Patek Philippe

it isn’t my taste at all…

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’m no watchmaker) but I think that making a shaped movement has always been about shaping the bridges to make them square or rectangular. I don’t think the corners are ever filled with components. And here, at least to my eyes, the movement has been designed to occupy as much of the square space as is practically possible. And the bridges and balance cock have been properly shaped.
If the bridges were solid, nobody would complain.
Just my two cents…
Best, Emmanuel

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 wrist when I tried it on!

But how many square perpetual calendar calibers do we know?
Best, Emmanuel

Best, Emmanuel

...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. 

looks very nice and I like it better than the PpCubitus PC.

I made a new comparison post to push the conversation further: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison

I tried to continue our discussion with the following new post: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison

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 perfectly fits the case. I hear all about the open work and how it looks like this or that. I didn’t like the cubitus when I first saw it in photos. But handling it and trying it on, I changed my mind.
This am I had coffee with a friend who wears the SS green dial model. It’s awesome. It wears well and looks different from any comparator. It’s not a grail piece for me, but I would gladly buy it at retail and wear it.

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 never had a problem with Cubitus.

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

please, check here: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison

Respect !  I must see it in the metal to pass my final jufdgement.😃

Aesthetically, not my taste at all, but at least they’ve shaped the movement!
Best, Emmanuel

It’s just not my taste but it could be smaller, that’s for sure..

check here: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison

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 think PP could have done better here, but at least they took a step in the right direction.

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 rectangular manual wind 10 day movement in a cubitus and skeletonized it. I am sure i will be calling my dealer asap. 

I decided to make a new comparison post: Horological meandering: Side By Side Comparison

Best, Emmanuel