Existing CHRONO RATTRAPANTE QP auto?October 4 2006 at 1:24 AM
|Iohannes.B (Login Iohannes.B)|
I would like to know if there is a BLANCPAIN with caliber 5586 or F586 (Chonograph (Flyback) Rattrapante with Perpetual calendar automatic??)
Thank for your reply.
Yes, I think
|October 4 2006, 4:07 PM |
In the "Le Brassus" collection under reference 4286P with the amazing caliber 56F9A. in red gold, platinum or platinum with setted bezel...
I hope this will help, regards, Yann.
AP Discussion Group
Yann is right, here is the Ref. 4286P...
|October 4 2006, 8:42 PM |
with Chronograph Rattrapante and Perpetual Calender, automatic:
A Grande Complication, if you ask me. With 42mm in diameter, not too busy.
Photo Blancpain Le Brassus Split QP and Patek comparison
|October 5 2006, 11:06 AM |
First here is a photo of mine in rose gold (Magnus had a photo of the platinum)
And now the analysis comparing this to the new Patek 5960 Annual Calendar Chronograph.
Start with the Blancpain Flyback Ratrappante Perpetual. First, change the split second chronograph to a regular chronograph. Second, take Blancpain's more sophisticated jumping minute counter and substitute a cheaper constant running minute counter. Third, take the Blancpain full perpetual calendar and substitute an annual calendar. Finally add $12,000 to the price of the Blancpain and you will have the Patek!
AP Discussion Group
|October 5 2006, 6:16 PM |
Your biases are well known, but surely you can't really think that's a particularly instructive comparison as presented. And to be perfectly blunt, to describe Patek's constant minutes counter as "cheaper" demonstrates either a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues involved or a willingness to distort the facts to suit an agenda.
To equip a Piguet 1185 with a continuous minutes counter would be more "expensive" just as making the Patek 28-520 minutes counter semi-instantaneous would make it more "expensive". And no, the Blancpain is not a true jumping minutes counter which would be much more elaborate/complicated/expensive to manufacture, just ask Lange. Both minutes counter designs (continuous and semi-instantaneous) reflect the overall construction of the movements and their different design priorities and neither of them are necessarily indicative of economy of manufacture.
I'd rather not get into a "cost/craft" comparison of these two pieces in other regards unless you'd like to go into the differences between Durnico and high carbon steel as material choices for perpetual calendar and chronograph component in terms of cost of manufacturing, potential for refinishing/refurbishment and overall longevity.
Biases Aside Now We Are Having Fun
|October 5 2006, 7:23 PM |
Well the other points aside, which were mainly directed to the notion that certain brands enjoy a pricing power that others dont (my other favorite comparison is the Lange Double Split, a technical tour de force that was introduced at Basel 2004 to many cries of "Too Expensive" at nearly $100K, followed the next year by the Patek Monopusher split, lacking the complexity of the Lange double split, that had people lined up to buy at over $300K). My comparison of features was really an economic analysis.
But now turning to jumping minute counters vs. continous running counters, I stand by my guns. Not only are the jumping counters more classic and easier to read, but they are generally speaking more simple to construct. Having examined lots of chronographs that is true. Now it would be complicated to change the 1185, conceived as a jumping counter design, to continuous running--but that says no more than converting one design to another is not easy.
I actually did not get to the best part of the Patek analysis. The operation of the pushers is not particularly admirable. The return to zero is quite stiff and unpleasing to the touch.
There is one other bias to disclose. I am a huge fan of Patek and prize many in my collection.
AP Discussion Group
are we now talking about functionality?
|October 6 2006, 3:12 AM |
Pricing power is what it is and the brands that enjoy it in spades mostly didn't get there by accident. Patek certainly didn't and I applaud them their successes and hope they continue to go from strength to strength. Sometimes all it takes is a subtle loss of focus on the part of some key management players for design or construction changes to start creeping in that ultimately undermine the credibility of the brand. I rather hope that we haven't seen that from Patek yet.
I generally agree about the increased legibility of semi-instantaneous minutes coutners (which, again, are distinct from true jumping minutes counters), but surely that's not what you were referring to when you said it was more "expensive" than a continuous minutes coutner. Likewise, simpler to construct is not usually something I'd associate with "more expensive". It could be argued that a continuous minutes counter is more reliable and/or better for the timekeeping in some regards, but I'm not sure the arguments would be all that compelling.
Having not had the pleasure (displeasure?) of trying the pushers on a 5960 just yet, I'll have to take your word for it about the pusher feel. Perhaps the sample(s?) you tried was not a notable specimen in that regard? At any rate, the Piguet 1185 is generally quite good/consistent when it comes to pusher feel in my experience.
Isn't there a perpetual split from IWC that's substantially less expensive than the BP?
|October 6 2006, 10:15 AM |
My "just for fun" comparison was to a very large degree apples to apples in that the Patek 5960 is a column wheel vertical clutch design chronograph, as is the Blancpain whose 1185 was the first commercially reliable and successful design (yes, I know of an early Seiko design which did not work well at all). So we were comparing similar types of chronogrpahs.
The IWC models are 7750s, which in my mind occupy a different class.
As for Patek earning its pricing power position, I agree. Over many years--beyond contest longer than anyone lese--it has developed and produced consistently watches of the highest quality. It thus deserves the acclaim it has today.
That aside, one can always examine afresh the current line up to see if the reptutation pricing remains justified. Said another way, you have to earn your respect anew every day.
AP Discussion Group
now you're just trying to make me mad
|October 6 2006, 9:40 PM |
You can't honestly believe that Seiko's vertical clutch design did not work well at all, can you? Who's been lying to you? There are 6139 and 6138 powered chronographs that have been running for 30 years and the vast majority of Seiko's vertical clutch chronos are quite serviceable to this day. Once again I'm confused as to whether you're speaking out of ignorance or an intention to deceive, but your continued unwillingness to address the counterpoints I've brought up makes your agenda clear at least.
|October 7 2006, 7:54 AM |
Interesting discussion. I of course am totally outside my competence when it comes to the differences between the staggeringly expensive watch Jeff is sharing with us and the even more staggeringly expensive Patek, but I must join John in deploring the unwarranted pejoratives directed against Seiko's cal. 6138, which were manufactured in the millions and ran like a top.
Jeff, say what you like about PP/BP in terms of value added and price points but leave poor Seiko out of it
What did the 6138 ever do to you?
Seiko still makes a very nice, well finished, very functionally satisfactory automatic chronograph in the Flightmaster BTW. A very different watch than either the PP or the BP but none the worse for being a couple of orders of magnitude less expensive, while we are on the subject.
May I comment...
|October 15 2006, 7:57 PM |
John, I need to speak up here. I respect both you and certainly Jeff Kingston but it has been quite obvious over the years of your dislike for Fredric Piguet movements although in my own personal experience they are the best I've owned so I would be careful when you call someone out for having an agenda. Thanks, Mike.
Hi Michael, not to . . .
|October 15 2006, 8:56 PM |
. . .invalidate your personal experience but you know, there's a difference between the opinion of a driver and the opinion of a mechanic.
|October 16 2006, 5:28 AM |
And one driver and one mechanic's opinions should not be taken as gospel. Thanks, Mike.
Well, sure. . .
|October 16 2006, 10:36 AM |
. . .and we can all make up our minds as to which deserves the most weight. As Socrates once said, if we want to learn about shoes, we ask a cobbler.
AP Discussion Group
just to clarify
|October 16 2006, 3:56 AM |
Perhaps you're confusing the concept of "having an agenda" with "being biased"? One that has a vested interested in the topic of discussion is sometimes thought/said to have an agenda. That means it is in that persons best interest (financially, politically, emotionally or otherwise) for the discussion/debate to go one way or the other. The fact that Jeff is an official spokesperson for Blancpain does not of course disqualify his opinions about the quality of their products, but when in the course of a discussion about them he repeatedly avoids the substantive points raised against them all the while distorting the facts with a clear bias in mind it calls into question whether a specific agenda is being pursued.
I wholly admit to being biased about many things, but my opinion of the Piguet 1185 is an informed one and has changed substantially since having become familiar with the movement. Before I ever worked on it, I was a big fan. I've always liked the Seiko vertical clutch chronographs and shared the general admiration found in the watch enthusiast community for the Piguet 1185. After having serviced and repaired a few dozen of them, my opinion has changed however as I gradually recognized some design elements that I believe to be weaknesses, mostly relating to serviceability and ultimate longevity but also to the immediate running precision of the movement. If you can find a watchmaker who is intimately familiar with this movement and who has a lot of good things to say about it, please tell them to drop me a line as I'd love to discuss it with him/her.
If you find my opinion to be biased, then so be it. Believe what you will. But don't kid yourself that I have an agenda other than sharing my honest opinion.
I don't think you do have an agenda...
|October 16 2006, 5:27 AM |
I did not state my point clearly but perhaps I should have said I don't believe that even though Jeff is a spokesman for Blancpain that he has an agenda here. You and Jack obviously feel otherwise. Similarly, your knowledge as a watchmaker of FP and other movements certainly qualifies you to have an informed opinion but I feel you are overly vocal in your dislike for FP movements and it colors my feelings as to whether you are the best person to judge Jeff in this case.
Also, certainly my layman's admiration for FP movements based on personal experience causes my defensive posture in this regard. Thanks, Mike.
Just to clarify a little further :-) . . .
|October 16 2006, 10:41 AM |
. . .I am a big fan of BP, and I happen to think they make some of the flat out most beautiful watches anywhere and in recent years they have introduced some wonderful technical innovations as well which increase both the beauty and functionality of their watches- the pushers under the lugs for the perpetual calendar for instance I think is a stroke of genius. My only point was that someone who's had to work on a movement is obviously a better objective judge of its mechanical qualities than someone who hasn't- a general point that applies to all of us, I hasten to add, who have never taken a screwdriver to the object in question.
Thank you Jack...
|October 16 2006, 1:04 PM |
You are 100% correct. My point is that John's opinion is his own and as a watchmaker on the internet on a watch specific site it holds a lot of weight with many people. Then again it is one watchmaker's opinion. It may or may not be consensus among watchmakers but there is a certain gravity than comes with repeatedly stating these opinions in such a forum and hopefully John does not take this responsibility lightly. Thanks, Mike.
No problem and thank you. . .
|October 16 2006, 5:25 PM |
. . .John of course can speak for himself but having known him as a horological writer first and now industry professional I can guarantee that he takes the dissemination of accurate information very seriously. His opinion of the FP 1185 is actually a case in point; he's concerned to offer the perspective of someone with actual bench experience, not just with one but with several dozen samples, as a point of information of value and interest to this community.
In a larger sense, of course, does every aspect of a watch have to be perfect for us to enjoy it? If functional perfection were the be all and end all we wouldn't be interested in mechanical watches at all. Having had a chance to hear opinions from many highly regarded professionals with bench experience I'll never have is one of the big perks of being a moderator for this community (you know, aside from all the free minute repeaters
) and really, there are very few if any movements that don't show concessions to economy at least here and there- rivets used instead of screws, parts clearly designed for replacement rather than serviceability, unfinished cover plates hidden under the dial away from the prying eyes peering through a display back, wire springs, et cetera et cetera. How much should we be bothered by such things? It's up to each of us to find out as much as we can about the watches we like- or as much as we care to- and then we can decide what's important to each of us individually.
To me in a watch I love the whole is always more than the sum of sometimes imperfect parts, and BP makes watches that to my personal
taste are elegant, refined in execution, and examples of some very classical values in watch design, as well as a certain sophistication in the expression of those principles; that's enough for me
AP Discussion Group
points well taken
|October 16 2006, 7:50 PM |
And in my defense: Jeff started it.