Patek Philippe

whit
558

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Personally, I don't know if "beauty" would be the

proper term, maybe that term relates more to women than to men and it would be very interesting to hear the views of the female members of the forum.

To those unfamiliar with Patek, I might expect a different view. Terms like conservative, "old man's watch, classic, maybe even boring, etc. were regularly used twenty plus years ago.

I do think "what it is" has a great deal to do with the perception of beauty. We all ooh and ahh over minute repeaters, tourbillon-minute repeaters, split chrono's, perpetuals, and other pieces loaded up with complications because of what they are and I believe that influences what we consider to be beautiful with respect to Patek.

There are a lot of designs Patek uses today which are incredibly popular but were just the opposite when first introduced. The Nautilus is a good example.The comments from folks thirty years ago were no where close to what you hear today. Patek's popularity has had a profound effect on that perception.

Did I buy my watch because I thought it was beautiful?  I bought it  because of what it was at the time .... the best. The design was attractive and pleasing and unassuming. The case and dial were quite simple, unrecognizable to all but those familiar with Patek. I never received any compliments and no one ever mentioned anything about it at all. And it speaks to me today the same way it did over 20 years ago.

Of course, like many others, I acquired other Pateks "loaded up" because of the complications and all of the cool stuff they did, but for the most part, it was how they were visually attractive with the moon phases, power reserve indicators, etc., but the ones that I now gravitate to seem to be the simple looking watches.

After writing the above, I am believing beauty comes to each one of us differently and may not always be relegated to the visual.

You throw out some pretty thought provoking questions Jerome.