Patek Philippe

whit
558

• Show profile
• Show other posts

I don't think it's a naive question at all. This movement

discussion has only become an issue in recent years.

 When I was a dealer and the popularity of chronographs was gearing up, I asked my rep, who ultimately became President, why Patek had no chronograph offering at all.  His response was that the cost of developing the movement was so great that even if they did and it was quite successful, it would take years and years for it to be profitable.

Also, when complicated watches were becoming popular, I asked if Patek would produce any pieces with moon phase indications that were not perpetuals. The answer was that if a Patek had a moon phase...it would be a perpetual. 

I guess the point I am attempting to make is that the developing complicated watch market, money, and the time to develop a new movement could have been Patek's reason for the Lemania movement being used. The Swatch Group thing (if a manufacturer used any SG's movements, the SG logo would have to be engraved on the movement) resulted in a craze of movement development by a multitude of brands.  This may account for the limited or staggered production of the 5070 and 5970 which bought them time.

The new pieces may be purer and bespoke but it doesn't mean they are better.  Personally, I prefer the pieces made prior to Patek's rise in popularity, I have no reason other than it seemed that those pieces were made when production numbers were at reasonable levels, even if they used outsourced parts/movements.

I don't have a large wrist so the size of the 3970 is perfect for me, the 5970/5070 are too large, and the 5270/5170 are completely out of the question..so the decision for me was quite simple.  It did not revolve around whether the movement was in-house or not.

Regardless, they are all ..... Patek Philippes.