Annual Calendar / 5035

[ap2198]

Hi. As a relative newcomer, I'm trying to get a a general consensus on something..
Have heard from one or two people that Annual Calendar 5035 are possibly not for the purist - or good investment?
Have heard a few comments about dial being too squashed, and that roman numerals (common in this instance) are not considered positively.

any comments appreciated!

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by ap2198

Hi. As a relative newcomer, I'm trying to get a a general consensus on something..
Have heard from one or two people that Annual Calendar 5035 are possibly not for the purist - or good investment?
Have heard a few comments about dial being too squashed, and that roman numerals (common in this instance) are not considered positively.

any comments appreciated!

World's first annual calendar. I think that should be a qualifying pedigree, although some purists feel that any annual calendar is simply a poor substitute for a perpetual.

Welcome to the forum.

[MadSpaniard]

I had the 5035R for around 12 years, which I purchased new at AD. I liked the watch, but ultimately sold it and now have the current model 5205R-001 with opaline white dial.

In my experience the 5035 is a nice watch. I think the size at 37mm is a bit on the small side, and combined with the somewhat wide and upward sloping bezels, it wears even smaller than it is, which was the main reason why I sold mine. Also, in my experience, the lume was effectively useless, it never was particularly helpful in dark rooms even when the watch was new, and over the years the lume seemed to fade almost entirely. Lastly, the styling seemed a little "caught in the middle" to me, i.e. not entirely casual but not entirely dressy either, perhaps accentuated by the roman numerals filled by lume (as opposed to solid applied markers, for example).

But, all of that is really personal preference and nothing more - other people find the 5035 to be a classic and even a landmark piece given it's the first annual calendar.

All in all, I would recommend it, you will certainly enjoy the 5035, but I would also say if you can go a little further up the chain into the 5146 or 5205 you may be even more satisfied (although those will come at a higher price).

Good luck making your decision, and I hope you enjoy whichever Patek you decide to get. Cheers.

[Tan]

5035 is a classic and a bargain at today's prices, I would recommend getting one!

[5035]

The big driver on the Rolex market is the Chinese....
Wait for the Chinese to discover 37mm PP and the market will explode overnight.

The 5035 is absolutely a bargain........

It is like wearing a 1950s Rolex......... with the second hand going around (the Perpetuals DO NOT have a second hand).

I think the 5035 is beautiful.

GO FOR IT!!!!

[glamorama]

Sounds like people listened to a certain YouTuber prompting 37mm Pateks..

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by 5035

The big driver on the Rolex market is the Chinese....
Wait for the Chinese to discover 37mm PP and the market will explode overnight.

The 5035 is absolutely a bargain........

It is like wearing a 1950s Rolex......... with the second hand going around (the Perpetuals DO NOT have a second hand).

I think the 5035 is beautiful.

GO FOR IT!!!!

Well I don't know much about 1950's Rolex, and even less about the Chinese market, but I do agree with you that 36-37mm size an ideal interpretation of a classic dress watch. And long before the aquanautilus craze took hold, Patek was the dress watch of choice for fine gentleman and scholars.

The Patek 5035 is very nice watch and has important historical significance as the first AC, and it introduced the world to the concept of a "useful complication".

A $100k watch though? Not now, not ever. Not even close. Not in USD anyways.

BTW, Patek perpetuals CAN be had with a sweep second hand (5059, its successor 5159, and more recently 5320 are examples). The more important question is why on earth would you want to ruin a perfect PC with something as utilitarian and vulgar as a sweep seconds hand? Measuring time in units as insignificant as seconds should hardly concern the elite ownership of a perpetual calendar. Don't you agree? I know Archie would.

TL/DR: the 5035 is a fine watch, but it's no 3940.

[enjoythemusic]

As others have said, the Patek 5035 when released was innovative. Had one when new as a daily beater at the time ($13,500 in rg / white-silver dial). Other than you'll notice the date numbers not being centered within the lower window, was a good timepiece overall. Wore well, good wrist balance, had no problems with it.

[Hypeunot]

Someone, can't recall where, described the 5035 as having an inverted bezel.
Please may I know what's an inverted bezel.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Hypeunot

Someone, can't recall where, described the 5035 as having an inverted bezel.
Please may I know what's an inverted bezel.

Maybe they were referring to concave vs convex?

[Humble michael]

Originally Posted by Tony64

Well I don't know much about 1950's Rolex, and even less about the Chinese market, but I do agree with you that 36-37mm size an ideal interpretation of a classic dress watch. And long before the aquanautilus craze took hold, Patek was the dress watch of choice for fine gentleman and scholars.

The Patek 5035 is very nice watch and has important historical significance as the first AC, and it introduced the world to the concept of a "useful complication".

A $100k watch though? Not now, not ever. Not even close. Not in USD anyways.

BTW, Patek perpetuals CAN be had with a sweep second hand (5059, its successor 5159, and more recently 5320 are examples). The more important question is why on earth would you want to ruin a perfect PC with something as utilitarian and vulgar as a sweep seconds hand? Measuring time in units as insignificant as seconds should hardly concern the elite ownership of a perpetual calendar. Don't you agree? I know Archie would.

TL/DR: the 5035 is a fine watch, but it's no 3940.

Ha! I don’t think Archie owns a PP Perpetual- w or w/o a seconds hand