Patek’s Quiet Downgrading of the new Nautilus and Aquanaut

[dysert]

New name proposed, AquaNOT

[bp1000]

Am I missing something here, I thought Patek Philippe clarified their new depth rating for new releases in their W&W press release

https://static.patek.com/pdf/pressre...nd_Wonders.pdf
(scroll down to "Unified criteria for water-resistance")

What I'm currently unsure of and I'm guessing is that all pre W&W 2024 models still showing 30m on site (i.e. most if not all 2024 and earlier models) are still rated to the old measurement - indeed confusing but I thought it had been clarified?

[kaiserphoenix]

Originally Posted by bp1000

Am I missing something here, I thought Patek Philippe clarified their new depth rating for new releases in their W&W press release

https://static.patek.com/pdf/pressre...nd_Wonders.pdf
(scroll down to "Unified criteria for water-resistance")

What I'm currently unsure of and I'm guessing is that all pre W&W 2024 models still showing 30m on site (i.e. most if not all 2024 and earlier models) are still rated to the old measurement - indeed confusing but I thought it had been clarified?

Yes but Im 100000% confident that if you take your perpetual calendar or a calatrava to 30m swimming, it will not hold up. I would have accepted this if it stated 30m water proof for aquanaut/nautilus and then it would be like 2m watere proof for dress watches. but now it states 30m across the board, I feel it will be even more dangerous if someone bought a 5270 and looks at the 3ATM and thinks they can now swim with it.

[HMHM]

I can’t think of any other time where a manufacturer voluntarily made the specification of a product they had released worse without regulators intervention….
An example of don’t go fixing things that ain’t broken….

[subtona]

…

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by subtona

…

This is so lazy. Just have individual ratings. Crazy a luxury brand would do this.

[kaiserphoenix]

Originally Posted by Vince_76

This is so lazy. Just have individual ratings. Crazy a luxury brand would do this.

not only is it lazy, isnt it dangerous!??? Now people are technically able to take their perpetual calendars and world timers into the pool and swim with it and Patek is now liable for any water damages...

[pam66]

sounds like preparing for their coming dive watch line. i can already hear them say: the cubitus is tested waterproof at 100m!

[AK797]

Originally Posted by pam66

sounds like preparing for their coming dive watch line. i can already hear them say: the cubitus is tested waterproof at 100m!

Ha, funny but probably true, they are going to give this a massive push I bet so will need to pull out all stops.

[Vince_76]

Originally Posted by pam66

sounds like preparing for their coming dive watch line. i can already hear them say: the cubitus is tested waterproof at 100m!

Yep, good point. What a misleading move.

Is the Cubitus name confirmed? And when are they revealing it? I have quite low expectations…

[Megalobyte]

My only question is, are all 30m rated watches already sold and in use actually good to swim with? Thats what I need to know.

[Crown & Shield]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Wait. If 30m was laughable what was 120m?
Bottom line, if you want a water watch PP is not your move.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This

[Crown & Shield]

Originally Posted by fsprow

Not so. Minimal force equivalency.

Exactly, the jumping/splashing thing is one of the many myths spread on watch forums

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by Crown & Shield

Exactly, the jumping/splashing thing is one of the many myths spread on watch forums

Is this true? I was told by my AD that force absolutely can increases jumping into pool increasing pressure if it hits a portal. Otherwise, 30m would be ample for virtually all swimming. And it’s not. Now is 60m for my 5524.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Is this true? I was told by my AD that force absolutely can increases jumping into pool increasing pressure if it hits a portal. Otherwise, 30m would be ample for virtually all swimming. And it’s not. Now is 60m for my 5524.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe your AD was sleeping in physics class. The forces from jumping into or pool swimming are minimal, although a jump into water from a very high platform or cliff could be significant.

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by fsprow

I believe your AD was sleeping in physics class. The forces from jumping into or pool swimming are minimal, although a jump into water from a very high platform or cliff could be significant.

Maybe he was an Olympic platform diver!!

So, ultimately, are you saying that a watch rated for 30m is actually safe to be swimming in a normal pool, showers, the ocean, etc., anywhere where one does not go down approximately 90 feet under the surface??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Greenp]

Did Patek say anything about NOT using chronograph pushers under water?

[GGGMT]

Pushers under water doesn’t sound great for any brand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Halothane]

Everyone concerned should remove themselves immediately from any waitlists. I’ll happily move up the queue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by GGGMT

Maybe he was an Olympic platform diver!!

So, ultimately, are you saying that a watch rated for 30m is actually safe to be swimming in a normal pool, showers, the ocean, etc., anywhere where one does not go down approximately 90 feet under the surface??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would say any quality watch whose water test is done every few years should be just fine. I’ve gone shallow diving (20 feet) many times with a 5711 or a 5164.

[scurfa]

Originally Posted by fsprow

I believe your AD was sleeping in physics class. The forces from jumping into or pool swimming are minimal, although a jump into water from a very high platform or cliff could be significant.

Like the deck of your super yacht maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fsprow]

Originally Posted by scurfa

Like the deck of your super yacht maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sadly, my super yacht was threatened with confiscation and is in dry dock in Dubai.

[scurfa]

Originally Posted by fsprow

Sadly, my super yacht was threatened with confiscation and is in dry dock in Dubai.

At least you don’t need to worry about water ingress on your Nautilus!

[scurfa]

Originally Posted by scurfa

At least you don’t need to worry about water ingress on your Nautilus!

And no dry docks in Dubai at the minute!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pam66]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

My only question is, are all 30m rated watches already sold and in use actually good to swim with? Thats what I need to know.

to my knowledge PP did not say whether they made any technical changes in concordance with this new 'real 30m' bs. but i doubt it...

[subtona]

Should have just changed the rating to feet.

“Now rated to 99 feet”

[scurfa]

It could cause some confusion for instance last year the platinum Ellipse had no water resistance but the rose gold version had the 30m, now the Platinum version has the 30m, what changes have been made and what’s to stop someone who bought one years ago thinking theirs has the 30m?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crown & Shield]

It is all fugazi anyway, so who cares?

[Gebbeth]

Completely and utterly useless explanation from Patek, to the point of being seemingly disingenuous.

What in god's name are they trying to say? IF they are saying 30M or 3 bar is "their" standard for surface swimmable watch ratings, then, as one commenter already stated, are their 30M dress watches now "swimmable?" Really?

So does this mean that they are just not testing for 120M of 12 bar testing depths on their cases? If that's the case, none of these sports watches can be trusted for water resistance for active water activities. It's not just about swimming or not swimming or even diving. Part of having a robust WR rating was for those what if situations? Diving into water. Accidentally dropping your watch into the water. Or just having a watch tested to depths that you may not ever see in real life, but ensure that water will essentially never be a worry for you....that is a "feature" that people pay for in a sports watch.

OR are they really downgrading their sports watches with standard water resistance meant only for dress watches...ie, standard gaskets and seals, to standardized these components across all their watches? Now that's a real downgrade.

If Patek is going the ALS route and really have only 1 watch line that can be considered a sports watch with robust water resistance, then just say it.

But my guess is they can't without risking their cash cow and sports watch icons.

It's a stupid move. If their goal is "honesty" they really have to explain it. So are they just testing to 3 bar? Or are they testing to 10 bar or more and just marking it 3 bar for a safety cushion? Does this mean they are going to restate the WR ratings on all their other watches including dress watches, or are they just going to remove that altogether from their dress watches to basically tell the public these watches are not WR at all in any way shape or form? Will they come clean and say that then?

[SL BRABUS]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WXQbP7X0B64

Nevermind about the DeepSea in the background....

Look at this guy reaction & what he has to say about the new Aquanaut & Nautilus 30m water resistance... That sum it up...