More watches or more complications?

[Crazywis]

If a whole watch is worth much more than the sum of its parts, is one wearable complicated Patek worth more than two simpler Patek's? Or would forum members prefer going with two simpler Patek's? Comments and votes welcome.

I have also posted this question in the AP forum to see if preferences there differ

[Vasco]

To reply more precisely to your question (price is higher when there are several complications in one piece), I would totally go for the "one watch more expensive than the sum of its complications". The addition and combination of different complications in one watch is an additional complication and making it "small" is again another one. Hence, I would prefer that option if I had the budget rather than 1 watch with each complication separately. I value the rarity and the prowess of combining them, in a small volume.

As a side note, I voted for more complications as the mechanical aspect is very important to me (the fact you add "wearable" is an important factor as well). Someone focusing a lot on the aesthetics will certainly think otherwise.

However, a part of the excitation from a watch we discover also comes from the aesthetics, hence we can be attracted by many less complicated references. My experience usually shows that if I pass the first 1-2 months, it will pass away (whereas more complicated watches last longer for me).

Nevertheless, there are watches that we might enjoy for let's say the simplicity and elegance, like a Calatrava, that we might enjoy as much or even more. I would get bored with a Calatrava on the long run but feel very attracted by some I didn't possess (5127R or 5227R for instance).

Another exception, I find Patek makes some stunning cases and there are references (5975, 5227, 5531, 5226/5326) that I love for the case only.

But for me, the complications are what I value most on the long run.

[metallic]

Difficult to answer. I admire complications simply for the aesthetics rather than the functionality. A beautiful manual wind chronograph with open back is a sight to behold from an aesthetic standpoint yet I have very little use for the chronograph function. Same with a perpetual calendar...what a mechanical marvel, aesthetically beautiful in most cases, yet the date is often too small to easily read with aging eyeballs. So the answer for me is aesthetics rule, not the complications or a larger number of watches.

So I'll take either the Dufour Simplicity or Patek chronograph, no questions asked.

[INC]

To be honest, I've never thought of watches that way.

[bp1000]

If there was a third option of indifferent I’d pick that.

I think Patek do some of the nicest time only pieces. I’m going to be a lifelong collector of simple and interesting Calatrava.

They will sit alongside PC/C, AC and WT.

In other words I don’t collect based on complication, just what is interesting to me.

[Partekular]

I prefer to buy a Perp Cal and a separate chrono to an all in one. It’s not only cheaper but less danger of loss of both in one mugging and also allows ringing the changes on the wrist. Eg 5320 and 5172. Both are complications!

[GGGMT]

Unusual way to look at it. I buy the watch with which I am intrigued such as these two





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flying Clog]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Unusual way to look at it. I buy the watch with which I am intrigued such as these two





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow
That would be my almost perfect watch box.
Would love a 5524


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Flying Clog

Wow
That would be my almost perfect watch box.
Would love a 5524


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thku sir! It’s a potent pair!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk