist Aficionado

DavidSW Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.