quattro
[Moderator]
18063
I’m not a watchmaker either and you might be right.
But as discussed above with ChetBaker and jmpTT, I think that the corners of a rectangular or square movement are almost never filled with components for a simple reason: most essential components of a movement are round. Wheels, balance, escapement, rotor, etc.
So my idea is that making a shaped movement means shaping the bridges and plates and it’s exactly what they’ve done here. If the bridges were solid, not lattice like, I don’t think we would have the feeling of a lazy job… Just my two cents…
A new shaped & complicated caliber
Respect . As Aretha Franklin sang: R - E - S - P - E - C - T ! When a brand, whatever it may be, creates a new shaped caliber , especially if it includes a major complication , my first feeling is one of respect . I'll be perfectly honest : aesthetically ...
The watchmakers can be proud of what they did,
even if their's a lot to be desired still... Best, Emmanuel
For me…
I never liked the aesthetic of the cubitus. It looks like a knock off of the nautilus to me 🤷♂️ Furthermore this horizontal blind slats looks the opposite of class and heirloom ownership. I’m more a VC guy
Aesthetically, I don't like the watch either.
But how many square movements and, even more so, square perpetual calendar movements do you know? Respect. Best, Emmanuel
Neither do I: I don' want one.
And this modern aesthetic doesn't sing to me. Still, a new square perpetual calendar caliber: not a thing you see every day... Best, Emmanuel
I do think it's pretty interesting and cool.
Rather unlike PP, but the market likes sport watches. If steel, 38 mm and with a bracelet, I maybe could be convinced ....but not at post-retail prices!
As you say, market likes sport watches.
Will they end up making this one in steel? Maybe but probably in a few years…
I’m not a watchmaker so I’m sure someone knows better than I do.
But, to my knowledge, almost everything in a movement is round: the wheels, the barrel, the balance wheel, the rotor, etc. It's therefore impossible to place strategic components in the corners. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the design of a sh...
I tried to continue our discussion as honestly as possible with a new post: I hope you find it interesting...
Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison
Imagine the bridges were solid and finished traditionally.
The Cubitus has, overall, been worth of the criticism. However, I think with solid plates we would be sufficiently fooled to stop there and just say it looks better. The question is, did we apply the same standard of fact finding to all square shaped move...
I completely agree with you.
And, as I answered to ChetBaler, almost everything is round in a movement: wheels, rotor, balance, escapement, etc. So my guess is that the corners of a rectangular or square movement are almost never filled with components. Best, Emmanuel
I’m not a watch maker…
But to me at first glance it looks very much like a round movement architecture with some square packaging applied on top (if one looks through the lattice like structure the content within appears organized in a way that you could have the same movement ...
I’m not a watchmaker either and you might be right.
But as discussed above with ChetBaker and jmpTT, I think that the corners of a rectangular or square movement are almost never filled with components for a simple reason: most essential components of a movement are round. Wheels, balance, escapement, roto...
Less so certainly 👍🏻😊
But still the use of the real estate tends to be a bit different if you are designing it as a non-round movement only 🤷🏻♂️
Yes, you're right. I tried to continue our discussion with a new post...
Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison
Others have expressed the same feeling as yours.
And I understand it, but I think it’s unfair. Indeed, as far as I know, everything is round in a movement: the wheels, the barrel, the balance, the rotor, etc. So it is impossible to place strategic components in the corners. I might be wrong of course (I...
Micro-rotors are indeed a great way to
make a good portion of the movement visible. And they aren’t easy to achieve as far as I know because they tend to have a low winding efficiency compared to central rotor. Concerning the Cubitus, only thing I can say is that the 40 mm looked nice on my wr...
Aesthetically, not my taste at all either.
But how many square perpetual calendar calibers do we know? Best, Emmanuel
Well, there are choices. The same PP stuff as always, which is starting to seem underwhelming to some. Or release a Conneseur Series that takes LOTS of watch makers and decoration talent, added time, and HIGH cost.... OR.....
...or let high-precision machines and computers, maybe a touch of AI, do what it does best. Hand on heart, I was eyeing the Bell&Ross BR-3 (non-tourbillon). Nice modern design, 40mm x 9mm and 50m WP rated too. Let's see how this goes for PP. New machi...
At first sight on pictures, this Bell and Ross
looks very nice and I like it better than the PpCubitus PC.
I also think the aesthetic is very interesting.
I made a new comparison post to push the conversation further: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison
Thank you for suggesting the Bell & Ross.
I tried to continue our discussion with the following new post: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison Cheers, Emmanuel
Here’s my 2 cents…
No matter what patek does, ppl are going to hate the cubitus. Everyone who complained about the round movement in the original references, even though as we talked, there’s a historical precedent for this, isn’t jumping up and down bc now the movement per...
I agree with you, Gary.
I’ve tried on the 40 mm Cubitus and thought it was really nice. I don’t like the openwork aesthetic of this new model, but I respect the fact that they made the movement square and it’s the whole point of my post. Best, Emmanuel
I can understand that.
When I tried on the 40 mm Cubitus I liked it. But since the beginning I regretted that PP had not taken the pain to make a shaped movement so I’m glad they’ve finally done one. Best, Emmanuel
You may be interested in comparing it with other newly made ones:
please, check here: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison
Thanks Emmanuel for your explanation!👍
Respect ! I must see it in the metal to pass my final jufdgement.😃
Let us know!
Aesthetically, not my taste at all, but at least they’ve shaped the movement! Best, Emmanuel
I don’t find the cubitus to be ugly..
It’s just not my taste but it could be smaller, that’s for sure.. But is this movement really new? To me it’s a 240Q.. but what’s curious is the position of the calendar correctors are abit different from the 5740
I've tried to address your question in a new post:
check here: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison Best, Emmanuel
Thanks for the detailed post..
I agree they totally reworked the base plates.. from the back you can see a lot of the gears and wheels.. it’s actually very cool.. just that I am not into skeleton dials (with the sole exception of a the Zeitwerk)
I'm not into skeleton dials either.
I think PP could have done better here, but at least they took a step in the right direction. Best, Emmanuel
Patek made an effort but….
It looks half baked. Gerald Charles looked like they made a better shaped perpetual calendar for their new model. Cubitus as a whole feels like half baked. Anyways, i am not the market for the cubitus. I dont feel its “authentic”. But if they used the rec...
I understand your feeling and thank you for suggesting the comparison with the Gerald Charles movement.
I decided to make a new comparison post: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison Best, Emmanuel
