ArmisT
8815
I’m guessing this is the precursor to the 5059p and maybe 5496p, although this one has more of a simpler elegance.
I did try on the 5496p in the past and liked it very much on the wrist.
Patek Philippe Ref. 5050P
Some photos really have the power of making you fall in love with a watch... This ref. 5050P (36 mm case, caliber 315 S QR) is from 1994 and I find it perfect . Its specific configuration (applied Roman numerals, no 'Automatic' at 6 o'clock) is very rare ...
I’m guessing this is the precursor to the 5059p and maybe 5496p, although this one has more of a simpler elegance.
I did try on the 5496p in the past and liked it very much on the wrist.
Because 5059P has an officer case,
I think it is rather a precursor to the 5496P. 36 mm instead of 39.5 mm. Best, Emmanuel
Hi Emmanuel, this reference is a
pass for me. I find the Roman numerals along with dates numbers too busy on the dial, same as the regular 6000. Different strokes for different folks 😃
I understand your point of view.
I didn’t pay attention to this particular version until I saw these photos. But, as you say, the way we react to each timepiece is very personal.
I like YG very much too.
This configuration just feels appealing to me nonetheless. Thank you, Mech. Best, Emmanuel
One of the rarest Pateks
This configuration of 5050 (Platinum with Roman numerals - if confirmed in certificate and no later service dial) makes the watch one of the rarest pieces. Personally, I also like the look and feel of this timepiece a lot. But the above is an objective cr...
I couldn't agree with you more and the papers accompanying
this example sold by Phillips on May 25th, 2023 , let me think that, although very rare, this configuration is authentic. But there's more: According to the catalog essay, this configuration (applied Roman numerals and no “Automatic” signature at 6 o'cloc...
Thank you, but chances are low:
according to Phillips, only 14 examples with this exact configuration have been identified. Best, Emmanuel
Weel, this one is for sale, but for a very stiff asking price, unfortunately...
(CHF 82,500.00) Best, Emmanuel
Imho ref 5050 is really underrated for unknown reasons
Not only it is a beautiful vintage PP perpetual calendar but also this retrograde date is a small detail that adds a lot I think. There are actually 2 versions of 5050 one with Roman numerals (the version that you are presenting here above) and another di...
I like the 5050 a lot because the retrograde display and general layout are clean
and very well-balanced. I understand that the Roman numerals here are not for everyone. But I find this configuration stunning and, yes, it is extremely rare (14 known, among which one belonged to Reginald 'Pete' Fullerton Jr: full story here: https://www...
I think…
… the one on sale misses the solid case cover. That explains why the price is quite low.
I’ve asked Herschmann and it is full set.
Do you consider CHF82,500.00 to be low for such a watch? The one sold by Phillips which was also full set was sold for HK$609 600 ...
Perfect? IMO very nice, but “perfect” … no. Could easily be made to be perfect, at least to my subjective eye. Here’s what I think is missing
and here’s how to fix it. The dial is top heavy. Also the moonphase register would look much better (like the later version of 5050) if the circle were completed and closed. Also balance would be added to the dial if something were written in the lower cu...
Now, this is very interesting because, even though I fully understand each of the fixes you are proposing,
I think I still prefer the dial as it is. Yes, the Roman numerals make it busier, but I find them exquisite and appreciate the fact that they're not swapped. Yes the moon phase circle is incomplete, but it allows the Roman VI to be the same size as the ot...
Emmanuel, I don’t think you are blinded by the beauty of the photos or by anything else for that matter😊 It is simply a matter of a difference in personal taste.
As I pointed out I was merely expressing my subjective opinion. I guess the well worn phrase “Besuty is in the eye of the beholder” seems appropriate and applicable. Best, Patekova
