Underestimating the Chronograph

[Token74]

As a movement, are many of us (maybe it's just me) guilty of underestimating the chronograph?

I am fairly obsessed with Perpetual Calendars, and that will be the final tick in the box for me. I was hoping for a 5740 but my AD has made it clear that it's not going to happen for me, and whilst I would pay Grey Prices, I can't afford to! Just paying retail would require me to sell a couple of existing pieces.

But I was reading up last night on the various different complications and the Chronograph seems to get a lot more respect than I've ever given it.

I had a quick look on the Patek website and the number of parts in the 5990 is significantly more than in the 5740, which surprised me. Of course, the Chronograph of the 5990 is a fairly advanced one, featuring a vertical clutch (which I knew nothing about until last night) and flyback (which I didn't know had it's origins in aviation). And of course it has the quick-set Travel Time, with day night indicators for both time-zones. But I do think I have been doing the Chronograph a dis-service and it suddenly makes sense that some very good watch-makers who make their own movements, don't have in-house chronograph movements.

Anyone else guilty of this under-estimation - or am I playing catch-up??

In all of this, my adoration of the 5990 has increased even further! I also didn't realise until last night that the 5990 is Patek's first ever Automatic Chronograph.

My other interesting note between the 5990 and the 5740 is that if you compare a steel Rolex Daytona and a PM Daytona, the PM is circa three times the price. Whereas, the 5740 is only two and a bit times the steel 5990, another indication that perhaps I had underestimated the complexity of the 5990, or maybe over-estimated the complexity of the 5740.

If any of this sounds like I'm trying to get over the fact that I'm not going to be getting a 5740, that isn't entirely inaccurate! I am still going to get a Perpetual Calendar though, most likely a Langematik, but that's for another day.

[cascavel]

I thought that the main reason that companies like Rolex, AP, Vacheron and Patek outsourced their chronograph movements was the difficulty of producing a manufacture chronograph movement. Rolex, until 2000, used the Zenith El Primero and, even today, AP uses an FP1185 which was also used, until recently, by Vacheron and Bulgari.
I believe that Patek made other automatic chronographs before the 5990.

[Ichiran]

I understand the first automatic chronograph movement is the CH28-520, which is found in the 5980.

Manual chronographs have beautiful movements, from Lemania to in-house, as seen in the PCC, split-second chronograph to simple chronograph. I wish I can add a PCC soon to my collection.

[PurpleDial]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

I understand the first automatic chronograph movement is the CH28-520, which is found in the 5980.

Manual chronographs have beautiful movements, from Lemania to in-house, as seen in the PCC, split-second chronograph to simple chronograph. I wish I can add a PCC soon to my collection.

Is this a typo, as I thought the first use was in the 5960? Or do you mean first use in the Nautilus line?

[jon_jon]

I believe the 5960 was the first Patek automatic chrono. Patek has a much longer history of producing manual chronos.

[Ichiran]

Originally Posted by PurpleDial

Is this a typo, as I thought the first use was in the 5960? Or do you mean first use in the Nautilus line?

I was referring more to the movement, and since OP was talking about 5990, I made reference to 5980.

I understand 5980 was launched in 2006, same year as the 5960 (which uses the same movement as 5980)?

[Billfav]

I too have underestimated the chronograph. My infatuation has been with the perpetual calendars, annual calendars with moon phase complications. While I am fortunate to have a Rolex Daytona I have become a Patek raving fan and would move that Daytona in a heartbeat for an opportunity to acquire a Patek chronograph.

I truly appreciate your post and the related replies that provided some wonderful insight on the evolution of the Patek automatic chronograph.

[ma.st.]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

I was referring more to the movement, and since OP was talking about 5990, I made reference to 5980.

I understand 5980 was launched in 2006, same year as the 5960 (which uses the same movement as 5980)?

interesting, everything I've ever seen has stated the 5960 was the first. Looking forward to reading more on the 5980 details to see if there's a conclusive answer. I like knowing the movement milestones for PP so should be a fun little rabbit hole to read up on

[PurpleDial]

Originally Posted by Ichiran

I was referring more to the movement, and since OP was talking about 5990, I made reference to 5980.

I understand 5980 was launched in 2006, same year as the 5960 (which uses the same movement as 5980)?

True! Only read so far always the 5960 beeing the first thats why I was little bit confused

[bob101]

I sold all my nautilus aquanaut and other pieces. All in on PP chrono and PC! Who’s with me? Haha.
3940+5170P vs 5712/1A, 5726/1A 5167A who wins?

Dreaming of a 5270P or 3970 next.

[PurpleDial]

Originally Posted by bob101

I sold all my nautilus aquanaut and other pieces. All in on PP chrono and PC! Who’s with me? Haha.
3940+5170P vs 5712/1A, 5726/1A 5167A who wins?

Dreaming of a 5270P or 3970 next.

Bold but nice move!

[Token74]

Originally Posted by bob101

I sold all my nautilus aquanaut and other pieces. All in on PP chrono and PC! Who’s with me? Haha.
3940+5170P vs 5712/1A, 5726/1A 5167A who wins?

Dreaming of a 5270P or 3970 next.

Yep, good trade! I’m not ready yet, but completely get what you’ve done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cascavel]

Originally Posted by bob101

I sold all my nautilus aquanaut and other pieces. All in on PP chrono and PC! Who’s with me? Haha.
3940+5170P vs 5712/1A, 5726/1A 5167A who wins?

Dreaming of a 5270P or 3970 next.

Who wins is the person who got the 5712, 5726 and 5167. They can always reverse that trade, the person who got the 3940 and 5170 cannot.

[azizu]

Originally Posted by Token74

As a movement, are many of us (maybe it's just me) guilty of underestimating the chronograph?

I am fairly obsessed with Perpetual Calendars, and that will be the final tick in the box for me. I was hoping for a 5740 but my AD has made it clear that it's not going to happen for me, and whilst I would pay Grey Prices, I can't afford to! Just paying retail would require me to sell a couple of existing pieces.

But I was reading up last night on the various different complications and the Chronograph seems to get a lot more respect than I've ever given it.

I had a quick look on the Patek website and the number of parts in the 5990 is significantly more than in the 5740, which surprised me. Of course, the Chronograph of the 5990 is a fairly advanced one, featuring a vertical clutch (which I knew nothing about until last night) and flyback (which I didn't know had it's origins in aviation). And of course it has the quick-set Travel Time, with day night indicators for both time-zones. But I do think I have been doing the Chronograph a dis-service and it suddenly makes sense that some very good watch-makers who make their own movements, don't have in-house chronograph movements.

Anyone else guilty of this under-estimation - or am I playing catch-up??

In all of this, my adoration of the 5990 has increased even further! I also didn't realise until last night that the 5990 is Patek's first ever Automatic Chronograph.

My other interesting note between the 5990 and the 5740 is that if you compare a steel Rolex Daytona and a PM Daytona, the PM is circa three times the price. Whereas, the 5740 is only two and a bit times the steel 5990, another indication that perhaps I had underestimated the complexity of the 5990, or maybe over-estimated the complexity of the 5740.

If any of this sounds like I'm trying to get over the fact that I'm not going to be getting a 5740, that isn't entirely inaccurate! I am still going to get a Perpetual Calendar though, most likely a Langematik, but that's for another day.

your search seems to be focused on the nautilus line, besides limiting your options, that might expose you to a no from your AD.
patek produces some beautiful looking manual wound chronographs with lots of history behind them (5070, 5170, 5172 etc). have you considered those refrences?

[bob101]

Originally Posted by cascavel

Who wins is the person who got the 5712, 5726 and 5167. They can always reverse that trade, the person who got the 3940 and 5170 cannot.

If short term resale value is your main motivation and not intending to keep then sure. I’d also say that PP rewards the serious collectors with sports trinkets at retail along the way :)

[Billfav]

Originally Posted by bob101

If short term resale value is your main motivation and not intending to keep then sure. I’d also say that PP rewards the serious collectors with sports trinkets at retail along the way :)

Exactly right.

[Token74]

Originally Posted by azizu

your search seems to be focused on the nautilus line, besides limiting your options, that might expose you to a no from your AD.
patek produces some beautiful looking manual wound chronographs with lots of history behind them (5070, 5170, 5172 etc). have you considered those refrences?

Not really focused on the Nautilus. I already have the 5990, and the 5740 is a watch I’ve lusted over. I’d always considered the 5740 a big step up from the 5990 but now realise that it’s only really the PM factor that makes it so, rather than the movement which was my previous assumption. Hence why i was using these two watches to raise the point of underestimating the chronograph.

In my search for a perpetual calendar, I’ve looked at other Pateks as when i eventually rationalise my collection, I’d really like to end up with two each from Patek, AP, and Rolex. My problem with other Patek Perpetuals is the size. I have small wrists so 40mm is my theoretical maximum (not an exact science as watches wear differently and size can therefore be misleading). The second factor is that i like a reasonably deep case on watches that are on a leather strap, thinner cases are a bit too smart/classy for my style. I’ve yet to find a watch from Patek that fits the criteria without a price point that is just a little too much.

I would love a 5270P but it’s a little too much money and I’ve tried it on, and it does wear a little too big.

This is why I’m now looking at an ALS Langematik. 38.5mm case which has good depth and an amazing dial, and a sensible price tag. If it was a Patek I’d buy it tomorrow, but as it isn’t, I’m going to hold off for a little while to see if Patek bring out anything that meets my criteria.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FrançoisCzapek]

Sorry to necro, but I really appreciated this old thread.

Does adding a chronograph to another complication like an annual or perpetual restrict the design? For example, do annual chronographs like the 5960 and 5905 have to look a certain way to accommodate both mechanisms, which is why the big dial and the windows are where they are? In short, will you appreciate the design of these more if you understand they have to look a certain way and cannot look like certain others that you like?

[spoon-turbo]

Originally Posted by FrançoisCzapek

Sorry to necro, but I really appreciated this old thread.

Does adding a chronograph to another complication like an annual or perpetual restrict the design? For example, do annual chronographs like the 5960 and 5905 have to look a certain way to accommodate both mechanisms, which is why the big dial and the windows are where they are? In short, will you appreciate the design of these more if you understand they have to look a certain way and cannot look like certain others that you like?

Personally, I like the 5960 and 5905.

I can always have a usual chrono layout (mickey mouse or eye glasses) from almost all brands.

But the 5960 layout is very unique to Patek (aperture windows and the bulls-eye chrono).

PP gave the ACC complication a different twist.