Patek ref. 6002: Return of the most expensive Patek Wristwatch

*A video of the watch can be seen here

The full press release from Patek can be read here

The Patek ref. 5002, also known as the Sky Moon Tourbillon, is truly the stuff of legends. Unlike the stuffy 11 million dollar "pocket" watch or Eric Clapton's 4 million dollar vintage perpetual calendar chronograph, this is a true modern production watch of immense value. The price tag varied from 1.2 million Swiss Francs (Antiquorum auction on May 12th 2013 for a 18K pink gold iteration) to 1.9 million US Dollars (sold on PuristSPro Market Place for a black dialed platinum version). According to Antiquorum the specifications are:

42.8 mm diameter, 18 mm thick
Minute-repeating on cathedral gongs
Chronometer
One minute tourbillon regulator
Perpetual calendar
Flyback retrograde date
Nocturnal sky chart
Moon age
Lunar Orbit
Time of the meridian passage of Sirius
Time of meridian passage of the moon
Solar mean time
Sidereal time
A total production number of 25 pieces during the 8 years it was offered (until 2012)

Patek has now re-released the watch in a similar iteration, the 6002G, but replacing the original hands indicating perpetual calendar with the more elegant apertures. The moon age has also been replaced with a moonphase. Overall, the watch is both simpler (in terms of display) and more complex (in terms of overall apperance). A surprising choice was the use of white gold instead of platinum for the case material, especially considering the exclusivity of platinum and the similar market price of the two metals. No word on pricing yet, but considering the 1.2-1.9 million that the 5002 was being offered for, a price upwards of 2 million USD can be expected.

 The hand engraving is especially done using sharp tools for extreme detail, the central dial is completed using a cloisonné technique (involving the use of gold wire to form separate compartments which are then filled with enamel and fired), and the rest of the dial is made using champlevé (a technique where troughs are made in a metal disc and filled with enamel). The movements used in both 5002 and 6002 watches are almost identical, and the sidereal time and astronomical complication can be set to a city of the owner's choice.

This watch, as many similar pieces, are not meant to be "wearable", but rather as an exposition of skill, or dare I saw celebration of the ingenuity of mankind. As the MIH in La Chaux-de-Fonds states, watches are a representation of the physical universe, and the ability to model such infinite complexity is embodied in the 6002.

Technical data

Patek Philippe "Sky Moon Tourbillon" Ref. 6002

Movement: Caliber RTO 27 QR SID LU CL

Manually wound mechanical movement. Minute repeater, tourbillon, perpetual calendar with aperture displays and retrograde date, moon phases, sidereal time, angular progression of the moon

Overall diameter: 38 mm

Height: 12.61 mm

Number of parts: 686

Number of jewels: 55

Power reserve: Min. 38 hours – max. 48 hours

Balance: Gyromax®

Tourbillon: 1 revolution per minute; number of parts: 69; overall weight: 0.3 g

Steel cage; tourbillon, balance wheel, and fourth wheel on one axis

Frequency: 21,600 semi-oscillations per hour (3 Hz)

Balance spring: Breguet

Balance spring stud: Adjustable

Hallmarks: Patek Philippe Seal, rate accuracy certificate for Patek Philippe tourbillon watches

Displays: Front side, dial: Mean solar time in hours and minutes, perpetual calendar with retrograde date, day of week, month, leap year cycle, and moon phases

Back side, sky chart: Sidereal time in hours and minutes, time of meridian passage of Sirius and of the moon, angular progression of the moon, and moon phases.

Minute repeater: Hour, quarter-hour, and minute strikes on two “cathedral” gongs

Features: 

Case: 18K white gold with reliefed engraving

Sapphire-crystal glass front and rear

Dimensions: Diameter 42.80 mm

Height (crystal to back): 16.25 mm

Height (crystal to lugs): 17.35 mm

Crowns: At 4 o'clock to wind the movement and set the hands for mean solar time, hand-engraved

At 2 o'clock to adjust the sky chart, sidereal time, angular position of the moon, and the moon phase, hand-engraved

Slide: In the case flank to actuate the minute repeater Continued 7

Correction push pieces: Date and day between 11 and 12 o'clock (in the case flank) Month between 3 and 4 o’clock

Moon phase between 5 and 6 o'clock

Day of week between 6 and 7 o’clock

Front side: Gold dial with blue enamel in champlevé and cloisonné

Railway-track minute scale integrated in the blue champlevé enamel, Applied Roman numerals in white gold

Date numerals and markers, signature lettering, and movement number painted bright gray

Hands: Hours and minutes: leaf-shaped hands in white gold, hand-engraved

Date: slender double-leaf flyback hand in rhodiumed steel

Back side: Four metallized sapphire-crystal disks (sky chart) Hours and minutes of sidereal time: white counterbalanced baton hands

Strap: Hand-stitched shiny blue alligator with large square scales and handengraved fold-over clasp in 18K white gold

An objective comparison, Rolex vs Omega, Eppur si muove (and yet it moves...)

As said previously, I don't find brand comparisons particularly useful. However, they're a popular topic of discussion and can certainly be a useful reference. Rolex and Omega are probably the most compared of any of the brands, possibly because of their relatively close price range and popularity in the general luxury watch market. Instead of declaring "this brand is superior", I'm going to do a step-wise comparison of the brands in general, which one comes out on top will be more a matter of which aspects a user cares more about rather than which is "better". Most of the generalizations I will be making are the more modern popular models, i.e. for Rolex the professional series (Air-king, GMT, Submariner, Daytona, president/day-date) and for Omega their Speedmaster, Seamaster (professional and Aqua Terra), and DeVille. I will not be generally referring to the sky dweller, omega's co-axial tourbillons, the yacht master II or any other extreme examples.

History and company
Omega is, without a doubt, a member of the Swatch Group. There's really nothing wrong with Swatch ownership and this actually allows for them to develop superb movements at a cost efficiency not possible without such scale. Omega had many of its best creations in the 1960's, including the ever popular pie-pan constellation. Despite somewhat declining in the 70's and 80's, the brand had new life breathed into it when it adopted George Daniels' co-axial escapement in 1999. This, and subsequent events in the early 21st century gave Omega a more modern brand image, despite the company's older age (1848) than Rolex (1905). Omega is noted for three things historically: The NASA Moon landing, chronometer/observatory trials, and their co-axial escapement. Unlike Rolex, they release many special and limited editions which while interesting, I personally find gaudy and an over exploitation of their history, especially considering that the current "moon watch" Speedmaster has a very different movement than the original column wheel Lemania in the cal 321.

Still an independent company, Rolex is much younger than Omega, but its historical technical achievements are arguably greater. Rolex was the first to introduce a truly waterproof watch, it was also the first in GMT, divers, and automatically date changing watches. These unexciting but extremely practical accomplishments have been a theme for the brand throughout its history. Additionally, Rolex has held a stronger popular image than Omega, being worn by James Bond (in the books and early movies), Fidel Castro, and just about everyone else. Its exceeding popularity is also an issue, with production fluctuating around the 1,000,000 watches a year mark, Rolex is actually even less exclusive than Omega. Despite its prevalence, its history with Comex and Pan Am certainly put Rolex in the history books.

Movements
Quartz movements aside, both companies use well made, but not exceedingly well finished, movements. Omega has continued to forge ahead with its 8500 series co-axial movements while Rolex has taken a conservative approach and continued to use their 3000 series movements (with the exception of the Daytona). The key differences between the movements are: Rolex uses a breguet overcoil hairspring made of their parachrom blue antimagnetic alloy while Omega uses a flat hairspring made of a silicon alloy. Both use free sprung balances with variable inertia balance wheels and this is more or less a tie. Rolex uses the conventional lever escapement while Omega uses Daniels' co-axial escapement. There is plenty of information about the differences between the two but the theory is the co-axial does not involve sliding (rubbing) friction and this is more durable, but on the opposite hand it beats at 3.5 hz instead of 4 hz, while the technology is intriguing their is little to suggest it actually will last longer since a properly maintained lever escapement lasts an extremely long time anyway. But as in all things horology, theoretical advantage is often enough. The winding system of Omega is more durable but slightly louder than Rolex, Omega uses the conventional ball bearing system while Rolex uses a jeweled post. The issue with the jeweled post is that if the lubrication runs dry, the post will wear down and the weight of the automatic rotor is likely to scrape against the mainplate, wearing down the rhodium plating. The exception to this is the Daytona, which uses ceramic ball bearings.

Omega 8500 caliber showing the free sprung balance, double barrels, and co-axial escapement

Rolex 3136, notice the lack of ball bearing, blue Breguet overcoil hairspring, and free sprung balance

904L vs 316L Steel
Rolex continuously markets its use of 904L instead of 316L steel, Both grades of steel are high quality, but the Rolex reasoning is that because of professional diving use, sea water was found to slowly seep into the threads of the caseback. This causes corrosion in 316L and thus the change was made. This change is interesting and a nice touch, but again, not particularly technically meaningful to 99.9% of users.

Case, bracelet, and clasp
The cases made by both companies are comparable in quality, Rolex tends to be shinier and more "bling" with polished surfaces while Omega's use of brushed metal is more subdued. The ceramic bezel introduced by Rolex (and adopted by Omega) is a nice touch, making the watches look more modern. While it's nice to have a unscratched bezel, the lack of potential patina could be a downside (as is the high cost of replacing the bezel). While Rolex had a pretty abysmal hollow stamped link bracelet previously, its new solid bracelet is significantly better and feels slightly better than that made by Omega. The new Glidelock clasp is well machined, but there have been reports that the clasp is not as secure as it could be.

Rolex Glidelock clasp

This was previously covered in my review of the 14060M Submariner

Price, aesthetics, and others.
When it comes down to plopping down paper or plastic for whatever purchase, it's ultimately a personal decision. It's important to consider mechanical, technical, and historical factors but if you end up with a watch which you don't like, or can't afford, it really does no good. As always, buy what you can afford, buy what you like.

An interesting boxplot graph of 2011 watch prices by brand, Rolex and Omega both lie in the same tier

A visit to the MB&F M.A.D Gallery in Geneva (1/2: watches)

After a raining morning touring vineyards in Satigny, south of the city of Geneva, K and I made an important horological pilgrimage to the MB&F M.A.D (Maximilian Büsser & Friends Mechanical Art Devices) Gallery at Rue Verdaine 11 in downtown Geneva. The gallery serves both as a gallery and as the brands exclusive retailer in the Geneva area. 

The obligatory wrist shot of the HM4 Final Edition 

The space is by no means large at around 80 square meters, but houses not only many of MB&F's horological machines, but also mechanical art by other similarly minded people from around the world. The interesting thing is the incredible cohesion of the work presented and sold at the gallery, it could easily convince the casual observer that everything was designed by the same people.

What really made me think was the fact that MB&F used base movements from Sowind, basically Girard Perregaux. The is a surprising but natural choice, the philosophy of MB&F and myself are very different. The brand admits that its goal is to make mechanical art, with timekeeping as a secondary function. Thus I find it acceptable and in fact practical for the small (200 pieces/year) brand to use a finely finished and reliable GP cal. 3000 base. 

The plates and bridges of the HM5 (and in fact the HM2) movement are identical in shape to Girard Perregaux's 3000 movement.

In contrast, my belief is that in order to be creative, you must be good. Timekeeping should always come first, and creativity should not come at the cost of the function. Despite this fundamental difference in philosophy, I can't help but admire the incredible creativity and quality of the variations MB&F has been able to execute. One must remember that despite over two decades in the watch industry, the man himself, Maximilian Büsser is not a watchmaker. His project, MB&F, is an exposition of his ability to draw together various friends, be it individuals or companies, to create a piece of mechanical art never before seen or imagined. That's the real beauty of MB&F, to be creative and beyond good at what the company is meant to do.

Watches by MB&F could be seen, although the HM1 was not on display at the time. Each watch is displayed with its unique parts, be it the movement, unique sapphire crystal, or case.

The HM2 and its accompanying movement

The Moonmachine with Stepan Sarpaneva (A variation of the HM3)

HM4 Final Edition (PVD) and its unique middle sapphire crystal

HM5 "On the road again" with its mirror display movement