COSC - GENEVA - Patek Accuracy

[boa2]

Originally Posted by oztimelord

I kindly disagree with this comment. I've owned a large Patek collection and sold them as they are just 'expensive' watches. Service is a major concern now as is quality control. These two elements are frankly more relevant than +- a few seconds here and there.

Look at the 5960P chrono versus a Daytona 4130 mvt does the former justify 10x the price difference. Worse still there have been numerous complaints and if your 5960 breaks down you won't see it for 6-9 months.

We all have our views and most brands currently are using marketing gimicks such as seals etc to sell more watches while quality is slipping.

Hence that is why I have gone vintage

A 5960P (pictured below) is a platinum annual calendar chronograph, and is vastly more complicated than the 4130, with a very expensive clutch release mechanism, a unique escapement, in a finely finished movement of nearly 500 parts. It is 2.5x (not 10x) the price of the Daytona in gold, and is surely to rise in value. I can't see any way of co-classing these two watches.

As a collector of magificent vintage pieces, I would think that you would be the first to acknowledge the disconnect between pricing and materials. The value certainly isn't related to what resides in the case. Unless of course you can tell me where I can get a 6263 for its original price.



Side by side (not my photo):


Whether or not you would choose the Daytona is a moot point. It is hardly the same watch the 5960P is.

[oztimelord]

My Patek 5070G mvt Lemania 27-70 compared to Rolex PN 6241 mvt Valjoux 722-1. Is one better than the other.



Irony is that both companies most expensive and collectable watches didn't even have inhouse movements.

[Adam K.]

Big Hat, I appreciate your comments regarding my post. However, I think you are missing the point of my remarks concerning the seal. Before I go any further, please know that I was the author of the ViaLuxe blog that you posted there. (Adam K. = Adam Keith)

My point in this forum was merely this: Patek Philippe's seal would have meant more HAD it been non-brand exclusive, a la the Fleurier Seal which I mention in the blog, and master Dufour praised so highly (not faint praise, I'd add, considering the source). If no one else can play by your rules for a high-end movement, what purpose does it serve beyond looking cool stamped on the bridge, and adding some cachet? Not that this is inherently wrong, by the way---its just not particularly meaningful. This is why I played "Devil's Advocate" and questioned the creation of the "Patek Philippe Seal"--which, only PP watches can get. Still, I respect Patek wanting to strive for a new standard of excellence. 'Nuff said.

And yes, I stand by my comments regarding the 3130 movement in MY particular watch--it is a phenomenal performer. I didn't say it would best the Patek in decorative nuance--I meant timekeeping performance. While I dont' have access to a laboratory with the equipment that can give you a scientific result, I'd be happy to submit my watch and see how it stacks up against any of the comparable PP-stamped calibers (For example, the 324 SC) I am by no means a blind Rolex fanboy, and understand their position in the comparative hierarchy of brands. At the same time, Patek "Fanboyism" can also get out of hand in some places. I'd argue there are haute horlogerie firms making even more finely finished and exclusive watches than PP these days--but that's a topic for another time.

If we still disagree, fair enough. That's what makes the world an interesting place

[Adam K.]

I would say, as an addendum, that I also gently disagree with Top Hat's viewpoint that COSC certification is "even more meaningless" than the Geneva Seal.

One evaluates the movement's performance in an uncased state, the other evaluates a caliber's decoration standards and attainment of 12 "quality criteria" that the Republique et Canton de Geneve set up over 100 years ago, some of which are quite esoteric and even meaningless. Apples...oranges.

On this point, let's call it a draw--both are primarily marketing efforts, which still carry an interesting history and add small--if marginal--value to the overall equation.

[Adam K.]

"My Patek 5070G mvt Lemania 27-70 compared to Rolex PN 6241 mvt Valjoux 722-1. Is one better than the other?"

OzTimeLord, those are two beauties you have. A connoisseur would probably point out that the Lemania base in the PP Ref. 5070 has superior aesthetic finishing (Cotes de Geneve patterns on the bridges and chamfered edges, a cap on the column wheel, etc.) compared to the Valjoux in the Rolex--which admittedly, is fairly spartan in its decoration (at least, by comparison).

Still, both lovely micro-machines, and great examples of superior quality, classic manual chronographs. I love the complex architecture, and those curvy steel chronograph levers. Hot cousins, you might say!

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by Adam K.

Big Hat, I appreciate your comments regarding my post. However, I think you are missing the point of my remarks concerning the seal. Before I go any further, please know that I was the author of the ViaLuxe blog that you posted there. (Adam K. = Adam Keith)

My point in this forum was merely this: Patek Philippe's seal would have meant more HAD it been non-brand exclusive, a la the Fleurier Seal which I mention in the blog, and master Dufour praised so highly (not faint praise, I'd add, considering the source). If no one else can play by your rules for a high-end movement, what purpose does it serve beyond looking cool stamped on the bridge, and adding some cachet? Not that this is inherently wrong, by the way---its just not particularly meaningful. This is why I played "Devil's Advocate" and questioned the creation of the "Patek Philippe Seal"--which, only PP watches can get. Still, I respect Patek wanting to strive for a new standard of excellence. 'Nuff said.

And yes, I stand by my comments regarding the 3130 movement in MY particular watch--it is a phenomenal performer. I didn't say it would best the Patek in decorative nuance--I meant timekeeping performance. While I dont' have access to a laboratory with the equipment that can give you a scientific result, I'd be happy to submit my watch and see how it stacks up against any of the comparable PP-stamped calibers (For example, the 324 SC) I am by no means a blind Rolex fanboy, and understand their position in the comparative hierarchy of brands. At the same time, Patek "Fanboyism" can also get out of hand in some places. I'd argue there are haute horlogerie firms making even more finely finished and exclusive watches than PP these days--but that's a topic for another time.

If we still disagree, fair enough. That's what makes the world an interesting place

No, as I said, I was largely in support of your initial post and see your point(s) here. As I think more about it maybe it best to express my thoughts this way, if the GS has established a series of criteria that no longer reflects what PP feels they need to do in order to differentiate them from the "new renters" in Geneva I think they had little choice but to leave. I enjoyed your discussion of the other seals and your point about an "independent" seal is unassailable, but I was under the impression that the Dufour standard etc weren't truly independent either. Am I wrong about that? The other point is that if you establish a in-house standard and clearly list the criteria, only a little effort is required to compare them.

I certainly don't think you're a "blind Rolex fanboy." I'm no PP fanboy by the way, as I don't own one.

[Adam K.]

Good morning, Big Hat. I'm glad you enjoyed my blog about watchmaking seals.

Just to clarify further, the Fleurier Seal (or, "FQF seal", as its also known) which Dufour praised, IS in fact open to any European manufacturer--Swiss or otherwise--who wishes to submit calibers in accord with the rules. Even though the participating companies (Chopard, Parmigiani, Bovet, and Vaucher) are Fleurier-based, there's no need for others wishing "in" to be based in that Canton.

So, if say, A. Lange & Sohne--the top German haute horlogerie manufacture--wanted to submit their Richard Lange watch (or whatever model(s)) to get the FQF certification, they could do so.

The specifics are all at the FQF website (http://www.fleurier-quality.com/rule...lity-seal.html) and its interesting to peruse the specifics. It definitely sets some solid demands--which is why Philippe felt it was the best of the various movement certifications out there today.

Best,

Adam

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by Adam K.

Good morning, Big Hat. I'm glad you enjoyed my blog about watchmaking seals.

Just to clarify further, the Fleurier Seal (or, "FQF seal", as its also known) which Dufour praised, IS in fact open to any European manufacturer--Swiss or otherwise--who wishes to submit calibers in accord with the rules. Even though the participating companies (Chopard, Parmigiani, Bovet, and Vaucher) are Fleurier-based, there's no need for others wishing "in" to be based in that Canton.

So, if say, A. Lange & Sohne--the top German haute horlogerie manufacture--wanted to submit their Richard Lange watch (or whatever model(s)) to get the FQF certification, they could do so.

The specifics are all at the FQF website (http://www.fleurier-quality.com/rule...lity-seal.html) and its interesting to peruse the specifics. It definitely sets some solid demands--which is why Philippe felt it was the best of the various movement certifications out there today.

Best,

Adam

Adam,
Thanks for the info. See you've been a member since Dec. Weigh-in more often, we may not always agree, but I suspect we will gain from your insights.
Have a nice day

Matt

[snow_rocks]

Originally Posted by C. Davidson

In regards to a Marine Chronometer.
An excerpt from Omega: A Journey Through Time, page 201:

The Megaguartz 2400, indisputably the most accurate and the most technologically advanced wristwatch in the world*, was developed by Omega in collaboration with the Battelle Institute of Geneva. ... Its unmatched precision of one second a month is around ten times greater than that of an ordinary quartz watch. ... This high frequency earned one version, the calibre 1511, the title of Marine Chronometer from the Astronomic and Chronometric Observatory of Neuchatel - a unique award. After 63 days of rigorous testing, the mean variation of rate was no more than 2/1,000th of a second per day, or 0.73 seconds per year!

Chris, thanks for the definition for MARINE CHRONOMETER!

I stated earlier that the owner of the watch is the part of the equation not accounted for when justifying accuracy.

My EX 1 (3130 mvt) takes a beating at my job (landscaper, not grass cutter!), and has run +6 since I bought the watch. An RSC can no doubt dial in the accuracy, and the watch would probably still maintain it's new accuracy.

I can see now that durability is another important aspect of a watch's character, besides good looks. My EX is so beautifully understated.

If I owned a PP, I would take it to work!

[Pimpsy]

What a great morning read. Thanks gentlemen!

[argee1977]

I've never understood the whole certification process and the way people always want one, to me all the certificate says is that this watch can be regulated to be within COSC, but if the test is carried out 6 months to a year before the watch is actually sold will it still be as accurate, the certificate is nice, and having a watch that is +1 or 2 seconds a day is great, but in reality it's just a bit of paper saying that the movement has been tested to work within a certain parameter, which in this day and age is pretty much every swiss movement, with ETA producing movements for 50 years that have been more than capable of matching the others under these test parameters.

[boa2]

Originally Posted by oztimelord

My Patek 5070G mvt Lemania 27-70 compared to Rolex PN 6241 mvt Valjoux 722-1. Is one better than the other.



Irony is that both companies most expensive and collectable watches didn't even have inhouse movements.

I'm not convinced you can draw a definitive conclusion between the merits of each brand by looking at the movements of those two models. In other words, "better" always leads a discussion awry.

Either way, the 5960 is an in-house movement with some notable complexity and innovation, and I don't believe you can do an apples-to-apples comparison between an annual calendar chronograph and a time-only chronograph, let alone the finish level between the two.

I'm sure it goes without saying, you have an amazing collection, OzTimeLord.

[bbqBiker]

I recently purchased two new watches (both brand new): Explorer II (thanks DSWilliams) and a co-axial Omega 2503.33. My Omega pushes 1 second or less per day, the Explorer II loses 4 or slightly more than 4 seconds per day. Oh yea, my 12 year-old (non COSC) Baume & Mercier was recently serviced and loses less than 2 seconds per day. So...

Per time keeping, I am quite pleased with the Omega and B&M.

Explorer II shouldn't be less accurate than the other two, but it is at this point. No real big deal in the bigger scheme of things, but I am hoping that there is some sort of break-in period. BTW, I have had it about a month now.

Can I expect the ExpII to get more dialed-in soon or is minus 4-5 seconds/day likely the best this timepiece will do?

Thanks for your patience...I am a relative newbie to high-end watches (since B&M really doesn't qualify as 'high-end'.) Thanks for any feedback.

[GradyPhilpott]

Your Explorer II can be regulated to much better than what it's doing and it can be done on warranty.

Just go to an AD with a Rolex certified watchmaker on site and let him keep it for a couple of days.

[bbqBiker]

I love this place, great info quickly. Thanks Grady Catman!