Patek Philippe Chronograph 5070 vs. 5170 Comparison

Gentlemen,

This is a theme that comes on the table quite frequently: which chronograph do we prefer between the 5070 and the 5170 references?

 I won't give an answer to that question (if ever there is one). But as some buyers wish to enter the world of Patek chronographs from time to time and consider both of them, I thought it could be interesting to come around the subject in order to provide a little help and leaving a thread that some might find useful in the future.



The 5070 familly

There is of course a distinction between "which one is better" (objective, if we can remain objective concerning the 5070 which is much appreciated) and "which one we prefer" (subjective). The last chronograph of the post-WWII era, the 1463 (even if we can find some versions of the 1579 in the early 60's too) was produced till the end of the 60's (maybe early 70's too? I don't know). This means there was a very long period (until the introduction of the 5070J in 1998) without a chronograph-only model in Patek Philippe's collection.




Ref. 130



Ref 530



Ref. 1463

From 1998 to 2003 (for the J version), from 2004 to 2008 (for the R and G versions) and to 2009 (for the Platinum version), the 5070 illustrated the very significant come-back of a two subsidiary dials chronograph in the manufacture's catalogue. The design was back then quite bold because much less conservative and classical from the rest of the references. I could see a very little of its bezel inspiration from the 2501 (in 1951) but, as Nicolas answered before, the Spilt-second chronograph reference 2512 (from 1952, in 45mm) remains its main inspiration basis.

At the time, in 1998, as for nearly every new model a brand launches, some watch fans regretted Patek didn't create a closer interpretation of 2512's shape (by the way it is quite fun to have a look at the few available posts from that period on the net). They also underlined the fact the two subsidiary dials were placed quite close to the central axles or the overall larger size (42mm) etc... I mention this to emphasize the fact that nearly every time a significantly new model is launched, our tastes have to evolve and we may need time to get used to a new design. Of course, this may not be a constant rule.

Nowadays, the 5070 (and it would also be true concerning the 5970) is considered as an iconic patek Philippe watch as it is its most appealing chronograph from the modern period (and the only one for a very long time).



Nicolas' shot of his 5070G


Today, the 39.4mm 5170 reference (launched in 2010 in the J version) has the difficult task to convince old clients but also new ones that it is a great and legitimate heir to the 5070.



5170G



5170G



5170J


The front side -

Aesthetically wise, the 5170 is the "daughter" of the late 30's to late 60's 130 and 530 references and maybe, the last one i.e. the 1463 (inclined and flat bezel, very similar classical case shape) without its specific round pushers though. This is an aesthetical and philosophical choice that takes his origin in Patek's history and will remain a classic even in decades from now.




Credit: Bruno.M1



Credit: Bruno.M1

Concerning the dials, most of these old chronographs had a tachymeter scale (or none). The Pulsometric scale was very rare and is a different choice the brand seemed to want to make with the 5170J and 5170G Silver dial. The new 2015 black dial version looses this scale and remains with a simple "rail" minute ring. Personally, I'm a great fan of the Pulsometric scale (Tachymeter comes second).

As regards to the other elements, the old chronographs were produced in nearly every possible variation: leaf, dauphine or baton hands; Arabic, Roman numerals or applied markers only etc... It seems it was a time when every owners could personalize their Patek chronograph.





Credit: Bruno.M1

Everyone will have his favorite among these elements but I think it is not a good thing going that much into details. Watches should be seen as a whole and I don't think there is a unique best combination.

Hence, I won't point out these aesthetical differences between the 5070's and the 5170's dial layout.



Credit: Steelerfan1965

Aesthetical ideal change from a period to another and to everyone his own preferences. There is no absolute.

The movement side -

You all know the 5070 houses the famous and glorious Nouvelle Lemania 2310-based CH 27-70 caliber.



CH 27-70 (5070)



CH 27-70 (5070)

I won't detail all the differences but mention one or two things that are, in my humble opinion, worth noticing.
Aesthetically, the new movement influenced the two sub-dials layout:

- Some may say the 5070's three axles lining-up is better, others say that the 5170's triangle formed by the name and the two sub-dials is more balanced.

- Some would say the 5070's axles' lining up makes the observer feel the two sub-dials are squeezed between the outer scale and the central axles, others say the 5170's two sub-dials placed lower on the dial is disturbing.

Here again, everyone his own opinion on that subjective matter, depending on its background.
Personally, I like both




CH 29-535 (5170)



CH 29-535 (5170)

As for the movement's finishing, I think it is very difficult to make the difference (without a microscope), even if some may underline the fact the 5070's one has "angles rentrants" (inward angles) the new one has very discreetly avoided keeping, nevertheless still with a great overall look.

On the other hand, I would say that, technically, the new CH 29-325 in-house movement (five years development) has been cleverly improved with six new features (see details the appendix at the bottom of this post) and, from an engineering perspective, the design of the movement is directly coming from the work of Patek's watchmakers. The case, dial and the movement in the 5170 are all coming from Patek's creativity and watchmaking mastery. I personally like knowing that the whole experience of the brand's talented watchmakers have been gathered into this movement, creating a new caliber, from the beginning.


The movement is also equiped with a jumping minute chronograph counter and a stop-second feature, a dynamometric winding mechanism and a very soft pushers' activation.
I like that very much personally, even if, in the watch world, in-house movements are not necessarily meaning the watch is more accurate or reliable etc...


Conclusion -

I would like to conclude in saying that Patek Philippe has left through his history many iconic watches, proof of their technical mastery and aesthetical taste.
The 5070 and the 5170 are two very different watches coming from two different world in this chronograph lineage, at two very different periods and I don't think they should be opposed (hence my title o_O) and even more ranked.




5170G Black dial

As far as I'm concerned, they have nearly nothing in common (size, shape, movement...), except, without a doubt to me, the brand's DNA. The 5170 has not the aura of the 5070 reference, yet. However, as every new model, it needs time getting mature.

The fact the 5070 (or 5970) was in sight for such a long time that it has already influenced and shaped our taste. It is not necessarily that "it looks better" but it matches in a better way with how our tastes have evolved. The 5170 didn't reach this stage I think.

Like previous Patek Philippe chronographs, the 5070 is already a legend; the 5170 has yet to become one and has already its DNA. For potential buyers, the "one of each metal" theme can be a good one but getting one 5070 and one 5170 is I think a fantastic theme too Please share your opinion on the one you prefer between those two generations, keeping in mind it remains very personal! Cheers, Mark PS: Here is another link back in 2011 from Murcielagoboy giving his opinion on that matter ( patek.watchprosite.com )
 
 ________________________________________________________________________


Appendix: the 6 patents behind the CH 29-535 PS movement (From Patek Philippe's website)

IMPROVED SYNCHRONIZATION BETWEEN THE CLUTCH LEVER AND THE BLOCKING-LEVER

Ordinarily, the clutch lever and the blocking-lever are synchronized by the column wheel. The engineers of the CH 29-535 PS eliminated this intermediate step by fitting the clutch lever with a finger piece that directly synchronizes both the clutch lever and the blocking-lever. This solution simplifies and improves the precision adjustment of the control sequences because the watchmaker only has to adjust one point instead of two as was the case in the past. Moreover, this approach suppresses the jump of the chronograph hand when time measurements are started and stopped.

IMPROVED PENETRATION ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE CLUTCH AND THE CHRONOGRAPH WHEEL

The adjustment between the teeth of the clutch wheel and the teeth of the chronograph wheel is performed by a large eccentric column wheel cap, working directly with the tip of the clutch lever instead of the conventional eccentric placed next to the clutch wheel. This new system enables a more precise adjustment of the penetration between the clutch and the chronograph wheel.

SELF-SETTING RETURN TO ZERO HAMMERS

The reset hammers of the chronograph counter are equipped with a self-setting system that makes it unnecessary to mechanically adjust the minute hammer function and thus increases the reliability of the mechanism.

OPTIMIZED TOOTH PROFILE

The wheels of the chronograph mechanism feature an exclusive patented tooth profile (presented for the first time in 2005 when the ultra-thin caliber CHR 27-525 PS split-seconds chronograph was launched). It eliminates the risk of hand jump in both directions when starting a measurement ; limits the quivering motion of the chronograph hand ; increases energy transmission efficiency, and reduces friction as well as wear in the movement.

PIERCED-OUT MINUTECOUNTER CAM

A new minute-counter cam was created with a slot to prevent abrupt blocking in response to the reset command and therefore eliminates hand quivering.



This message has been edited by Mark in Paris on 2015-05-07 02:47:25