Question about Patek Complication

[benlee]

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.

[JorgeCCW]

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

[tyler1980]

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.

[SC11]

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

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SC11

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

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

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

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by SC11

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

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SC11

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.

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

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]

Originally Posted by GB-man

It’s only a complication for me on watches with a 4:30 date

Well you are a fussy bugger!!

[jon_jon]

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.

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by jon_jon

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.

[Ichiran]

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.

[benlee]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

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.

[lapince]

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...

[gmstevenson]

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.

[jon_jon]

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.

[Jace]

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

[Russell996]

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.

[tom2517]

Originally Posted by jon_jon

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.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by lapince

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.

[Justindo]

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.

[jon_jon]

Originally Posted by Justindo

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.