The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Brei

[DLJr]

When it's in the Welzeit I will likely snag it. Love that watch.

 

[Betelgeuse]



how much?

Around here it is $63,000 (aprox $4,772.72 usd) pesos. I thought it was going to cost a lot more, the one with the new Co-Axial movement is $109,000 (8,257.57 usd aprox) pesos but they told me they can make me an offer and leave it at $96,000 (7,272.72 usd aprox) pesos.

How much does the first one cost in the US?

 

[bkotsko]

Ok, this one is for the Patek experts...
5136 v. 3940?
Anyone want to educate a little?
If and when it is time, I am leaning toward one of these two in WG.
I know Frilly has the 3940P, as he wore it today.
A dumb question maybe.. can you put a PP leather strap on the 5136?

 

[rydenfan]

Around here it is $63,000 (aprox $4,772.72 usd) pesos. I thought it was going to cost a lot more, the one with the new Co-Axial movement is $109,000 (8,257.57 usd aprox) pesos but they told me they can make me an offer and leave it at $96,000 (7,272.72 usd aprox) pesos.

How much does the first one cost in the US?

Pretty sure they are $3,800-$4,000 but not 100%

 

[Hayward]

Since we're talking Nomos, what do folks think of the 30x30 Tetra?

 

[Betelgeuse]



Pretty sure they are $3,800-$4,000 but not 100%

Really? That's a considerable difference.

 

[rydenfan]



Really? That's a considerable difference.

http://www.luxuryofwatches.com/omeg...0-30-01-001/?gclid=CK7Rzb2sy78CFQwV7Aodxl4AqQ

 

[d4nimal]

Since we're talking Nomos, what do folks think of the 30x30 Tetra?

Meh. It's honestly my least favorite of their designs, and I tend to like square/rectangular watches. Something about a bauhaus square just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe because it's so starkly square when you compare it to things like the Monaco or rectangular watches like the Tank, Reverso, etc. It has no curves or sex to it for me, like something a Lego man would wear.

Then again, if you like it, cheers

 

[no frills]



Ok, this one is for the Patek experts...
5136 v. 3940?
Anyone want to educate a little?
If and when it is time, I am leaning toward one of these two in WG.
I know Frilly has the 3940P, as he wore it today.
A dumb question maybe.. can you put a PP leather strap on the 5136?

The 5136 is a transition model between the 3940 and the new (and currently produced) 5140. It only comes on a bracelet, and either in yellow gold (ref 5136/1J) or white gold (ref 5136/1G). It has since been discontinued. The last known MSRP of the J is $74,600 and that of the G is $78,200. It can be had preowned mint and complete anywhere from the low to mid-$50s. There are a few key differences between the 3940, the 5136 and the 5140: 1. First, the case size: the 3940 is 36mm while the 5136 was supersized to 37.2mm. The 5140 is also 37.2mm. 2. The 3940's bezel is concave while that of the 5136 and 5140 is convex. 3. The 5136 and 5140 are also slightly thicker than the 3940 (approximately 1.5mm, which is a large percentage increase versus a base of slightly under 9mm for the 3940). The 5136 and 5140 remain sleek and thin, but do look thick set beside a 3940 (pic from Mech at PuristSPro):

4. The biggest aesthetic difference between the earlier 3940 models and the 5136 and 5140 are the font sizes used (Belli will love this one). Clients (presumably older folks) have wanted larger fonts for easier readability, and Patek increased the font size. Here's a pic of my wife's 5136/1J:

See how much larger the font sizes are in the subdials in 3 and 9, versus my 3940's?

But, take a look at the 5140 (pic from the net):

In contrast to the 5136, Patek also upsized the font size for the numbers in the moonphase/date wheel. But since they kept the same cal 240 movement, they couldn't displace the subdials all that much and has to shrink the 27 and 5... ... Which was not shrunken in the 5136. Check again (pic from Google):

My personal thoughts: 1. Several of my friends own the 5140 and I've tried it on my wrist several times. I quite prefer the 3940 because of aesthetics - and pricing. 2. The 5136s are lovely pieces, and as all gold pieces are heavy and has tremendous presence on the wrist. But all of its surfaces are mirror polished and therefore definitely catch attention - and scratches. Handle with care. They also aren't the subtlest of timepieces. They are statement pieces IMHO. 3. Personally we - my wife and I - just couldn't wear them on a regular basis. Maybe for special occasions. So we ended up trading out her 5136/1J for a 3970P. 4. bkotsko - the 5136 is on an integrated bracelet so I highly doubt you can switch it out for a leather strap. My two cents.

 

[Kid Nickels]

Do not like big font.

 

[Texasmade]



Pretty sure they are $3,800-$4,000 but not 100%

I bought the Omega Seamaster 300M about 3 years ago form the Omega boutique for like $4100 after tax. I remember checking out the Speedmasters also and saw they were cheaper than the Seamaster on average. After 3 years of price raises this sounds about right.

 

[Concordia]



I bought my wife the 35mm Orion. I wear it often...

Whoa. ***********ing is in that other forum.

Moderator!?

 

[MatthewG18]

Today, perfection:

Frilly I was just about to comment about how you can say its perfect when its got all those little marks on the face! Then i remembered that the screen on my Mac hasn't been cleaned for a while ahaha

Note: i would of hidden the image but i really don't think the rest of the guys would mind seeing this beauty again

 

[Belligero]

double post

 

[Belligero]



Spoiler: Spoiler

The 5136 is a transition model between the 3940 and the new (and currently produced) 5140. It only comes on a bracelet, and either in yellow gold (ref 5136/1J) or white gold (ref 5136/1G). It has since been discontinued. The last known MSRP of the J is $74,600 and that of the G is $78,200. It can be had preowned mint and complete anywhere from the low to mid-$50s.

There are a few key differences between the 3940, the 5136 and the 5140:

1. First, the case size: the 3940 is 36mm while the 5136 was supersized to 37.2mm. The 5140 is also 37.2mm.

2. The 3940's bezel is concave while that of the 5136 and 5140 is convex.

3. The 5136 and 5140 are also slightly thicker than the 3940 (approximately 1.5mm, which is a large percentage increase versus a base of slightly under 9mm for the 3940).

The 5136 and 5140 remain sleek and thin, but do look thick set beside a 3940 (pic from Mech at PuristSPro):

4. The biggest aesthetic difference between the earlier 3940 models and the 5136 and 5140 are the font sizes used

(Belli will love this one).

Spoiler: Spoiler

Clients (presumably older folks) have wanted larger fonts for easier readability, and Patek increased the font size. Here's a pic of my wife's 5136/1J:

See how much larger the font sizes are in the subdials in 3 and 9, versus my 3940's?

But, take a look at the 5140 (pic from the net):

In contrast to the 5136, Patek also upsized the font size for the numbers in the moonphase/date wheel. But since they kept the same cal 240 movement, they couldn't displace the subdials all that much and has to shrink the 27 and 5...

Spoiler: Spoiler

... Which was not shrunken in the 5136. Check again (pic from Google):

My personal thoughts:

1. Several of my friends own the 5140 and I've tried it on my wrist several times. I quite prefer the 3940 because of aesthetics - and pricing.

Spoiler: Spoiler

2. The 5136s are lovely pieces, and as all gold pieces are heavy and has tremendous presence on the wrist. But all of its surfaces are mirror polished and therefore definitely catch attention - and scratches. Handle with care. They also aren't the subtlest of timepieces. They are statement pieces IMHO.

3. Personally we - my wife and I - just couldn't wear them on a regular basis. Maybe for special occasions. So we ended up trading out her 5136/1J for a 3970P.

4. bkotsko - the 5136 is on an integrated bracelet so I highly doubt you can switch it out for a leather strap.

My two cents.

Spot-on, V!

You’re damn right that I love a good discussion of typography, and you’ve chosen some excellent examples. I agree with your conclusion, as well. The older vs. newer Patek dials are vastly different. The new one is not an improvement in any way.

To understand watch design, one needs an appreciation and solid understanding of the art of typography, as the principles are so closely related. In both cases, you’re combining function and æsthetics to communicate. Ideally, what you end up with will be fit for purpose, sympathetic to the content, and internally consistent.

There’s plenty of room for variation and creativity in a watch dial or a printed page, but the fundamentals have been refined over centuries and are essential to know in either case. A watch dial is a direct application of arranging glyphs on a surface to represent information, so it’s literally the same thing in essence.

Comparing the lovely 5136 and 3940 dials to the ham-fisted 5140, it’s obvious that the earlier two were made by someone with a solid grasp of design, whereas the newer one was clearly not. So many newer Patek dials look “off”, and most of it comes down to the selection and arrangement of the typefaces.

Here they are close together, newest first:

The older dials use gorgeous lettering that suits the watch and is masterfully done. It's not correct to call this sort of lettering a font, because it isn't type. It's based on hand work, and tends to be extremely well-crafted on older Patek Philippe watches. The graceful forms on the earlier two perpetual calendar models are a pleasure to behold, and they impart liveliness and beauty to the dial. Details like the subtle serifs and the open 6s and 9s contribute an element of visual interest. Really, the execution is exemplary; the work is consistent, coherent, and appealing.

On the other hand, the 5140 is severely flawed and unprofessional. There's no doubt that it was done by someone lacking in design skill, at least judging by the incredibly unrefined result. For one thing, it unmistakably uses Arial, which is unforgivable in any watch, let alone one one from a grand manufacture. It’s an objectively bad typeface, and it’s rightly shunned by people who know what they’re doing. It truly does “make you look like a rube”, as screenfont.ca so aptly puts it. How the company finds this work acceptable is beyond me.

(For those of you wondering what the heck I’m talking about, refer to this post from a few months ago. Essentially, Arial is the typographical equivalent of a fake watch in more ways than one. You really should avoid it, particularly if you’re Swiss.)

The numbers have been vertically stretched by about 30% in the most inept manner possible, so the stroke weight is mangled, and the sad attempt to curve the numbers around the subdial makes things even worse. I don’t have a problem in principle with the shrinking of the figures between the subdials, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. They most definitely did it the wrong way.

The result just looks cheap and nasty:

hat tip to patekwatch.blogspot.com for the base image

In keeping with the theme of typographical incompetence, Calibri, or some closely-related version of it, was used for the letters. The “R” is unmistakably of the default-Microsoft ilk. The only one that isn't a match is the vertically-stretched “J” with an extra stroke on the top — likely added to make it superficially resemble the good dials.

If anyone can be bothered to identify it differently, I’d be grateful. My guess is that they just used plain ol' Calibri, applied the same clumsy distortions they inflicted on the numbers, and wrapped up by tacking that little tail on the “J”.

Regardless of which typeface they used for the days and months, the result isn't particularly attractive and the entire thing has the depressing stench of lame office computer to it. The skill level displayed is about what you’d expect from a pre-teen messing around in MS Paint, and I’m not exaggerating.

In short, the new dial is a mess.