On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 4:51:03 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 3:20:01 AM UTC+1, N8N wrote:
On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 7:11:15 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:

The sort of person who today might want a Patek Philippe watch usually already knows that they are at the peak of the pile for good reasons. As an example, my first Patek was the thinnest automatic wris****ch in the world, a triumph of design and construction.

Another way of putting it is that Patek Philippe had already been a watch for people of refinement for a hundred years when a Rolex was still a sturdy watch for farmers,

*divers. seriously. Although I have a serious jones for a Blancpain Fifty Fathoms just to be different (the other serious contender for "first practical dive watch"). The one from that pile (although behind the curve by a decade or so) that I actually *have* is a Vostok Amphibia, because for $30 give or take the Russians managed to also produce a functional dive watch but without all the precision machining, but it still *functioned* which is an achievement of a different sort and equally admirable. Shame they didn't figure out lumed hands and indices or a ratcheting bezel at the same time; personally I'd be terrified to actually use it as a primary diving timekeeping tool, but still.

nate

Heh-heh. I wouldn't risk my life on it either. It costs about four times that much just to put in a new o-ring and a smear of silicon grease and put my dive watch in a pressure tank for 200m rectification. Not that I've ever dived to 200m...

Andre Jute
A man should know his limits. -- Dirty Harry Callahan

If you care about such things you should read up on the case design of the Amphibia - uses the same principle as a "Super Compressor" case. Very elegant and simple and best of all (for the Russians) did not rely on precision machining.

nate