Patek spotting >>>>>

[Puffy]

couldn't agree more...

Originally Posted by Lol-x

That looks amazing with the dark hands and markers.

[DSJ]

Great thread

[montres1]

john mayer wearing 5205G-010

[montres1]

charlie sheen's 5970

[montres1]

reese witherspoon's husband wearing nautilus probably 5711

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by montres1

john mayer wearing 5205G-010

Look at the way he's dressed! Very casual, almost "I'm going hitch hiking"-ish...

...It clearly shows you how versatile a Patek is! I think it suits his clothes very well!

P.S.: I have nothing against the way he dresses, quite the contrary!

[montres1]

john mayer another day another patek not sure bout refrence maybe 5970 can anyone chime in

[Mauiguy]

That's a great picture of Witherspoon. She looks fabulous /very cute pregnant and the smile on her husbands face says it all!

Aloha!

[montres1]

andrea pirlo and nautilus

[bycrom]

Wow Lennon, never knew that. I wonder that that would go for at auction?

[Sam Rothstein]

The Aquanaut is growing on me tremendously!!

[fatfingerz]

Brad Pitt and his 5711





Phil Schiller and his 5711

[cjlewis610]

Originally Posted by Sam Rothstein

The Aquanaut is growing on me tremendously!!

Same here. I know they aren't the most well loved but they have a really sleek style.

[VICI]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

Look at the way he's dressed! Very casual, almost "I'm going hitch hiking"-ish...

...It clearly shows you how versatile a Patek is! I think it suits his clothes very well!

P.S.: I have nothing against the way he dresses, quite the contrary!

I think many of these newer actors, singers etc dress like crap.

Their look is terrible - clothes that speak to no style, "I couldn't care less about how I look".

What is he doing dressing like a bum and what's with that hat??

That's what's wrong with society today, public people, the ones that are "idols" for others are setting a terrible example. Where is the pride in making money and dressing like you've made it?

[Puffy]

great snaps, keep them coming

[nauticajoe]

Awesome pics.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Toplaw

I think many of these newer actors, singers etc dress like crap.

Their look is terrible - clothes that speak to no style, "I couldn't care less about how I look".

What is he doing dressing like a bum and what's with that hat??

That's what's wrong with society today, public people, the ones that are "idols" for others are setting a terrible example. Where is the pride in making money and dressing like you've made it?

Men used to wear suits when going to a baseball game.


I'm not saying one has to wear a suit to go to baseball game but society sure has gone down hill quite a lot since then.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by Toplaw

I think many of these newer actors, singers etc dress like crap.

Their look is terrible - clothes that speak to no style, "I couldn't care less about how I look".

What is he doing dressing like a bum and what's with that hat??

That's what's wrong with society today, public people, the ones that are "idols" for others are setting a terrible example. Where is the pride in making money and dressing like you've made it?

Originally Posted by dddrees

Men used to wear suits when going to a baseball game.


I'm not saying one has to wear a suit to go to baseball game but society sure has gone down hill quite a lot since then.

With all due respect gentlemen my post was only to mention that the Patek, despite the fact that Mayer is very casually dressed, still looked quite good and didn't look too odd as it remains a versatile and somewhat casual timepiece (in my humble opinion, at the very least).

As far as I'm concerned I don't judge people by the way they dress, let alone those celebrities. I'll admit I think this outfit fits him well, whether he's worth millions of dollars or not. People can wear whatever they want as long as they're happy.

...Yet again, perhaps I have no sense of style or fashion at all. After all, I am a big fan of those gentlemen below and they don't wear Armani and Versace suits everyday...

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

With all due respect gentlemen my post was only to mention that the Patek, despite the fact that Mayer is very casually dressed, still looked quite good and didn't look too odd as it remains a versatile and somewhat casual timepiece (in my humble opinion, at the very least).

As far as I'm concerned I don't judge people by the way they dress, let alone those celebrities. I'll admit I think this outfit fits him well, whether he's worth millions of dollars or not. People can wear whatever they want as long as they're happy.

...Yet again, perhaps I have no sense of style or fashion at all. After all, I am a big fan of those gentlemen below and they don't wear Armani and Versace suits everyday...

This wasn't a comment in regards to judging people Carl, as much of comment about how lax we have gotten as society in regards to how we dress and the manner in which we present ourselves.

One doesn't have to be rich to dress in a manner in which we show how much we care about how we look.

[Le Chef]

This is not your Grandfather's generation - time moves on thankfully. If my music and movie stars want to dress casually that's fine by me - I prefer to create my own style not copy what some movie star wears.

I like the fact that you can wear a 5270 with a pair of jeans and t-shirt, and wear a 5167 with a suit and French cuffs. You make your own rules rather than mindlessly following out of date conventions.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by dddrees

This wasn't a comment in regards to judging people Carl, as much of comment about how lax we have gotten as society in regards to how we dress and the manner in which we present ourselves.

One doesn't have to be rich to dress in a manner in which we show how much we care about how we look.

As far as I know a whole lot of people still care about the way they present themselves in public, I just think that fashion and styles have changed and, obviously, not everybody can be happy with the said changes. Saying that society has gotten lax in the manner in which it presents itself is some kind of a judgement, some people will work hard on looking in a way that would, in your opinion, be qualified as a lack of style and they will do it because they like the way they look.

I for one buy and wear clothes I like and I don't think I strictly follow any style. Sure, I do take some advice from people around me (in fact, I took a lot of great advice in the attire thread of this very forum) and I keep an open mind if somebody tells me this or that piece of clothing would suit me but if I don't like it I don't buy it to please somebody else. All in all, I'd rather let people judge me on my personality and what I do than what I wear and I'd rather do the very same with the others, whether they are celebrities or not.

Originally Posted by Le Chef

This is not your Grandfather's generation - time moves on thankfully. If my music and movie stars want to dress casually that's fine by me - I prefer to create my own style not copy what some movie star wears.

I like the fact that you can wear a 5270 with a pair of jeans and t-shirt, and wear a 5167 with a suit and French cuffs. You make your own rules rather than mindlessly following out of date conventions.

Well said.

EDIT: Please accept my apologies for hijacking this thread, it is not my intention and I do strongly hope my comments don't offend anybody.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

As far as I know a whole lot of people still care about the way they present themselves in public, I just think that fashion and styles have changed and, obviously, not everybody can be happy with the said changes. Saying that society has gotten lax in the manner in which it presents itself is some kind of a judgement, some people will work hard on looking in a way that would, in your opinion, be qualified as a lack of style and they will do it because they like the way they look.

I for one buy and wear clothes I like and I don't think I strictly follow any style. Sure, I do take some advice from people around me (in fact, I took a lot of great advice in the attire thread of this very forum) and I keep an open mind if somebody tells me this or that piece of clothing would suit me but if I don't like it I don't buy it to please somebody else. All in all, I'd rather let people judge me on my personality and what I do than what I wear and I'd rather do the very same with the others, whether they are celebrities or not.



Well said.

EDIT: Please accept my apologies for hijacking this thread, it is not my intention and I do strongly hope my comments don't offend anybody.

I don't have a problem with casual as I tend to wear jeans with nice tshirts or sports shirts quite often myself. I have more of a problem with rumpled however. But tis one man's opinion.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Correct Carl....There is a reason a 5070J sells for 100% over it's last retail price and the 5170J sells for 25% below. It all comes down to taste but as for collectibility that is a different story and the market tells the story.

Well considering that the percentage differences you mention places those two watches at almost the same price, I don't think it says much except that people start acting bizarre when a watch is being discontinued. Likewise, used/grey dealers tend to raise old model Patek prices as the newest models increase in price. In this case the combo of a discontinued watch and rising prices has resulted in more silliness than usual. My friend has a mix of four or five used and new 5070s at his store for those inflated prices. He hasn't sold any at those prices; I keep checking and they are all on the website still!

Personally, I don't get what the fuss is about for a movement Patek didn't 100% make, except that people panic when a watch is discontinued, and hope to cash in on it somehow. Rarity, perhaps, but for a non-in-house piece it seems ludicrous to me. Though, it doesn't meet my collecting criteria, and thus is of no value to me, so I guess I am unfairly biased. I wouldn't buy a Zenith Dayona either!

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

Though, it doesn't meet my collecting criteria, and thus is if no value to me, so I guess I am unfairly biased.

I guess you are but hey, it is a forum on which one can voice his own opinion as long as it's done respectfully so I think it's great that we get people from both those camps!

However, I must respectfully disagree with you on two points: the 5970, 5070 and those pre in-house Patek's aren't expensive just because they are discontinued, they were also made in a very little quantity, hence their massive price raises as soon as they got discontinued versus, say, a Rolex reference that is being discontinued but is still marked on millions of watches all around the world.

As for the comparison with the prices of the actual models, I guess you are right when you say that the raise makes the model A the same price as his B cousin with an in-house movement. Still, the fact remains that the price of that very model doubled and that you are comparing a model that is, again, very rare to a model that is expensive because, indeed, of its in-house movement but also, and let's face it, because of price increases that are, sometimes (and without wanting to offend anybody), questionable to say the least.

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

I guess you are but hey, it is a forum on which one can voice his own opinion as long as it's done respectfully so I think it's great that we get people from both those camps!

However, I must respectfully disagree with you on two points: the 5970, 5070 and those pre in-house Patek's aren't expensive just because they are discontinued, they were also made in a very little quantity, hence their massive price raises as soon as they got discontinued versus, say, a Rolex reference that is being discontinued but is still marked on millions of watches all around the world.

As for the comparison with the prices of the actual models, I guess you are right when you say that the raise makes the model A the same price as his B cousin with an in-house movement. Still, the fact remains that the price of that very model doubled and that you are comparing a model that is, again, very rare to a model that is expensive because, indeed, of its in-house movement but also, and let's face it, because of price increases that are, sometimes (and without wanting to offend anybody), questionable to say the least.

Well, your first disagreement isn't a disagreement, because I mentioned rarity in my post.

It doesn't seem uncommon for the more complicated older watches to jump up in price significantly as the newer complicated watches jump up in price, at least with Patek. Some more so than others for sure. Rarety may play some part in that sometimes, as well as discontinuation panic, but considering this particular model is not an in-house movement it is still foolish to me. The demand being created by the rarity of a piece that is not in-house is specious IMO. There are rare Patek watches that are completely representative of Patek. I can appreciate the accelerated values of those watches.

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

The demand being created by the rarity of a piece that is not in-house is specious IMO.

Well QC, at this point it will be, as we've said (more or less) above, a matter of opinion. Therefore I guess we shall agree to disagree...

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

Well, your first disagreement isn't a disagreement, because I mentioned rarity in my post.

...Or are we going to disagree to agree? I'm all mixed up now!

[QueueCumber]

Originally Posted by FeelingTheBlues

Well QC, at this point it will be, as we've said (more or less) above, a matter of opinion. Therefore I guess we shall agree to disagree...



...Or are we going to disagree to agree? I'm all mixed up now!

As I've noted, a non-in-house Patek movement has little value to me.

I can appreciate that rarity drives collectible markets, but only if there is demand for that item. I have no interest in that model, for reasons already mentioned that bias me against it, so I don't see much value in it. I think demand is sometimes driven by panic as well, such as the discontinuation of a model. Since my friend isn't selling his 5070s at the inflated prices, I have to wonder if it was a trend driven by the confluence of those factors. I guess we will find out over time. Patek obviously saw value in moving to all in-house; there must be something desirable about it, since they are likely spending more money to make that switch than to outsource the work. Then again, I don't see much value in the Zenith Daytona either and they are highly inflated in some used markets compared to their initial pricings...

[QueueCumber]

I also think owning the first in a new line of in-house movements is prestigious, such as the 5050. You get to watch all the changes that take place in future iterations of the movement, while enjoying where they all began. I would love to have a 5050 at some point in the future....

[FeelingTheBlues]

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

As I've noted, a non-in-house Patek movement has little value to me.

Whilst I understand how impressive it is for a company to make completely in-house movements I must admit I sometimes fail to understand the fuss some people sometimes make about it as well, I guess we are even on that part.

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

I think demand is sometimes driven by panic as well, such as the discontinuation of a model.

Originally Posted by QueueCumber

Patek obviously saw value in moving to all in-house; there must be something desirable about it, since they are likely spending more money to make that switch than to outsource the work.

Interesting points here but please allow me to ask you the same thing, is it possible that the demand for in-house movements may have been driven by panic as well? Is it possible that the hype over these completely homemade parts made people want them to the point where Patek saw value for it, thus making the said value as specious as the one of, say, a now discontinued and rare Lemania based movement?

I'd like to think that making in-house movements and their new Patek Philippe seal were developped with the idea of making things much better but given the notorious quality control that Patek kept improving since 1839 I'm starting to think that the value of a discontinued model has been raised by the hype of collectors as much as the value of an in-house movement has been raised by marketing.

As for the 5050, I guess I'm biased as well as it's not my favorite model but I do get where you come from when you say that owning a model from the first in-house generation can be considered prestigious. On the other hand (and while I know you are not a non in-house enthusiast), couldn't it be just as prestigious to get a model from the last non in-house generation?

[QueueCumber]

Collecting, rarity, and demand scenarios always reminds me of Don Mattingly's 1984 rookie card. At one point it was $75 plus! Now it is low $20s... At a particular time and place it had an absurdly inflated market demand because of a confluence of factors. Is that the case here? I don't know. Only time will tell (punny...). I buy what I like using my collecting criteria, that way I value what I buy no matter how the prices appreciate or depreciate.

I actually have three or four 1984 Mattingly cards in my collection. I wish I sold them while the market was up. They won't ever be that price again in my lifetime....