Patek Philippe

patrick_y
[PuristSPro Moderator]
33540

• Show profile
• Show other posts

This is really getting out of context. This is the official statement.

The facts of the matter are; the original post was about Patek's finishing today vs 1990s. The original poster alluded, insinuated, and implied that Patek Philippe watches from the 1990s are better than more recent ones. This is - from a general sense - untrue. There may be unusual exceptions. But as a general apples vs apples comparison, this is generally untrue. A 5140 (five years old) and a 3940 from the 90s (both are the thin perpetual calendars using the 240Q movement) are finished to the same level, despite being made decades apart.
Then, some members were dissatisfied... the witch hunt continued - schadenfreude (German word describing the public likes to see the powerful taken down a peg - in this case people like to point out Patek Philippe's faults - even if it's taken out of context), some members thought certainly there must be some truth to this rumor that Patek Philippe quality has gone down...  Surely if everyone thinks it, it must be true?  Hearsay that became so popular that it was interpreted as a fact.  Someone (I don't want to name names) alluded, "More expensive Pateks are finished better." I stated that I disagree; I proffered this evidence: a 5120 and a 5140 from the same year or even different decades, both using the 240 caliber and both are finished to the same level under high magnification. Yes, there may be exceptions to the rule. But generally speaking, as a whole...
I then stated - architecturally, Patek Philippe has made movements that have less interior angles over the years to save on costs. BUT, the statements "Pateks in the 1990s were better than today" and "more expensive Patek are finished better" are not accurate statements on their own.  They can be accurate when referencing a specific type of watch, but not on their own.  
Now, another member takes a photo of a $500K+ minute repeater Tourbillon and a 240 caliber, and has said that they're finished the same. I already CONCEDED and AGREED they're not finished the same. But then I asked "what does that prove? You're comparing apples and oranges."  And now one member is still not happy and has posted a borderline upsetting and challenging post. Is this a fair comparison? It's not. Yet, out of my generosity, I even agreed and changed my perspective to the group's perspective. And yet this member is still not happy. Ask yourself BigFatPauli, are you being just a tad bit difficult?
Whatever will make you happy, I'll agree to it. Earth is flat! Earth is round! I give up!
Another thing I noticed. I'm arguing these statements "Pateks in the 1990s were better than today" and "more expensive Patek are finished better" are not accurate statements on their own. They're not "generally accurate" statements. Sure, there are a few exceptional scenarios where they may be true. But not as a whole, and not in an apples to apples comparison. They can be accurate in a specific comparison, but not on their own.  You can apply it to a comparison of two watches, but you can't make the blanket statement as factually true.
You're arguing that these statements can be valid in certain very extreme comparisons, such as comparing a $500K minute repeater Tourbillon and a base 240 caliber. Now you happen to be right. So I conceded. I said I changed my stance.
I trust this clears everything up!  I really don't believe in censoring threads unnecessarily. But sometimes the crowd finds the splinter in another's eye (in this case my eye) and just won't let go.  In the past, we would've deleted the original starting post because it didn't meet our standard as it implied something completely that could be misconstrued.  We generally don't censor and knowing this we take on the risk of the conversation moving the wrong way.  In the future, WPS won't take these risks.  We will delete all posts that insinuate and imply falsehoods to begin with.  Thank you BigFatPauli for making us realize what needs to be done in the future.