Geneva Seal Vs. Patek Seal?

[Slider817]

Just Curious if anyone cares?

Personally, I would pay a small premium to get the Geneve seal models from a specific reference if both were available throughout the references lifespan. I prefer the earlier 5711 over the newer ones, and I purchased an older 5146 because I wanted the Geneva seal. I know it's a minor point, but I just prefer the Geneva seal heritage, sort of like COSC certification.

[slashd0t]

I personally couldn't care less..

[RussW]

No preference for me based on the seal. I would probably go for a newer model of the same watch, but the seal would not be a factor.

[travisb]

Wouldn't sway me one way or the other but since they're using the Patek seal currently, that's the one i like.

[locutus49]

Don't care either way. When buying modern watches, I buy the newest I can afford.

[Lordofrolex]

Originally Posted by RussW

No preference for me based on the seal. I would probably go for a newer model of the same watch, but the seal would not be a factor.

x2

Originally Posted by locutus49

Don't care either way. When buying modern watches, I buy the newest I can afford.

x2

[thomaspp]

Geneva seal... pateks good old days.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by thomaspp

Geneva seal... pateks good old days.

[Tony64]

I believe it was in 2009 when Patek made the change from the Geneva Seal to their own.
By dropping the Geneva Seal, they dispensed with any independent verification of quality. The Geneva Seal Bureau and COSC offer independent validation of quality claims; there is no such assurance from Patek.

Now the folks at Patek will say that their own designated seal was necesary to establish a higher standard than that of Geneva and the COSC. Decide for yourself, but in general I'd prefer independent verification.

Finally, and perhaps anecdotal and irrelevant, we do seem to read about quality control issues with some frequency on this forum and others. Impossible to know if that incidence has increased, decreased, or remained unchanged wih the arrival of a new 'standard'.

Interesting thread by the OP, and food for thought...

[GoingPlaces]

Originally Posted by Tony64

I believe it was in 2009 when Patek made the change from the Geneva Seal to their own.
By dropping the Geneva Seal, they dispensed with any independent verification of quality. The Geneva Seal Bureau and COSC offer independent validation of quality claims; there is no such assurance from Patek.

Now the folks at Patek will say that their own designated seal was necesary to establish a higher standard than that of Geneva and the COSC. Decide for yourself, but in general I'd prefer independent verification.

Finally, and perhaps anecdotal and irrelevant, we do seem to read about quality control issues with some frequency on this forum and others. Impossible to know if that incidence has increased, decreased, or remained unchanged wih the arrival of a new 'standard'.

Interesting thread by the OP, and food for thought...

Well said.

[Tony64]

An addendum, if I may, to the OP's question might shed some additional light.

For those who answer "no difference" or "I'd take the newer one", let's assume the following:
2 identical watches are available, both NOS from 2009. A transition year between the seals.
One with the Geneva Seal, the other PP.

Does your answer change?

[Slider817]

Originally Posted by Tony64

An addendum, if I may, to the OP's question might shed some additional light.

For those who answer "no difference" or "I'd take the newer one", let's assume the following:
2 identical watches are available, both NOS from 2009. A transition year between the seals.
One with the Geneva Seal, the other PP.

Does your answer change?

I was thinking to mention that, but obviously a ratty beat up old model, and a mint condition current one are no real contest at the same price, I was referring to basically similar condition watches.

[martinr]

Makes no difference to me. Does anyone know what other brands use the Geneva seal?

[Hollister]

It's all marketing, and both seals are totally irrelevant. There are far better-made watches than PP from other companies which don't have the magical Geneva seal, nor COSC certification.

[Slider817]

Originally Posted by Hollister

It's all marketing, and both seals are totally irrelevant. There are far better-made watches than PP from other companies which don't have the magical Geneva seal, nor COSC certification.

So just to be clear, you would vote for option 3?

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Hollister

It's all marketing, and both seals are totally irrelevant. There are far better-made watches than PP from other companies which don't have the magical Geneva seal, nor COSC certification.

Would love to see that list.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by Tony64

Would love to see that list.

Well, for a start, there's Journe. And I doubt whether Philippe Dufour bothers to submit his work for the COSC/Geneva Seal bods to approve! There must be others, too. Before you start thinking I'm PP-bashing, I own and love two of their watches. But they are not the best watches available.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by Slider817

So just to be clear, you would vote for option 3?

Correct.

Both mine have the PP seal of approval, which I find immensely reassuring..

[brandrea]

For those of us less fortunate, could someone please post both seals? Thank you

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by Hollister

Well, for a start, there's Journe. And I doubt whether Philippe Dufour bothers to submit his work for the COSC/Geneva Seal bods to approve! There must be others, too. Before you start thinking I'm PP-bashing, I own and love two of their watches. But they are not the best watches available.

Excellent points and I don't disagree. I wouldn't suggest that either a Geneva seal or a Patek seal conveys any absolute superiority. In principle though, an independent verification of standard could be thought to be more objective than simply asking an artist to grade his own artwork.

Subjectivity aside, the answer resides in statistics that we'll likely never have. That is, has quality improved, worsened, or remained the same since establishing a new, independent standard. Until such data is available, and only considering 2 pateks of similar age, condition, and cost- I'd choose the independent Geneva seal over the PP.
Ymmv.

[YoureTerrific]

Originally Posted by Slider817

Just Curious if anyone cares?

Personally, I would pay a small premium to get the Geneve seal models from a specific reference if both were available throughout the references lifespan. I prefer the earlier 5711 over the newer ones, and I purchased an older 5146 because I wanted the Geneva seal. I know it's a minor point, but I just prefer the Geneva seal heritage, sort of like COSC certification.

I have a newer 5711 and an older 5146 and I don't think the seal makes a difference. What matters in the name on the dial and movent: Patek Philippe.

[GoingPlaces]

If I'm buying a property, I want a third party to inspect. I'll take the Geneva.

[Hollister]

There's an interesting viewpoint here:

http://blog.thewatchenthusiast.com/archives/1899

the Geneva Seal procedure consists in receiving ONE movement to homologate all the similar movements with its seal.

[Tony64]

I'll concede that neither the Geneva, PP or COSC standards are an absolute measure of quality, but there's a larger, philosophical issue here as well.

Why does Patek feel the need for their own quality seal in the first place? After all, for a company that professes such a commitment to producing quality timepieces and with relatively low production numbers, shouldn't they just be doing this inspection anyway? Anything that doesn't pass doesn't get the ultimate seal- the name Patek Phillipe on the dial.

To me the Geneva seal is about almost 150 years of a tradition of excellence. For those who appreciate such things, that conveys a value and sense of pride. Is it a garrantee that your timepiece is better than someone else's? Of course not, but for a community of collectors so steeped in tradition, I'm surprised by the indifferent response of so many.

I'll take my Geneva seal and all that it does or doesn't represent. It's a mark after all nothing more, but I'll not understand or value the PP seal anymore than the name on the dial. If it says Patek Philippe that should be good enough.
Remind me again why we need their special seal?

[Tony64]

And in full disclosure, I own Patek references with both the Geneva seal and the PP seal. It wasn't a choice, it was determined by the time of my purchase.

As for the COSC standards, my favorite Rolex remains the 2-line Sub 14060M. As most of you know it has the exact same cal 3130 that the 4-liner has, just without the certification. Since both are now many years out of production the original COSC certification means very little. Some prefer the 2-line, others the 4, but in 2016 neither can legitimately claim to be the superior timepiece from a purely functional standpoint, COSC or not. To me the 2-liner just feels more 'traditional'. I respect all those who think otherwise.

[Hollister]

Originally Posted by Tony64

Remind me again why we need their special seal?

We don't need any kind of seal or certificate, the whole shooting-match is pure unadulterated marketing BS. A good watch should speak for itself.

My 5513 is not a "Superlative Chronometer Officially Certified", but my 1680 and 16610 are. They all keep within the very generous COSC limits, and so does my Journe. And my JLC and my Zenith, neither of which are certified.

Patek had to come out of the Geneva Seal because some of their more intricate stuff isn't made in Geneva. They most likely felt that if they dropped the Seal, questions would be asked. They never bothered themselves with COSC, AFAIK.

FPJ set up shop in the centre of Geneva and sticks two fingers up at the Seal. That's more like it!

[AK797]

PP seal, I like to live dangerously.

[Hollister]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-F2HKLzB6c

[martinr]

Originally Posted by AK797

PP seal, I like to live dangerously.

[YoureTerrific]

A couple photos I recently took: 5164 with Geneve and 5711 with Patek.