Rolex vs PP

[Tallbark]

I know that PP is among the golden three’s of watchmaking. If we look past our personal brand preferences; what do you get in for example an aquanaut that you don’t get in a Rolex? If you look past value, brand, prestige etc?

The movements for example, hand made in PP, are they technically better than Rolex movements?

I would love a PP, but outside my price range unfortunatly. But I also heard that they are expensive to service and that it take like a year to get it back.

I’m not trying to bash any of the brands, I’m just curious about the actual value you get in an PP if you take away prestige and brand…

[geoach]

If you don't own a Patek you won't understand the difference.

[Rolex1982]

For me personally, i never owned a PP, i think PP stands out on it’s complicated movements. The ‘standard’ Aquanaut would never be my first choice to buy. I would like to buy a PP someday, probably not at an AD (not enough purchase history), but it must have a complication.

[Walster]

I you have a Rolex, you own it. If you have a Patek, you don’t own it. You merely take care of it for the next generation.

I prefer to own my watch.

[Tallbark]

Originally Posted by geoach

If you don't own a Patek you won't understand the difference.

I guess what you are saying is the difference is something you can’t explain through facts. Well, I guess that answer the question in a way.

[Wssszsss]

From my understanding, I don’t feel these two are comparable, here are my restrains : :

1.Their target clients (originally) barely overlapped.

2. Rolex is a tool watch, PP is famous by its complication.

At the end of the day I think they are both shinning in their own territory, but PP has a lot competitors like AP, VC, FPJ, Lange etc. But Rolex stands by its own, no other brands even come close, Rolex is unique.

[joli160]

I visited the museum and salon in Geneva. Seriously impressive.
The watches with complications are really amazing and for me that is what makes Patek.
Way out of my league but I do admire those watches, meticulously finished and a step above Pateks entry level line which is already pretty good to begin with.
The one I could afford they would not sell to me

Oddly the Aquanaut and Nautilus don’t interest me and the world being normal even at retail I would not buy them. Seriously overhyped if compared with a Patek PC watch.

Rolex are all the same decent quality level, OP or DD makes no difference.
Makes it easy to choose and more accessible for regular folks.
What I particularly like is that somehow Rolex watches never look outdated.
It fits me and I don’t feel the need to explore more

[Tallbark]

Originally Posted by Wssszsss

From my understanding, I don’t feel these two are comparable, here are my restrains : :

1.Their target clients (originally) barely overlapped.

2. Rolex is a tool watch, PP is famous by its complication.

At the end of the day I think they are both shinning in their own territory, but PP has a lot competitors like AP, VC, FPJ, Lange etc. But Rolex stands by its own, no other brands even come close, Rolex is unique.

Thanks, good points. But this is more of a market position argument (that I agree with by the way).

But again, looking at the actual product (and lets put aside the most extreme PP models with many complications). Comparing the Aquanaut vs SUB for example. Is there something superior in the PP?

[rgwarden]

Originally Posted by joli160

more accessible for regular folks

Are they though?
I don’t think Rolex owners are regular folks and they’re not exactly ‘available’ are they!
But PP are another financial bracket entirely. I once read that a watch can reasonably represent 5% of an annual salary. Made some sense to me. Until the current cost of living crisis that is!

[alphadweller]

With Patek, you get a product for which the amount of human involvement during the production process is higher.

For example, with Rolex, all the finishing is machine made, only the final assembly is manual. In the case of Patek, most of the finishing is also automated but on top of the manual final assembly, we have hand finishing embellishment in key areas that are likely to have the greatest visual impact. So essentially more hours are spent on the manual finishing of a Patek movement.

With regards to the quality of the movement, Rolex have state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities allowing a high level of automation, but this doesn't make the quality of their movements inferior. They go through high internal requirements for precision.

Here's an excellent article from SJX comparing the amount of watchmaker hours between brands, with Patek sitting between 30 and 99 maximum watchmaker-hours per watch, and Rolex standing at a much lower 1 to 9 watchmaker-hours.

[aa_watch]

Patek is about craftmanship, highly skilled watchmakers, and very limited quantities. They have a much higher price range than Rolex and are stealthier.
Their museum is outstanding.

Rolex is manufacturing a large number of watches each year like a car factory. Most of their watches are more "affordable".
Unlike Patek Philippe, Rolex is distributed in most of the major cities around the world.

They target different audiences if you compare the prices of their "entry-level" watches.

[alphadweller]

With Patek, you get a product for which the amount of human involvement during the production process is higher. Also, Patek develops highly complicated movements compared to less complicated ones at Rolex. However, if we compare simple models, like an Aquanaut versus a Submariner, the hand finishing makes a difference.

With Rolex, all the finishing is machine made, only the final assembly is manual. In the case of Patek, most of the finishing is also automated but on top of the manual final assembly, we have hand finishing embellishment in key areas that are likely to have the greatest visual impact. So essentially more hours are spent on the manual finishing of a Patek movement.

With regards to the quality of the movement, Rolex have state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities allowing a high level of automation, but this doesn't make the quality of their movements inferior. They go through high internal requirements for precision.

Here's an excellent article from SJX comparing the amount of watchmaker hours between brands, with Patek sitting between 30 and 99 maximum watchmaker-hours per watch, and Rolex standing at a much lower 1 to 9 watchmaker-hours.

[jimcameron]

Originally Posted by Tallbark

what do you get in for example an aquanaut that you don’t get in a Rolex?

You get the same thing you get when you buy a Casio. It's nothing to do with telling time, and everything to do with what you preserve as an elevation in your own status.

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by Tallbark

I know that PP is among the golden three’s of watchmaking.

That 'Golden Three' you refer to was somehow chosen back in the 1960s, and so far after asking many magazine editors, etc not a single person can tell me who voted for those three, and what the criteria were.

Do you know what it was 60 years ago? And then the obvious question is, is a 60 year old 'list' no one can tell you how it was decided upon...

So, is a list from the 1960s even relevant in 2023? i think not.

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by geoach

If you don't own a Patek you won't understand the difference.

Had quite a few, the company is different since the 1960s. Am sure you know there are far better handcrafted 'brands' and independents today than there was back in the 1960s.

Originally Posted by Rolex1982

For me personally, i never owned a PP, i think PP stands out on it’s complicated movements. The ‘standard’ Aquanaut would never be my first choice to buy.

Excellent point, and you are right. PPs ultra-complictions are made to a higher standard than the mass-produced Aquas, Nauts, etc from what i've heard / seen. So yes, if you're seeking a PP with 5+ complications those appear to be produced to a different standard than PP's basic timepieces.

Originally Posted by alphadweller

With Patek, you get a product for which the amount of human involvement during the production process is higher.

Agree, PP puts a bit more human effort than Rolex. But, for example, there's brand like H. Moser who probably does more than Patek does IN-HOUSE. Also, H. Moser timepieces cost less and you get more. So this bumps up against which brand offers better value.

Here, have a look at a very rare H. Moser movement and please take time to learn about how much they produce in-house within their timepieces. PP makes many, many more 'basic' timepieces too than H. Moser, so one could very rightly argue my H. Moser timepiece it is far more rare than the typical PP.

Very rare indeed :)

[*M5]

I cannot speak of Patek as I do not own one but I have recently acquired a VC from the 90s and overall it's in the fine details. The steel feels more solid somehow, well rounded, exceptionally finished, polished, brushed. It really comes close to the white gold from Rolex but it's steel. Minus some of the the weight, the VC feels as luxurious as a Day Date for example.

The hands are just more fine, the dial is cleaner under a loupe, the lume is perfectly applied.


I don't know if it's apples to apples but if we look at the car industry, most Asian car makers have copied/implemented the same options as let's say Mercedes and sometimes even more. But the finishing in a Mercedes is just somehow 'rounder' and everything just works, ergonomics, looks, design.

And all of these things have to be experienced over a period of time and felt.

Cause yes, on paper, you're probably getting more bang for your buck from an Elantra than a C-Class.

That's just my 2c.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[HMHM]

The difference is mainly in the finishing and the intricacy of the parts. With Patek, you can see the human involvement which increases as you move higher up the Patek tier. Things like the wooden box, the certificate are also more personal as opposed to the generic box and card that come with Rolex.

Personally, I think Patek is better than Rolex in terms of finishing, but the premium it commands over a Rolex can be hard to justify, especially when it is multiple times that of an equivalent Rolex.

[1William]

PP is a fine watch and if I wanted one I could buy one. Have never gotten close to that even though I admire the brand and acknowledge many of the watches are outstanding. Discussions like this are difficult because many times we are not talking about the same measures when we respond. I find Rolex to be great for the many reasons others do and I like the fit and wearability the most. But I also like Seiko a lot so for me it is about the watches as much as it is the brand.

[MrMercedes]

Porsche vs Rolls Royce

[JettyOne]

Originally Posted by Tallbark

if you take away prestige and brand…

Mechanical watches are NOT sold on their technical qualities. They are nearly entirely sold on their history and past glories. There is nothing logical about buying a lux watch, let alone spending 6 figures on a Patek. If you strip away prestige and branding, you are left with a Seiko Presage.

You and I are buying the brands and their rich history of excellence. The prestige is worth 6 figures; the mechanical part of it is the bonus.

I can’t justify any of my purchases. Not one. And yet, I’m on my 4th knee-pads this year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Calatrava r]

Of the two watches, I would think for the intended purpose, an all-around sport watch, Rolex would be the better buy. I would rate Rolex over VC and AP for that purpose also. The Rolex is a bit thicker and has a more durable case construction. I believe all the movements in these models are basically the same in terms of utility and function. What you get in the PP is the decoration to the movement not found in the Rolex. PP is the same as Rolex in that they use the same movement across so many model lines. A Calatrava dress watch has the same 324SC movement as does the Aquanaut. a Subdate has the same movement as a DJ. So, the movements suit all uses.

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

With Patek, you get a product for which the amount of human involvement during the production process is higher. Also, Patek develops highly complicated movements compared to less complicated ones at Rolex. However, if we compare simple models, like an Aquanaut versus a Submariner, the hand finishing makes a difference.

With Rolex, all the finishing is machine made, only the final assembly is manual. In the case of Patek, most of the finishing is also automated but on top of the manual final assembly, we have hand finishing embellishment in key areas that are likely to have the greatest visual impact. So essentially more hours are spent on the manual finishing of a Patek movement.

With regards to the quality of the movement, Rolex have state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities allowing a high level of automation, but this doesn't make the quality of their movements inferior. They go through high internal requirements for precision.

Here's an excellent article from SJX comparing the amount of watchmaker hours between brands, with Patek sitting between 30 and 99 maximum watchmaker-hours per watch, and Rolex standing at a much lower 1 to 9 watchmaker-hours.

Thx for providing the link to the article…. It provides decent baseline understanding of what it takes on average to produce a watch. However, I have issue with math. Let’s take Rolex: it employs 30,000 people with around 9,000 in manufacturing (please correct the data if I am wrong). All 9,000 are watchmakers since they are involved in the manufacturing process. At that rate, u get roughly 111 watchmakers hours to produce the watch which would put Rolex at the top of horological pyramid (Patek is less than 50 watchmakers hours per article).

[Calatrava r]

To add another thought, watches are actually very cheap to make, except for some very high end multi complications. This is shown by very expensive watches at retail tanking on the used markets due to lack of brand recognition and lack of collectability. Both PP and Rolex charge what they do because of the brand recognition which leads to collectors acquiring them as opposed to actual production costs. And all that endless advertising expense is built into the cost of each watch.

[bp1000]

Hard to quantify the differences in words.

In my view, you will understand what Patek is about when you handle and own one of their comp's or grand comps. They are borderline perfect, everything is exquisitely done and the extra mile engineering when it comes to some of the movements is like nothing you experience with most other brands.

They are a very slow moving beast when it comes to changes but they redefine the way things are done sometimes or perfect other peoples technical advancements.

I never understood the aquanaut or to some extent the nautilus. When I think Patek I think of pm dress watches and mechanical excellence. I see the nautilus as lovely as it is, Patek's way of saying thanks for buying our complications, here is a casual equally beautiful sports watch for the weekend or something on rubber for the holidays and travel. Yet they have an issue because those 2 are now the brands flagship (from a demand pov) models. In my view it shouldn't be that way.

Those 2 Pateks don't compete with a sub, Daytona or similar. I dont think anyone has beaten rolex at their sports watch game. Just over the recent years, the Nautilus and Aquanaut just got hyped up by rich public eye people who want the ultimate flexes.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by Tallbark

I guess what you are saying is the difference is something you can’t explain through facts. Well, I guess that answer the question in a way.

The difference, aside from design, from any of the haute horology brands or watchmakers:

Superior degree of decoration of the movements, many times by hand. perlage, anglage, cotes de Geneve, etc…. Hand engraving in some cases. Bridges and their decoration can feature aesthetic changes to bridges and such that allow the watchmaker to demonstrate more sophisticated decoration techniques like deep beveled polished interior angles.

More care taken with the finish of individual movement parts. As an example at PP workers will hand polish gear teeth to the correct shape using a spinning wooden disk and then later they’re checked visually under magnification using a projector to compare it against a template by eye.

Other movement parts like screws receive more care, they can be blued, black polished, etc… Screws can even be made to all line up when tightened, see the bezel screws on something like a Royal Oak.

Superior degree of hand work and polishing on the case and bracelet parts.

Rare handcrafts like enamel, guilloche, engraving, etc… on dials and cases. Rolex has good gemsetting and that’s about it. Another example would be skeletonized pieces.

Grand complications, and higher complications from perpetual calendars, split seconds chronographs, minute repeaters, celestial, equation of time, etc… sometimes found all in one watch.

For something like the Aquanaut what makes it different from something like say a YM on oysterflex?

If you’d want to compare on a standard, maybe something like the 5065 with a Geneva Seal.

https://quillandpad.com/2017/03/05/p...s-geneva-seal/

Anyway, the finishing on the case would also be to a similar standard. Having tried both, the clasp on the Aquanaut is arguably nicer although it depends what you’re looking for as it doesn’t feel rugged.

They’re very different watches and if you can buy a PP then it’s not an OR for you, it should be an AND.

[codecow]

One important thing I forgot is Patek will service watches they made in the 19th century. Rolex will not service or restore many of their older pieces, although apparently they might have just announced a new program along these lines.

[sski]

consider another avenue- service is more white glove than Rolex; a RSC will turn away vintage pieces and outright refuse service. You may run into issues getting the right parts, even.

Not so with Patek- they guarantee service and parts availability for ALL their references regardless of date of manufacture. If it's a vintage pocketwatch for example, they will even custom fabricate parts if needed. That's a serious service commitment right there, should be noted and applauded.

[alphadweller]

Originally Posted by vliberman

Thx for providing the link to the article…. It provides decent baseline understanding of what it takes on average to produce a watch. However, I have issue with math. Let’s take Rolex: it employs 30,000 people with around 9,000 in manufacturing (please correct the data if I am wrong). All 9,000 are watchmakers since they are involved in the manufacturing process. At that rate, u get roughly 111 watchmakers hours to produce the watch which would put Rolex at the top of horological pyramid (Patek is less than 50 watchmakers hours per article).

No probs.

How do you come up with 111 watchmaker-hours to produce 1 Rolex? The way I understand the math is as follows:

Rolex: 9,000 watchmakers working say 35h a week, 47 weeks a year (or thereabouts). Total watchmaker hours: 14,805,000. Number of watches: 1,400,000. Watchmaker-hours per watch: 14,805,000/1,400,000= 10h. This is a theoretical maximum, a ceiling. The actual number of hours spent on a watch by a watchmaker will be less. Other sources seem to indicate around 3 1/2 hours.

Patek: 1,600 watchmakers, 35h/w, 47w/y. Total watchmaker-hours: 2,632,000. Number of watches: 68,000. Watchmaker-hours per watch: 2,632,000/68,000= 38.7h.

[vliberman]

Originally Posted by alphadweller

No probs.

How do you come up with 111 watchmaker-hours to produce 1 Rolex? The way I understand the math is as follows:

Rolex: 9,000 watchmakers working say 35h a week, 47 weeks a year (or thereabouts). Total watchmaker hours: 14,805,000. Number of watches: 1,400,000. Watchmaker-hours per watch: 14,805,000/1,400,000= 10h. This is a theoretical maximum, a ceiling. The actual number of hours spent on a watch by a watchmaker will be less. Other sources seem to indicate around 3 1/2 hours.

Patek: 1,600 watchmakers, 35h/w, 47w/y. Total watchmaker-hours: 2,632,000. Number of watches: 68,000. Watchmaker-hours per watch: 2,632,000/68,000= 38.7h.

Your math is better than mine; I calculated watches per watchmaker (1,000,000/9,000). Assuming 2,000 hours per year per person (250 x 8 that is 18 hours per watch (2,000/111). I assumed 1 million units per year. So roughly double hours per watch for Patek.

This should suggest that on average Patek should cost double that of comparable Rolex. Says nothing about quality as productivity and manufacturing processes are more important for that.

So if one takes something like Nautilus vs Sub, price difference should be double or 20k for Patek.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by vliberman

So if one takes something like Nautilus vs Sub, price difference should be double or 20k for Patek.

A better indicator is a 5167 trades for ~2x retail, a 5711 3x retail. A sub like a 126610 only 30% over retail.

[Robf52]

They’re very different watches and if you can buy a PP then it’s not an OR for you, it should be an AND.

+1.