Patek Philippe

nt

D in W said: How on earth can anyone give a seal of approval to themselves? e.g.  I've done well today, think I'll give myself a 'D in W' seal......utter rubbish, it's meaningless. 

 

Let’s go to another field. I run a general ICU. Some studies have shown that the simple act of checking a predefined list for a procedure decreases errors & complications. The knowledge that one is documenting the important steps helps re-enforce them. Newer staff follow the standards set in the ICU. One is a little assured that what one thinks is happening, is actually happening. Aircraft pilots do something similar. So, what is the problem if a company like PP manufacturing high quality goods establishes its own standards of manufacturing & simply puts them down in a document. One is not merely giving oneself a seal of approval. One is ensuring that intended standards are implemented in the real world.

 

Is it marketing. Of course it is. The whole Swiss mechanical watch industry is a triumph of marketing. Nothing wrong with that.

 

fnk

nt

It is impossible to objectively self-regulate. An example is in medicine where, before the Bolitho case (UK), doctors could in effect self-regulate themselves to the point of theoretically winning all negligence cases. This was through the precedent set by McNair J in the Bolam case. What the latter case stipulates is that provided medical experts' evidence for the defense is judged to be both responsible and reasonable then whether or not the claimant's medical experts are found to be more reasonable/responsible the defendant will always win. The problem with this can be best illustrated in Hucks v Cole (pre-Bolitho) where the defendant had failed to prescribe penicillin which culminated in serious injury to the patient. The doctor had 4 medical experts stating that they would have done the exact same thing, however the judge was not convinced finding that a clear precaution had clearly not been taken.

Going back to PP's seal, would it be fair to suggest that a company (no matter how respected, experienced and clearly at he top of their game) who self-regulates their own product, will be acting in a consistently objective manner? I like the idea of change, particularly controversial change, as it stimulates discussion, review, and (one could argue) positive evolution to horology as whole. Rather than having the actual owners of the company be the final arbiters to their Seal, perhaps they should hire a highly respected independent body to audit or regulate their own standards. At least then credibility might be generated.

A great post nonetheless Jerome! I always enjoy reading your passion for PP.

You seem to be putting a lot of faith in the Geneva Seal.

Maybe too much, to receive it One example of a watch must be submitted, then that same series can be made for 1 year or 40 years, only the one watch is checked.

Dje said it right here

"Keeping the Geneva Seal was probably not a solution either as more and more brands are seemingly now respecting the Geneva seal requirements for the sake of it as a marketing tool, or as a way to try to compare itself to Patek Philippe on a ground that it too limited in itself to be a fair comparison criteria, even if the Geneva Seal requirements are quite respectable."

Let me be more blunt.

Some other watch sellers are now receiving the Geneva Seal, Patek believes this is the marketing ploy, some of you accuse Patek of. Patek fears these watch sellers will try and use the seal to show their watches are Equal to Patek.

Patek does not believe they are.  

Patek believes that they go well beyond what the seal encompasses. Judging from the Pictures Dje has posted here, I assume he took a tour of at least the main Patek factory.  Having done that as well, I can tell you the amount of hand finishing that is done is beyond belief. Some of it could be done by machine, but that simply is not how Mr. Stern believes it should be done. As parts are made and go thru the finishing steps, every part is inspected over and over again, they are inspected not when finished but as Each finishing step is done. It is not only inspected by the person doing the work, but by inspectors as well.

I would recommend everyone take the four of the Patek factory, you will be a believer after that.

 

nt

Hi,

Patek Philippe has a "comite du poincon" that incorporates people from outside the company.

patek.watchprosite.com

Cheers

Dje

Thank you Jerome! They do indeed state an independent body known as 'Comité du Poinçon' as verified under the 'Seal regulations' section.

patek.com

Anybody who see the Patek Philippe Seal as unserious should IMO and with all due respect see the Geneva Seal as a mockery!

I weight my words!

Self control inside a company is possible. That's the basic notion of normalization and all quality controls are based on self control, not by the same people but by other people inside the same company!

A bad personal experience doesn't make a universal truth. Life is not so simple.

Cheers

Dje

Patek shouldn't have been so surprised to see Cartier get the Geneva seal. If you look at the Geneva seal requirements, they all pretty much relate to polishing and finishing. It's little wonder then that a jewelry company, Cartier, would be able to qualify.
Eric von Schonberg

MY question really is : Had Patek ( NOT) name the seal under this name, would the reaction from the general public be less harsh ?? 

Hi,

That's a good question.

I'm surprised by the allergic reactions to this Seal.

Would it be because people realize (or don't want to) that the Geneva Seal is not so much of a proof of overall quality finally? 

Cheers

Dje

Gentlemen, aren't we all mature enough to know that the end purpose of these seals, bells and whistles is to improve the bottom line of the company? It amazes me that so many otherwise savvy and educated people believe in marketing hype as if it were a self-evident fact. Sigh...

  Talking about marketing hype. 

assuming, the Cartier watch passes all Patek Seal requirements.

What will happen next? 

If watches from other brands are able to get Patek Seal certification, the only problem I have with this Seal is the name.  Patek should have issued it some other name rather than the Patek Philippe Seal.  It is a little snobbish of them to name the Seal with its own name IMO.

Cheers,
Anthony

Hi Anthony,

 

That will not happen as the Patek Philippe Seal is not open to watches from others makes !

 

So Cartier would have to create its Cartier Seal, if they are tempted!   J

 

Cheers

 

Dje

They already "have to" produce the best watch possible

 It is already the politic of the Brand.

So why?

I agree with some points above. How can you call that a seal? A seal means independant and for everyone who one to get to a standard.

Parmigiani Fleurier created an interesting seal for the same reasons as Patek, not happy enough with the Geneva seal. Chopard LUC and Bovet (I think) followed it. If they were unhappy why did they follow it?

Putting on a decoration the requirement to make a Patek Philippe? That is what it is.

This is completely meaningless and calling it a seal imho doesn't respect the customer and "amateurs" of the brand, it is thinking of them as dummies.

I loved what I read of Thierry Stern interview. I love Patek products, the 5970p or the 5131j are just marvels that no other brand can compete with.

But this seal is a complete joke, and one of very bad taste.

Best regards

François

Hi Cisco,

Sorry but I think you're just wrong about what a seal is. There's no notion of independant body in a seal. Nor does that signify that such a seal has to be opened to any other make!

A seal means that the company or the body applying its seal guarantees its authenticity and compliance with the name, the values linked with the name,....

When a king was applying its seal the meaning was that the seal was the proof of origin, transfering through the seal a share of its grandeur, its power.

Take a seal for what it is, a reinforced signature.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the following part of your answer:

"Parmigiani Fleurier created an interesting seal for the same reasons as Patek, not happy enough with the Geneva seal. Chopard LUC and Bovet (I think) followed it. If they were unhappy why did they follow it?

Putting on a decoration the requirement to make a Patek Philippe? That is what it is."

And I strongly disagree with the end:

"This is completely meaningless and calling it a seal imho doesn't respect the customer and "amateurs" of the brand, it is thinking of them as dummies.

I loved what I read of Thierry Stern interview. I love Patek products, the 5970p or the 5131j are just marvels that no other brand can compete with.

But this seal is a complete joke, and one of very bad taste."

You may want to consider that there may be a meaning that you didn't get!

You may want to realize that on the contrary taking unprecedented commitments towards the customers is unlikely to show any kind of disrespect!

You may want to acknowledge that words like "dummies" or "complete joke" or "very bad taste" are too negative and strong to be accepted here without justifying their use by any kind of explanation or valid demonstrattion.

If you really love what you read from Thierry Stern, you should think about reading carefully the full content of the Patek Philippe Seal on the Patek Philippe website.

Dje

But I think you can find some justification inside my post. You think a seal doesn't mean independant, for me it does.

Patek has to do the best watches. Not because of a seal, just because of the name. For me this name means more than any thing.

Making a seal of it doesn't make any sense.

I quote you Dje

"As I see it Patek Philippe's wish with this Seal is only to formalize, make its manufacture and "bienfacture"s heritage secure, while keeping its innovative spirit in the balance"

God! calling that Patek Philippe seal and communicating on that is for me too much. Patek just pass quality tests and were also good, there is no reason to create such a thing, calling it seal and make some communication on it.

This is for me the first time Patek damages the perfect image it has in my eyes.

I stop with this subject, I am not comfortable with communication and marketing and I suppose I have epidermic reaction on that.

Patek make some marvellous products, on the top 3  grail watch I would love to own, Patek has 2 and one in the top position, and after all that is the only thing important to me.

Best regards

Francois

Hi,

no problem!

i understand your posiiton and I understand that you're not at ease with communication, but all companies must communicate and watchmakers now live in a communication word so if you don't comunicate you're dead!

The new customers for tomorrow, be they in China, India, or new born watch fans in the old traditional markets all need to learn what makes Patek Philippe a great watch brand! It is not necessarily obvious, specially in our market that see so much abuse of communication.

What they do with the seal is IMO a great way to have an understated communication. Their quality is subtile, so they need to explain!

I still think we're not the target for the PP Seal, but the PP Seal is a great and smart move.

Cheers

Dje

it seems that with the launch of this new seal and all it brings (promises), I can only imagine what pressure it will bring to the QC department.  After all, I would assume that there will be no problems with watches built to such strict standards. And, I would think that most buyers will be of the same mind after reading the book on the Patek Seal.  It seems to a very bold step when manufacturing 30-40,000 watches per year.  

nt

I wonder about the person who has read all the wonderful things about the seal, goes out and buys a watch and has problems from the get-go.  Is the seal a promise that this won't occur?

I would think that Patek has had an ongoing commitment to produce their watches to this level, so maybe I'm missing something here.  I believe a seal, to the average customer, would imply reliability (performance) as well.  You are absolutely right though, if someone buys a watch after reading the promises and commitments regarding the seal and encounters a problem, I feel, the seal for all it represents, will be viewed quite differently.  Additionally, the best service would be expected without complaint.   

This message has been edited by Dje on 2009-10-30 10:29:23

and this has been a great exchange of different views from Patek Philippe owners, collectors, etc. around the globe. I can't speak of planes because I don't know the facts of why they crash, but I can speak about folks who have had issues with newly purchased watches, many others have posted their experiences here as well.

When a watch doesn't function properly out of the box, the immediate reaction is "and this is the best watch in the world?" At this price level, a very simple expectation is that the watch function correctly. I'm not talking about 5 to 10 year old pieces, where maintenance and how a person wears a watch is in question, I think we all understand that. If the seal has some teeth that will address those issues, then I believe Patek will have risen to a level beyond all others. I hope that is the case.

Anyway, a great post and I appreciate your views and thoughtful responses.

Many thanks,

Whit

nt This message has been edited by Mostel on 2009-10-28 21:40:39