5712 vs 5726

[Daytonaman799]

Love both...have both.

[Daytonaman799]

Here they are...the 12 is true to the original thin design with a pocket watch like dial and that fabulous micro rotor. The 26 is more robust and wears very similar to a Rolex and has the most useful complication of the line IMHO in its most legible presentation. I would really like to get another with the blue dial or maybe the strap version again. I had it when it first came out and it was the only strapmwatch I ever truly liked. The 26 may be my favorite Nautilus ever. I have had 2 3700’s, a 5980, as well as what you see above and you just can’t beat it for presence, legibility, usefulness and comfort. It also keeps the best time of any PP I have ever owned and is on par with Rolex.

[Jim]

I think it is the steel bracelet thats the causes of hype in both pieces; the hype causing inflated prices on grey market because purchasers feeling that it is a safer investment for resale value giving rise to a value pyramid.

I prefer the strap and wouldn't entertain spending an extra £25K just for a bracelet. The 5726A-001 is undervalued. Don't allow collectors to dictate what is or is not popular - buy what you like. The 5726 feels a substantial and special watch and is by far the best piece so I do I think it is looks and personal preference but then maybe I am biased.

IMG_1518.JPG

[Breizh]

Stunning piece, love the strap 5726

[nyc2la]

Easy choice for me.

[pav333hp]

WOW!!! This is a beautiful picture capturing the 5712 in perfect light!!!

Originally Posted by nyc2la

Easy choice for me.

[pdnb]

Had the 5712/1A.... loved the thinnes and it’s asymmetric dial. I do love power reserve Indicators too... so some would say the 5712 was/is perfect for me...the 5712 was the thinnest watch I ever owned.

I had the opportunity to get the 5726/1A -014 as I always wanted an annual calendar and I know PP is known for this complication. The dial layout is symmetrical and beautiful with “more blue” to appreciate then the 5712. The date aperture is much easier to read than the circular sub dial so in my older age I thought this was a plus as well.

I do notice the difference in heft between the two, but I was always had thicker watches so I don’t mind.

Maybe I will pick up the 5712 again? The 5726 is a beast.

[nhk]

5712 by a country mile for me.

[Ellz]

I love the 5726 even though I have 6.5 wrists and usually wear my 5800- even though 5712 has thinner profile- don’t like asymmetrical dial but they are both spectacular!

[Chute]

When I first learned of the Nautilus around 7 years ago, I really wanted to obtain a white 5711. I went to every Patek AD I could find just to see one. To this day I have never seen one in the metal. It really is my white whale.

But, in 2015/2016, there were 5726’s in the display cases but never a 5712.
I tried on and passed on both a white and Gray 5726 on bracelets, mostly since it was out of my price range at the time and also, I just didn’t care for it for some reason. It was too thick and not very legible as the dial diameter on both 5712/5726 is pretty small.

Fast forward a few years and I put my name on the list for that white 5711 with a realistic expectation to get it in 1-2 years from an AD who was honest about the wait but said it would happen. Then the white 5711 was discontinued and I was crushed. It was a sad end to my quest to ever own a Nautilus.

A few months back, I guess the AD felt bad and offered me a 5712a/1a and I jumped on it. I figured that worst case scenario, I could trade it for a white 5711 and pay less than market prices.

Well, now I LOVE the 5712 and can’t see owning any other Nautilus. I also can’t see owning any other Genta model (I do have a black 15400) .
Honestly, I can’t see owning any other watch period. The 5712 is for me, probably the last nice watch I’ll ever buy (famous last words).

[azizu]

i was fortunate to see and handle in person a vintage 3700. one of the first things one notice when handling one is how big the watch face and dial is (the absence of seconds hand also magnify that effect). and the other thing one notice is how slim the profile of the watch is.
i believe current 5712 is one of the last watches to display that thinness of the case. yes the dial of the 5726 is symmetrical but it is a bit too thick when compared with 5711 or 5712

[Chute]

Originally Posted by azizu

i was fortunate to see and handle in person a vintage 3700. one of the first things one notice when handling one is how big the watch face and dial is (the absence of seconds hand also magnify that effect). and the other thing one notice is how slim the profile of the watch is.
i believe current 5712 is one of the last watches to display that thinness of the case. yes the dial of the 5726 is symmetrical but it is a bit too thick when compared with 5711 or 5712

Agreed. While I’ve never handled a 3700, I have handled a 15202. The 5712 has that cool, two hand only vibe to it. When you glance at the 5712 you just see the hands.

All of these great 5712 photos show the whole beauty of the dial. But at arms length, it’s really just the hands you see.

Or maybe I just need new glasses?

[MinhPham]

5726 can win only if it is blue. Otherwise, No

[pdnb]

Originally Posted by MinhPham

5726 can win only if it is blue. Otherwise, No

I agree blue is best for sure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CastorKrieg]

Originally Posted by Jim

I think it is the steel bracelet thats the causes of hype in both pieces; the hype causing inflated prices on grey market because purchasers feeling that it is a safer investment for resale value giving rise to a value pyramid.

I prefer the strap and wouldn't entertain spending an extra £25K just for a bracelet. The 5726A-001 is undervalued. Don't allow collectors to dictate what is or is not popular - buy what you like. The 5726 feels a substantial and special watch and is by far the best piece so I do I think it is looks and personal preference but then maybe I am biased.

Attachment 1216041

Beautiful watch, as someone that wears almost exclusively steel watches on a bracelet I could go for this one, would perfectly complement 5712a and 5167a. Plus I don't have an annual calendar yet and I like this format much better than round dials.

[de66]

5726 was the first time the Annual Calendar complication was produced in steel in 2010. Something that seems to have been overshadowed since its launch. I think part of the reason why it wasnt overly popular is that it was only available on leather, the bracelet option came in 2012.
I like the blue of the 5712 (who doesnt) but it took me a long time to get used to the offset symmetry. I say this because the dial has a certain symmetry along the 1-7 axis.
The 5726 has a more conservative symmetric layout with a more open dial and fewer "cut digits". I personally still prefer the slate dial because its the only one that has a contrasting 24 hour ring, one of the key design aspects that imo they should also have included on the blue dial 5726.

The 5712 is about the same thickness as the 5711. The 5726 feels like a more solid watch, wears comparably more in weight and dimensions to a rolex gmt (subjective impression).

I have added some pics with the 5712 and 5726 next to each for comparing, and also with a gmt to give you a better idea of the size. If you can, try on both 5712 & 5726, but note that imo the leather doesnt compare to the bracelet.

hope this helps
D

[bod42zx]

This is a great, informative reply. Thanks for putting the side by sides together - particularly interesting to see the Gmt comparison.

Originally Posted by de66

5726 was the first time the Annual Calendar complication was produced in steel in 2010. Something that seems to have been overshadowed since its launch. I think part of the reason why it wasnt overly popular is that it was only available on leather, the bracelet option came in 2012.
I like the blue of the 5712 (who doesnt) but it took me a long time to get used to the offset symmetry. I say this because the dial has a certain symmetry along the 1-7 axis.
The 5726 has a more conservative symmetric layout with a more open dial and fewer "cut digits". I personally still prefer the slate dial because its the only one that has a contrasting 24 hour ring, one of the key design aspects that imo they should also have included on the blue dial 5726.

The 5712 is about the same thickness as the 5711. The 5726 feels like a more solid watch, wears comparably more in weight and dimensions to a rolex gmt (subjective impression).

I have added some pics with the 5712 and 5726 next to each for comparing, and also with a gmt to give you a better idea of the size. If you can, try on both 5712 & 5726, but note that imo the leather doesnt compare to the bracelet.

hope this helps
D

[mps354]

Both are great watches, but I never loved the 5726 layout. I also always preferred the slimmer case of either the 5711 or 5712, and love the 5712 micro rotor. Of the 5726 variants, I like the white dial the best.

[sensui]

I still believe most people going off on the thickness of the 5726 have never had it on the wrist. It wears very sleek as well and definitely thinner than Rolex sports watches. It's not super thin like the 5711/5712/5740 but it's nowhere near beasty Nautilus like the 5990. I personally love the dial layout of the 5726 with the symmetry.

[Breizh]

Originally Posted by de66

5726 was the first time the Annual Calendar complication was produced in steel in 2010. Something that seems to have been overshadowed since its launch. I think part of the reason why it wasnt overly popular is that it was only available on leather, the bracelet option came in 2012.
I like the blue of the 5712 (who doesnt) but it took me a long time to get used to the offset symmetry. I say this because the dial has a certain symmetry along the 1-7 axis.
The 5726 has a more conservative symmetric layout with a more open dial and fewer "cut digits". I personally still prefer the slate dial because its the only one that has a contrasting 24 hour ring, one of the key design aspects that imo they should also have included on the blue dial 5726.

The 5712 is about the same thickness as the 5711. The 5726 feels like a more solid watch, wears comparably more in weight and dimensions to a rolex gmt (subjective impression).

I have added some pics with the 5712 and 5726 next to each for comparing, and also with a gmt to give you a better idea of the size. If you can, try on both 5712 & 5726, but note that imo the leather doesnt compare to the bracelet.

hope this helps
D

Thank you for this great reply!
Very informative and helpful

[dannyfernandez]

the dial of the 5712 looks more balanced in my opinion but the 5726 is more complicated

[dnutz]

both are great watches... 5712 for it's unique asymmetrical dial while the 5726 (esp the blue dial which I just got) has a pretty cool complication that originally was designed and patent by PP.

From the price point of view, I think you are getting a bit more with the 5726's "complication".

[pav333hp]

This post needed a poll - would be interesting on the votes. But I think there was one done before.

[de66]

Originally Posted by HMHM

If im not mistaken its because the case is thicker. Just like the 5990, 2nd best nautilus after the 5740 in terms of complication but the thickness makes it less desirable than 5711 and 5712.

For me the issue with the 5990 is that it is departure from the original porthole hinged case design. This hinged mechanism allowed the watch in the early 70s to have one of the best depth ratings and this design optically distinguished it from everything else on the market, and still does.

There is no doubt that the 5990 is a well designed watch with an impression combination of complications, but sacrificing the hinge makes this almost a "fake nautilus" in my mind.

[Neurogeek]

Just wondering, do they have the same blue? 5712/1A vs 5726/1A-014... thank you :)

Originally Posted by pdnb

Had the 5712/1A....

I had the opportunity to get the 5726/1A -014 as I always wanted an annual calendar and I know PP is known for this complication. The dial layout is symmetrical and beautiful with “more blue” to appreciate then the 5712. The date aperture is much easier to read than the circular sub dial so in my older age I thought this was a plus as well.

I do notice the difference in heft between the two, but I was always had thicker watches so I don’t mind.

Maybe I will pick up the 5712 again? The 5726 is a beast.

[pdnb]

Originally Posted by Neurogeek

Just wondering, do they have the same blue? 5712/1A vs 5726/1A-014... thank you :)

Great question… don’t have a side by side under the same lighting but I have the emotional impression that there is more blue real estate on the 5726 due the dial layout ; just saw your profile signature… you got plenty of blue dials


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WatchtraderNY]

5726

[Neurogeek]

Originally Posted by pdnb

Great question… don’t have a side by side under the same lighting but I have the emotional impression that there is more blue real estate on the 5726 due the dial layout ; just saw your profile signature… you got plenty of blue dials

Thank you! I was wondering if it is redundant to get 5712/1A if they share the same blue. From Patek's website they seem a little different.

[chunkythebulldog]

Originally Posted by neurogeek

just wondering, do they have the same blue? 5712/1a vs 5726/1a-014... Thank you :)

37C8E130-98A0-4787-A951-D3B4FFA72880.jpeg

[sensui]

Originally Posted by Neurogeek

Thank you! I was wondering if it is redundant to get 5712/1A if they share the same blue. From Patek's website they seem a little different.

In the flesh, they are slightly different. But I think it might depend on which batch of 5712 you have also. Three 5726 is much closer to a 5711 blue gradient whereas the 5712 has a slightly different look with the more "greyish" blue.