Comments:
I do like chronographs as I fondly comment and compared the 5004 and 5204 chronograph thread started by Iceman some days back. But those 2 reference had very well spaced dials and neat organization.
Those 2 chronographs had 3 dials circumscribed by an outer dial. And yet the dials steered clear away from each other with none intercepting. So in my opinion, there is little reason to believe that this was a mistake or a situation restricted by design. I have to think that it is deliberate. For at Patek, I am sure the watch makers do not leave things to chances.
Thus, it would be interesting to get behind those designers' mind and know why they designed the watch this way.
when I made the candid comment about the dials eating onto the outer dial, it was without malice. Neither do I mean to disregard the "tradition" set by Patek's history of previous references. But comments and opinions are personal and I feel the need to explain my thoughts.
It stemmed from a simple thought.
Suppose I used the Patek 5070 as a Chronograph, I felt I would have problem reading the dial when the chronograph hand passes by two locations. 1) between the 15th to 20th second and 2) between the 40th and 45th second. For in these 2 regions, the main "seconds" division is obscured by the dial leaving only the "sub-divisions" exposed. One can surely recognize the apparent difficulty reading the chronograph at these places and acknowledge that this difficulty exist. Whether one actually uses the chronograph in reality is immaterial. Some facts are facts, no matter which side u argue from.
Perhaps these thoughts haven't really crossed anyone's mind after being mesmerized by the 5070's outlook. But there is no reason why such an expensive watch shouldn't be used as a chronograph as it is made to be. To me, functionality is an equally important attribute for a watch as it's aesthetic appeal. A cut dial is almost as bad as a blotched dial. Isn't it not ?
Replying to Spellbound.
Your comparison of the the 5070 to the 5055 isn't quite valid on 2 counts that :
1) though the "seconds" dial of the 5055 dial do indeed eat into the outer dial, it does not totally obscure the markings. Minutes can still be read and functionality is not compromised.
2) Chronographs upholds one of the highest standards in horology and needs to be scrutinised for accuracy and precision. Thus linearity in dial markings and timing performance is paramount.
I should reframe from harping on the dials of the 5070 after this post. Having said all the above, the 5070 platinum version (black dial) do not have this "cut dial" version.
Those ones are truly beautiful and I wonder why the same reference have 2 different dial layout.
Why ?
Peace,
Aki
Splendid! Patek Philippe 5170G
No need for any word to describe how "splendid" Patek Philippe 5170G is!
Wow. One more, new arrival?
If yes. Congrats and don´t mind to share your thoughts/impressions after some time of ownership 
Oliver
Oliver
I cant help but notice...
the small imperfection in this Patek.
Why does the 2 dial have to intercept and eat onto the outer dial.
If the dial is cluttered or have insufficient space, it is comprehensible.
But clearly, the 2 dials could have been shifted towards the middle and the dials would not have intercepted the tachy dial.
Deliberate or otherwise, it does not sit well with those owners who are into fine details.
The WG metal and the white face is a good match nevertheless.
Why does the 2 dial have to intercept and eat onto the outer dial.
If the dial is cluttered or have insufficient space, it is comprehensible.
But clearly, the 2 dials could have been shifted towards the middle and the dials would not have intercepted the tachy dial.
Deliberate or otherwise, it does not sit well with those owners who are into fine details.
The WG metal and the white face is a good match nevertheless.
OK. To me it seems there is (almost) none ...
(simple; Ref. 130, 530, 533, 591, 1436 ...) vintage chronograph from PP that you think is beautiful?! Interesting. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Please do not misunderstand..
I do like chronographs as I fondly comment and compared the 5004 and 5204 chronograph thread started by Iceman some days back. But those 2 reference had very well spaced dials and neat organization.
Those 2 chronographs had 3 dials circumscribed by an outer dial. And yet the dials steered clear away from each other with none intercepting. So in my opinion, there is little reason to believe that this was a mistake or a situation restricted by design. I have to think that it is deliberate. For at Patek, I am sure the watch makers do not leave things to chances.
Thus, it would be interesting to get behind those designers' mind and know why they designed the watch this way.
Please have a look to the PP history ...
and at least the References I already mentioned. Maybe that helps to understand why it is done like this.
Oliver
Oliver
Definitely not an imperfection
More a distinguishable feature. Much like the way one of the subdials on your 5055 eats into the railway track. For a "perfectionist" seems odd for you to criticize.
I have always adored the 5070, but the more I see this one, the more I am leaning toward a new favourite. Congratulations on a sublime watch.
This message has been edited by Spellbound on 2013-09-30 05:21:26
Would love to hear your impressions after daily usage. And a movement shot when you are ready !
Dean
Dear Spellbound and Oliver,
when I made the candid comment about the dials eating onto the outer dial, it was without malice. Neither do I mean to disregard the "tradition" set by Patek's history of previous references. But comments and opinions are personal and I feel the need to explain my thoughts.
It stemmed from a simple thought.
Suppose I used the Patek 5070 as a Chronograph, I felt I would have problem reading the dial when the chronograph hand passes by two locations. 1) between the 15th to 20th second and 2) between the 40th and 45th second. For in these 2 regions, the main "seconds" division is obscured by the dial leaving only the "sub-divisions" exposed. One can surely recognize the apparent difficulty reading the chronograph at these places and acknowledge that this difficulty exist. Whether one actually uses the chronograph in reality is immaterial. Some facts are facts, no matter which side u argue from.
Perhaps these thoughts haven't really crossed anyone's mind after being mesmerized by the 5070's outlook. But there is no reason why such an expensive watch shouldn't be used as a chronograph as it is made to be. To me, functionality is an equally important attribute for a watch as it's aesthetic appeal. A cut dial is almost as bad as a blotched dial. Isn't it not ?
Replying to Spellbound.
Your comparison of the the 5070 to the 5055 isn't quite valid on 2 counts that :
1) though the "seconds" dial of the 5055 dial do indeed eat into the outer dial, it does not totally obscure the markings. Minutes can still be read and functionality is not compromised.
2) Chronographs upholds one of the highest standards in horology and needs to be scrutinised for accuracy and precision. Thus linearity in dial markings and timing performance is paramount.
I should reframe from harping on the dials of the 5070 after this post. Having said all the above, the 5070 platinum version (black dial) do not have this "cut dial" version.
Those ones are truly beautiful and I wonder why the same reference have 2 different dial layout.
Why ?
Peace,
Aki
Clarify
Aki, I have no issue with your point of view on aesthetics of a particular watch.
What I thought was surprising was that Bankie posts pictures of his treasured, and I must say, perfect 5170G, and you respond with a post saying "I can't help but notice the small imperfection in this Patek" and "Deliberate or otherwise, it does not sit well with those owners who are into finer details".
When you first posted your Patek, you had a huge and warm reception from this community, and all the posts expressed admiration for your new acquisition. How would you have liked it if someone responded the way you did on this thread?
Apologies to Bankie for this detour on your post. Your 5170G is honestly something special.
Dean
Aki, I cannot follow you - a mistake on your side perhaps?
The Patek 5070 has no overlapping dials (pic by Nico):
Are you referring to the Patek 5170 (image by Bankie)?
Even here I would like to comment that the subdials do not overlap totally with the chronograph seconds ring. Thus I fail to understand why you criticise the 5170 but clear the 5055 of this sin.
Did I miss something?
Cheers,
Magnus
First of all you should say "Sorry" to Bankie ...
because I agree with Spellbound. You joined "Bankie´s party" in a quite unpolite way, didn´t you? Would you like it that way?!
Second, you mix up 5070 with 5170 and there is nothing like a black dial 5070 - platinum version comes with a blue one.
Once more I would recommend to do a minimum of "homework" first. Thanks!
Oliver
Second, you mix up 5070 with 5170 and there is nothing like a black dial 5070 - platinum version comes with a blue one.
Once more I would recommend to do a minimum of "homework" first. Thanks!
Oliver
Congrates Bankie on a superb chrono.
I handle this pc live 2x, warm the first time and really WARM the last time. I adore the dial on this watch, one of the most beautiful mordern patek dials imho. Dare i say more beautiful then the 5070 ( pls dont crucify me for this statement , and i hv a 5070p) I would snap it up in a heartbeat if not for commitment on another pc.
Best
Iceman
The 5070 and 5170 was a typo...
as I was the whole time typing it on my iphone sitting on a couch.
The conversation was all the time on the picture posted and so I wrote the wrong reference number typing on my 4.5 inch screen.
(My eyes and fingers playing tricks on me at this late hour)
It's an honest mistake which I spent the last 10 minutes trying to correct but I am unable to edit it.
Dear Magnus and Dean,
You are right. I caused a bit of a confusion by typing a wrong reference number. But I was referring to the Patek in the picture.
Dear Oliver,
May I know how to edit the typo ? or is editing (beyond a certain time after inserting the post) not allowed because that is what I observe.
In retrospect, I acknowledge that it was an oversight on my part to critique on the piece while everyone is chirping in on how good the watch looks.
I should not used words like "imperfections" because truly every Patek has its place and is a class on its own.
It's a good watch that will make its owner smile and owning one is already a privilege.
Maybe on a separate thread like "Between the chronographs 5170 , 5070 , 5004 etc...", is a more suitable occasion to write contents about comparison and contrast ?
On that, A sincere apology to Bankie for a slight detour on the topic.
If editing of post at this point is still allowed, please teach me. I could and would certainly make things right with a gentlemanly reply.
Cheers,
Aki
The conversation was all the time on the picture posted and so I wrote the wrong reference number typing on my 4.5 inch screen.
(My eyes and fingers playing tricks on me at this late hour)
It's an honest mistake which I spent the last 10 minutes trying to correct but I am unable to edit it.
Dear Magnus and Dean,
You are right. I caused a bit of a confusion by typing a wrong reference number. But I was referring to the Patek in the picture.
Dear Oliver,
May I know how to edit the typo ? or is editing (beyond a certain time after inserting the post) not allowed because that is what I observe.
In retrospect, I acknowledge that it was an oversight on my part to critique on the piece while everyone is chirping in on how good the watch looks.
I should not used words like "imperfections" because truly every Patek has its place and is a class on its own.
It's a good watch that will make its owner smile and owning one is already a privilege.
Maybe on a separate thread like "Between the chronographs 5170 , 5070 , 5004 etc...", is a more suitable occasion to write contents about comparison and contrast ?
On that, A sincere apology to Bankie for a slight detour on the topic.
If editing of post at this point is still allowed, please teach me. I could and would certainly make things right with a gentlemanly reply.
Cheers,
Aki
Akitaishi,
Your enthusiasum is wonderful, but pls try to consider how others feel when you post. As i mention before when i stood up for you, its about people first. If you dont understand that then i was wasting my time on you.
Best
Iceman
Thanks Pal..(Iceman)
I appreciate that gesture the other time.
No man is perfect. I guess I falter this time.
One thing I need to learn now is how to edit a post when the fingers go faster than the mind. (that happens you know ?)
Any idea ?
This message has been edited by akitaishi on 2013-09-30 08:47:29
No man is perfect. I guess I falter this time.
One thing I need to learn now is how to edit a post when the fingers go faster than the mind. (that happens you know ?)
Any idea ?
This message has been edited by akitaishi on 2013-09-30 08:47:29
Please slow down Akitaishi
You wrote me some PM and it was clear to me that you are a new enthusiast. That is wonderful, but how can I explain...it is like discovering the best red wines...take your time...it needs some time and many glasses to understand what it is all about
I will try to smooth things down a little...
... As you are taking the shots quite well.
Even though i disagree with you, i got your point. You got hit from all sides in this thread, you understand it's about the way you formed that critic. If you had warmly congratulate the new owner 1st before making a critic, it would have been better perceived.
Its important to show the new owner that we share his happiness. Its part of the pleasure of sharing our passion for watches.
Then again, its healthy to have some debate and not the usual sweet words.
The sub dial over lapping the outer ring bothers you, maybe its because you do not understand why. I will give my view on it, i see 2 possible reasons:
1- One of the golden rule of design states that "form follows function"... So i guess that the architecture of the movement is what decided where the sub-dials should be. In this 5170G, the movement fills the 39mm case perfectly ( contrary to 5070 ). So choices might have came down to squeezing more the outer ring where there is the tachymeter... or biting a little on it with the subdial.
2- As the spirit of the 5170 is to be last descendant of a great line of chronographs, designers had to respect some design details of the past models. This 5170G is a tribute to vintage chrono's. So if you take a good look at the 1436, you will understand the roots and the choices designers had to make. If you go back on the past ref that Oliver mentioned, they all have a "biting subdial".
The answer might be a combination of those 2 explanations. Food for thoughts and for a healthy interesting debate here
Anyway Akitaishi, chrono's and watches in general, do not need to be "perfect" as you mention. IMO perfection is not a good thing, it implies something too rational and cold that often goes against poetry, personality and caracter. The 5070 is a living example, with so many flaws but then again, maybe the most desirable of all in spite ( or because ) of its flaws.
My 2 cents,
Just a killer !
Let me sincerely congratulate you for this choice ! This chrono is gorgeous. I had the opportunity to put it on my wrist (a few minutes) and it has been difficult to leave it.
Concerning Aki... post, I totally disagree because the seconds ring is always clear and never overlapped (which is essential of course).
You're a lucky man and enjoy it as much as possible.
If I well remember, you posted a few time ago on a 50205 ros gold with white dial. You've got here a beautiful duo !
Best
Didier.
Thank you for all the congratulations from wonderful members here.
I did not expect the post to turn out like this! Anyway, i have owned both 5070 and 5170 and have to say each piece is unique in almost every aspect; and the only similarity is chronograph function (albeit Lemania vs. In-House movement). It would not be fair to judge which one is more beautiful over another since both are wonderful timepieces and stay true to the Patek Philippe's lineage of exceptional chronographs. 5170G w/ the Breguet numerals will always give you a more classic and elegant feelings when putting it on; while the 5070 generates more excitement and sporty feelings that would go well with both casual and formal occasions. At the end of the days, both are great pieces to be owned and appreciated by wonderful collectors on this forum!
I could not agree more.
You have refined and exquisite taste Bankie. I guess, probably wrongly, that you are a banker given your chosen name ? Quite a few people here in finance, me included.
Looking forward to seeing more in the future.
Dean