quattro
[Moderator]
18008
Side by side comparison
In my post yesterday, I said that Patek Philippe's creation of a square caliber for the Cubitus Perpetual Calendar ref. 5840P-001 earned my respect.
In the comments, several of us raised some interesting questions and doubts:
- Isn't the 28-28 Q SQU caliber simply a 240 caliber hastily squared off?
- Didn't Gerald Charles or Bell & Ross do a much better job with their calibers GCA11000 (Gerald Charles) and BR-CAL.389 & BR-CAL.390 (Bell & Ross)?
Well, let's take a look.
To begin with, let's answer the first question – isn't the 28-28 Q SQU caliber just a 240 caliber in disguise? – by comparing these two calibers.
CALIBER 240 SQU vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU
The juxtaposition of the two images clearly shows that the position of the screws and the jewels is rigorously identical: the caliber 28-28 is therefore indeed a variant of the 240.
The difference between the 28-28 and the 240 is that the bridges and the balance cock as well as the mainplate have a design of their own, giving the movement its square shape.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased (the watch on the left is ref. 5180/1R-001)
Front view encased
Now, let's compare the 28-28 with the 240 PS CI J LU, which is not skeletonized and is found in the Cubitus Grande Date, Day and Moon Phase ref. 5822P-001
CALIBER 240 PS CI J LU vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU
Of course, the basic structure is again the same, undeniably, but this allows us to better appreciate the work done to skeletonise the bridges and the mainplate.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased (left: ref. 5822P-001 - right: ref. 5840P-001)
For me here, even though the 28-28 is based on the 240 caliber, the transformation work is clearly apparent and makes a real difference.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased (the watch on the left is ref. 5180/1R-001)
Front view encased
Now, let's compare the 28-28 with the 240 PS CI J LU, which is not skeletonized and is found in the Cubitus Grande Date, Day and Moon Phase ref. 5822P-001
CALIBER 240 PS CI J LU vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU
Of course, the basic structure is again the same, undeniably, but this allows us to better appreciate the work done to skeletonise the bridges and the mainplate.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased (left: ref. 5822P-001 - right: ref. 5840P-001)
For me here, even though the 28-28 is based on the 240 caliber, the transformation work is clearly apparent and makes a real difference.
Front view encased
Let us now turn to the comparison between the 28-28 and the GCA11000 caliber which equips the Masterlink Perpetual Calendar Sapphire Dial by Gerald Charles.
NB: the Masterlink has an insane ref. number: ML11.0-TNBR-TNSB-SP31PS-TNDP ;-)
Aesthetically, I personally tend to prefer the Gerald Charles caliber because the openwork aesthetic has never been my taste.
But I don't find it very appealing either, to be honest, and, more importantly, are the corners less empty?
You be the judge.
Rear view
Front view
Rear view encased
Front view encased
Finally, let's compare the 28-28 with the BR-CAL.390 & BR-CAL.389 calibers that equip respectively the Bell & Ross BR-X3 Micro-Rotor and the BR-X3 Tourbillon Micro-Rotor.
CALIBER BR-CAL.390 vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU
The BR-X3 Micro-Rotor is ref. BRX3M-MR-ST/SCA
The modern geometric architecture is interesting.
However, here again: are the corners less empty? You be the judge.
Rear view encased
Front view encased
CALIBER BR-CAL.389 vs CALIBER 28-28 Q SQU
The BR-X3 Tourbillon Micro-Rotor is ref. BRX3M-TRB-ST/SCR
A rear view of this Tourbillon Bell & Ross isn't available, so we can only compare with the dial view.
But what I find interesting here is to see how obviously the corners of a square movement seem to be almost always left empty.
Here, the four corner screws are clearly filling the void.
credit: Patek Philippe, Gerald Charles and Bell & Ross
In conclusion, while it's clear that Patek Philippe used the existing structure of the caliber 240, I still appreciate the effort they made to produce a square movement, even if the effort could certainly have been more refined.
And from an aesthetic standpoint, even though I'm not into openwork design and find the design of the Bell & Ross bolder and more interesting, I do not consider the 28-28 to be completely unworthy.
Thanks for reading.
Best, Emmanuel
Side by side comparison
In my post yesterday , I said that Patek Philippe 's creation of a square caliber for the Cubitus Perpetual Calendar ref. 5840P-001 earned my respect . In the comments, several of us raised some interesting questions and doubts : Isn't the 28-28 Q SQU cal...
This is unworthy of Patek
It’s not up to what we (and they profess) hold as their standard
Dear Emmanuel, the world lost a true detective, what a miss for humanity.
my wife complains i spent too much time in form of ipod, i have no clue how you do it, but i thank you. Best, Ashot
I'm really sorry if I'm giving your wife reasons to complain about you! ;-)
Thank you, dear Ashot. Best, Emmanuel
Thanks for sharing and for the helpful visual comparisons!
Another recent release I was comparing is the new Hermes H08 skeleton ($21K) to the new Richard Mille RM 55-01 ($155K) Both based on a Vaucher caliber. ...
Beveling...
It seems like the 28-28 Q SQU is just laser cut with no attempt at beveling.
Hi Emmanuel. As always you've written a very thoughtful analysis of these several square movements.
I think the responses and conclusions can be summarized as "Square Hole but Round Peg". The basic nature of watch movement parts ie: gears, coil springs, date wheels, etc tend to be round. So the corners of a square movement are mostly not "functional" in...
Yes, I completely agree with you, Greg, and the two examples you mention
are definitely very special and creative. I guess that's the kind of creativity we would expect or at least be happy to see coming from a brand like PP. But they prefer to follow a less adventurous and less expensive path. Best, Emmanuel
So I was not completely wrong? 😊😉
I do agree with you that it’s less of a corner cutting in this way than simply using fully round movements previously and yet we know PP can do much better 😉👍🏻🤞🏻 And while you are right that square movements cannot be made completely square in utilizing t...
Absolutely, you were right, and I made this post to acknowledge it. Especially since others have also noted the connection with the 240.
I agree that PP can do much better, but they've still taken a small step in the right direction. Too small a step, perhaps, but it's still better than nothing. And quite frankly, on a purely personal note, when I compare the movements of Gerald Charles an...
Interesting debate E. Your very own 5098 has a squarish ( rectangular ) movement. Very different to the new square 28-28. . Also from a design point of view a rectangular movement is similar to a square
movement and should also be compared to the new 28-28 I am persoanlly not a fan of the cubitas in any form - but mainly from an aesthetic viewpoint - not horologically Thank you again for your insights J