Why choose 5204P over 5270P or 5970P?

[FrançoisCzapek]

People upgrading to a Patek perpetual chronograph (let's assume a preference for platinum, if possible) generally talk about the 5270P or 5970P as their grail. However, the 5204P is the more technically complex reference given its split second chronograph, and there is no perpetual calendar equivalent of the 5960P with its flyback chronograph.

I'm trying to understand why people generally prefer the 5270P or 5970P. Is it because these have a more classic and more mass appealing aesthetic, where the 5204P would be more appreciated by someone particular about the complication over the overall aesthetic?

Would anyone pick the 5204P as their perpetual chronograph upgrade grail, and why?

[Vasco]

Interesting discussion. There are a few reasons I see.

Mainly, the price is significantly different (more than 100K), hence a more affordable 5270/5970 vs 5204/5004.

Most clients don't value the mechanical difference (Split-second mechanism), it's not very visible on the movement side if you don't go deep in the tech. Hence, you have most of the mechanical appeal already available in a 5270/5970.

The 5270/5970 echo Patek's past with the original 1518/2499. The split-second pieces were very very rare.

That's why going into watches takes time and why people may after a long while come to more complicated watches. Some don't know the difference between an automatic and a manual-wound chronograph. What does a Column wheel bring? What is the difference between a vertical and a horizontal clutch chronograph?

Hence, people don't understand, at the beginning of their watch journey, why the price differences, hence why should I make such effort for something I see equivalent.

Of course, the fact we see more of any model on internet, favors its fame.

There are differences in complexity, in finishing skill or rarity. Hence, to each client to decide if they think it's worth it, if they want to make the additional financial effort.

[FrançoisCzapek]

Definitely understand this, but then why don't veteran watch collectors champion the 5204P more than 5270/5970P?

Also, is 5204P arguably the most complicated complication generally available, outside a very niche, limited or custom model?

[GeraldGentaFan]

Veteran watch collectors prefer the 5004 over the 5204. 5004 is a real collector favorite.

Same reasons as most collectors prefer the 5970 over the 5270.

[FrançoisCzapek]

But I thought the 5204 has some distinct mechanical and aesthetic improvements over the 5004, much more than 5270 over 5970?

Or would this be a bias for a younger buyer, who would be less keen on a 36mm like the 5004?

[GeraldGentaFan]

5004 definitely wears more like 37/38mm, a size many collectors including myself really like. A DJ36 is to small for me but a 5004 works.

There is a general collector preference for the old Lemania movement, and the new inhouse Patek movement is superior on many fronts, but not loved. I also believe that aesthetically, 5004 and 5970 are clearly superior to 5204 and 5270.

I have the 5004, 5970 and 5270. Do I like the 5204? Definitely. Is it a must have for me? No. My personal ranking is 5970, 5004, 5270, 5204. 5970 is just the perfect size for me. 5004 a bit small. And 5270/5204 a bit big.

[FrançoisCzapek]

And I suspect millennial buyers may approach the size the opposite way!

[Vasco]

Originally Posted by FrançoisCzapek

Definitely understand this, but then why don't veteran watch collectors champion the 5204P more than 5270/5970P?

Also, is 5204P arguably the most complicated complication generally available, outside a very niche, limited or custom model?

I agree with GGFan and would add that it's also a generational matter, the older watch fans usually tend to go for the 5004/5970 whereas younger ones tend to like the newest versions. Aesthetical, size reasons... More in link with the fact that they experienced their watch evolution together with the 3970/5004 than the newer 5270/5170.

But the size also comes into play as it's subjective and depends on what our eyes were used to seeing but also compared to the wrist's size. Some don't like the 5270's bigger case (41, hence +1 versus the more complicated 5204) and others don't like the small 5004 (36.5mm!).

The 5204 is the most complicated chronograph (aside of the Advanced Research one). However, until recently the 5959 Split-second was maybe the most complicated one because of its size. It was a Split-second-only reference but very small (33mm case). Let's remember that watchmaking, since the pocket watches was also about downsizing watches to put them comfortably on a wrist. Hence, the smaller, the more refined it was. The 5959 was the thinnest Split-second chronograph ever created from what I read. Launched in 2005, the 27-525 was their very first in-house chronograph (Split-Second). More skill required to miniaturize mechanisms. But this has changed very recently, people even asking for movements to "fill the case". Which can seem contradictory.

As a reminder, the 5070/5970/5004 are Lemania-based chronographs whereas the 5170/5270/5204 are the first ones receiving the new "in-house" 29-535 caliber.

The 29-535 is improving in many areas, in a simple and clever way. Not complex to be complex; trap others tend to fall in with often much bigger sizes. However, the Lemania-based one was a charming (aesthetically) and very important caliber for that period (hand finishing, accuracy...), which was successfully brought up during a tough period (80's) with the launch of the 3970 in 1986 (?) and the future 1989 celebrations. It was an important era for Patek, thanks to Philippe Stern.

People sometimes wonder why Patek is Patek, this area is definitely a part of the whole picture.

[Crazywis]

When bringing up caliber 27-525, and price being no bar, I'd throw ref 5372P and 5373P into the mix with the 5004 and 5204.

[FrançoisCzapek]

Beautiful. Very good reminder.

Would love to see people who own more than one of these post comparison pics on wrist!

[bobernet]

The 5204 looks clunky compared to the 5270 or 5370 (or 5970).

It is really thick. Hockey puck thick. The upside down moonphase is a turn off to me. The squished date numerals is a turn off. It has the hated “chin.” I prefer the flat pushers to the pump pushers. The movement is awesome; the presentation, I don’t like.

That’s why I bought a 5270 and a 5370 instead of a 5204.

[KBM]

This is a discussion that could be approached either with a very simple “matter of aesthetic preference” or a detailed technical discussion on the merits of each of the references you mentioned.

There seems to be no doubt of the of high complications prowess embodied in the perpetual calendar split second chronograph caliber. A rattrapante is among the most ingenious complications in horology and listed alongside minute repeaters as the most difficult to execute. For chronograph lovers, it’s the epitome of watchmaking.

Objectively, there is a remarkable difference in the movement side as well, much beyond the technical aspect. The level of finishing executed by Patek in the caliber of the 5204 is simply on a completely different playing field. Not to mention the tridimensionality of the caliber - which is also double assembled, not the case for the 5270 and 5970.

Dial aesthetics are a matter of personal preference, of course. For me, the combination of platinum, black dial and lumed markers and hands give this piece a sporty edge that is rarely seen in these high grand complications. The watch is not slim, but the 40mm size keeps it very manageable (and much better balanced than the 5004, at 36mm with the same thickness).

I love the 5270, especially in its G configuration with a blue dial and salmon P. But the 5204, to me, is in an entirely different league.

Cheers!

[Demonoid]

Here’s a comparison for you. Not the 5270 but the 5070. 5370 and 5204.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk