SDC Weekly 70; Patek Philippe Cubitus; Is Gerald Charles a Scam?
Cubitus analysis, Drama at Audemars Piguet, Rolex UK Financial Report, Timepiece Gentleman Goes to Jail, The Neuroscience of Happiness and more.
🚨 Welcome to another edition of SDC Weekly. Estimated reading time: ~35 mins
This week, we unpack the controversial leak of Patek Philippe’s new Cubitus model, examining its design, positioning, and potential market impact. We also explore Rolex UK’s 2023 financial report, the fall of The Timepiece Gentleman, and question the value proposition of Gerald Charles watches. Plus, we delve into the neuroscience of happiness as it relates to watch collecting, offering insight into why we these mechanical objects continue to hold out attention.
You’ll find I’ve moved the ‘small stuff’ below the Cubitus story, to accommodate a request from a friend to make the Cubitus section free for all. This is not a permanent change.
If you’re new here, welcome! Check out the previous SDC Weekly posts here.
✨ Patek Philippe Cubitus Leak: Masterstroke or Misstep?
Disclaimer: I must preface this section and warn you, this section is based on a leak which has not been verified by Patek. Perhaps we will see a totally different Cubitus this Thursday. This section begins with the premise that the leak is indeed the final product. I believe it is, and that’s why I’m doing this. I could be wrong, and if so, I will of course owe you a follow up! With that in mind, let’s proceed.
It's been a wild few days in the watch world. On Sunday, Fortune USA dropped a bombshell in the form of a full-page advert featuring Patek Philippe’s new watch, the Cubitus. Of course, this square sensation isn’t scheduled for official launch until the 17th, when it will become Patek’s first new men’s collection since 1997.
Cue the collective meltdown of the watch community. I figured it was time for my inner contrarian to shine, so … buckle up!
The Design
At first glance, the Cubitus looks like a square mashup between a vintage Michel Herbelin, a Hublot Unico Square, a Cartier Santos, a splash of Lange with the date, and even a hint of what appears to be a scam brand, Gerald Charles (more on this in the next section). The watch world promptly lost its mind, with keyboards ablaze and memes flying around faster than a foudroyante hand.
Frankly, I think Patek is playing 4D chess while everyone else is stuck playing checkers. The Cubitus is clearly derived, at least in part, from a Patek 3854 and blended with what seems to be the Patek 5712 with ‘a much sharper jawline’ so to speak. Sharper angles, harder shape than the Nautilus, whilst also drawing on the wider crown flare of the Aquanaut. It’s probably what Thierry Stern thought would be the easiest way to take Patek sports watches and create something which aligns with the zeitgeist. Square watches are, yet again, having a moment right now, and Patek is planning to ride that wave with their own luxury surfboard.
The Ingenuity
Despite the initial outrage, this might be a masterstroke from Patek. They understand the zeitgeist and are running a business. All these comparisons to more recent but lesser designs completely overlook the fact that those possibly even drew inspiration from Patek (or Audemars Piguet) in the first instance. People seem to have short memories, and this suits their narrative. Patek actually released the three aforementioned designs a while ago, and in many ways the Cubitus is an evolution within their own design language, as opposed to a copycat. What’s more, the fact that people feel this much familiarity with the design, is more than likely a good thing, which I will explain later. But first, let’s talk about the leak itself.
The “Accidental” Leak
This “accidental” leak is as believable as a porn star’s “surprised” face. By letting this slip 3-4 days before the official launch, Patek simply gave everyone time to digest, speculate, and frankly, get all the outrage out of their systems. It is as if they are letting people have their tantrum before sitting them down for a serious talk. Or better yet, they are simply pushing people into the change curve ahead of time, which simply means they will reach the acceptance phase faster, post-official-release.
Unsurprisingly, some folks pointed out ‘suspicious’ details in the ad. The font on the ‘18’ in the date window seems mismatched, with one number being thicker. The classic Patek slogan “You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely look after it for the next generation” has been altered to “You never actually own a Patek Philippe. You merely take care of it for the next generation.”
This change is not an error, nor is it an oversight by Photoshop pranksters. Patek conducted market research and found this updated phrase tests better in some regions - you can listen to John Reardon and Tania Edwards discuss it here. In my opinion, the phrase used in this new advert works better grammatically – we take care of objects and look after living beings. Finally, the absence of a Patek reference number in the advert could be due to it not being finalised in time, or it could be another intentional move to keep people guessing about the authenticity of the ad.
If this is indeed a fake ad … the only explanation for the ad in being in that magazine would be Patek intentionally placed a fake ad 😂 (See footnotes for the magazine) - if that’s the case, then I can only applaud the weapons-grade trolling from Thierry.
The Price and Positioning
Word on the street is Patek is positioning this as a new “entry-level” model, priced between 30-40k USD. For a Patek, that’s practically bargain basement. And with images showing it on a jeans-style strap, they’re clearly aiming for the “I wear my Patek to the supermarket” crowd.
“You should not only do a million-dollar watch…We have people who are passionate about watches and who can spend a maximum of $30,000 or $40,000 on a watch.”
Patek Philippe CEO Thierry Stern to Bloomberg
This positioning is crucial. If the initial hate is real (which I already doubt), this watch might not fly off the shelves immediately. It could be seen as a ‘purchase history filler’ – something to buy to ‘unlock’ more desirable pieces. Yet, for the price, it’s actually not a bad watch at all! The irony is that many people will buy it thinking, “Oh, this isn’t too bad actually”, and then begin to enjoy it. As more people talk about it positively, demand will rise, and we might see this model shifting to hype status as quickly as it was initially derided.
The Psychology of Initial Rejection
The initial negative reaction to the Cubitus isn’t unusual in the world of design and innovation - and it is certainly nothing new in the watch world. This phenomenon is known as “aesthetic fluency” in psychology. A 2004 study found people tend to prefer familiar designs because they are easier to process mentally. This explains why radical design changes often face initial resistance.
Unlike AP’s Code 11.59 (which looked like it came from a parallel universe where Gerald Genta never existed), the Cubitus is still unmistakably Patek. Initially, it may feel like they took all their greatest hits, put them in a blender, and poured out something new - but crucially, it is still quite familiar.
Coupled with this familiarity, repeated exposure can lead to increased liking - this is a phenomenon known as the “mere exposure effect” which we have discussed before on SDC. This easily explains why some collectors are already reporting that the Cubitus is “growing on them” and is another aspect of psychology which will increase the likelihood of my prediction being correct.
Cultural Examples of Design Acceptance
The watch world isn’t the only place where initially controversial designs have gone on to become iconic (Newman Daytona, Royal Oak, etc). Here are a few examples:
The Eiffel Tower: When it was built for the 1889 World’s Fair, many Parisians considered it an eyesore. Today, it's the symbol of Paris.
Apple’s First iMac: The bulbous, colourful design was a radical departure from typical beige boxes. It was initially mocked but went on to revitalise Apple’s fortunes.
The Sydney Opera House: Its design was so controversial that the architect, Jørn Utzon, resigned before its completion. Now it is one of the most recognisable buildings in the world.
That being said, these examples of initially controversial designs becoming iconic should never be used as a blanket defense for poor design choices. The “it will grow on you” argument isn’t always valid, and brands need to recognise that sometimes, sh1t design is simply… sh1t design. Universal criticism isn’t always indicative of a design being ahead of its time; sometimes it’s just a sign that the design missed the mark. For every Eiffel Tower or Royal Oak that went from controversy to icon, there are countless designs that were rightfully panned and forgotten.
With the Cubitus, Patek threaded a needle between pushing boundaries and maintaining aesthetic integrity - and while many believe they are relying on the hope that time will vindicate their missteps, I think the continuity of their design language will go a long way towards converting the naysayers.
The Hate Train and Informed Opinions
Now, let’s address the elephant in the room – the hate train. It has been rolling hard and fast, with every Tom, Dick, and Harry jumping on board. From what I can tell, the majority of the knee-jerk reactions are coming from folks who couldn’t tell an old Patek from a Potato if their life depended on it.
One large collector in a watch chat group put it thus: “I’m not gonna pretend I like it off the bat. But I’m also not going to say too much until I see it. Then I will give my honest feedback.” That’s the kind of level-headed thinking we need more of, in this hobby. Ironically, about 24 hours after this message, this same collector mentioned it is growing on him.
Another observer noted: “Everyone is always like blah blah blah, the Royal Oak and Nautilus also weren’t loved so it’s fine if our new product isn’t loved immediately… 1972 was a totally different world.” Fair point, but let’s not forget that Patek isn’t just any brand – they are, whether you like it or not, the apex predator of the watch world.
Brand power matters.
My Prediction
The Cubitus will be a success.
Why? Because it’s a Patek, darling. And expectations aside, I don’t think it looks bad at all. The very people screaming bloody murder today will be the ones humble-bragging about their Cubitus in six months’ time.
In fact, in addition to the guy mentioned above, I’ve already had several people reach out saying it is growing on them. Huge collectors (you know, the ones with more Pateks than most of us have socks) have expressed their approval too. The masses might be throwing a collective tantrum, but the serious players in the game, the ones who have the money to make their opinion matter to Patek, seem to like it.
So, is the Cubitus Patek’s masterstroke or misstep? We will soon find out, but one thing’s for sure – it got everyone talking. And frankly, if you’re about to launch a new watch, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.
A Sign of the Times
Patek’s approach to the Cubitus, and indeed their entire strategy starting from the discontinuation of the 5711, speaks volumes about the current state of design in the watch industry. Not that we needed another reminder that true innovation is rare, but nowadays most brands, even the most prestigious it seems, will play it safe.
Thierry Stern’s decision to release the Cubitus speaks to a risk-averse approach that has become all too common in the industry. The discontinuation of the 5711, followed by the release of the nearly identical 5811 - and now this Cubitus - paints a picture of a brand focused on iteration not innovation.
This is the most likely the source of the collective ire we are witnessing.
Patek’s current conservative approach stands in stark contrast to the true innovators of our time - those rare individuals who could see beyond the present and shape the future. Steve Jobs is perhaps the most obvious example. He didn’t just give people what they wanted; he showed them what they needed before they even knew they needed it. From revolutionising the music industry with iTunes and the iPod to redefining mobile computing with the iPhone and iPad, Jobs was always miles ahead. Since his departure, most will agree Apple has largely been iterating on his vision rather than breaking new ground.
Jobs isn’t the only example of a visionary whose departure led to a slowdown in innovation:
Elon Musk and PayPal: After co-founding PayPal and serving as its CEO, Musk’s departure led to a period of relative stagnation for the company. PayPal remained successful, but it wasn’t until years later that it began to seriously innovate in the fintech space.
Walt Disney and Disney Animation: After Walt Disney’s death, Disney Animation went through a significant slump. It wasn’t until the late 1980s and early 1990s, with movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, that the studio regained its innovative spirit.
Coco Chanel and the House of Chanel: After Coco Chanel’s death, the fashion house struggled to maintain its innovative edge. It wasn’t until Karl Lagerfeld took over in the 1980s that Chanel regained its status as a trendsetter.
Enzo Ferrari and Ferrari: Following Enzo’s death in 1988, the company went through a period of stagnation in Formula 1. It took years for Ferrari to regain its dominant position in the sport.
Frank Lloyd Wright and Architecture: Wright’s death marked the end of an era in American architecture. While his influence continued, the bold innovations that characterised his work became rarer in the field.
I feel obliged to state the obvious; I am not at all saying Patek has never innovated. Rewind to 1998, and you’ll find the Reference 5070 - Patek’s first basic chronograph in nearly 40 years. Its predecessor, the reference 1463 “Tasti Tondi”, was a classic piece with Breguet numerals and a Borgel case. The 5070, at 42mm, was a relative behemoth for its time, truly shocking people at a time when smaller wristwatches were still the norm.
The 5070 went on to become an icon of our times, one of the most revered references from Patek Philippe’s modern epoch1. At that moment, Philippe Stern gave people what they needed, not just what they thought they wanted - much like Steve Jobs did with his innovations at Apple.
Some die-hard Patek enthusiasts will argue Thierry Stern has had his fair share of ‘revolutionary’ releases. They might point to the 5316 Tourbillon Minute Repeater or the hobnail pattern on the sides of a 5531 repeater. While these examples certainly demonstrate forward motion, they remain largely evolutionary design changes - subtle enough to show progress, but safe enough to prevent any major blow back.
And how can we forget… Thierry’s tenure isn’t without its controversies. The Tiffany Nautilus, for instance, is a polarising piece that many consider a misstep. I’d agree. Once again, this is only to illustrate there exists a difficult balance for brands like Patek to maintain as they grow and get older. They are constantly having to choose between innovation and maintaining brand identity with the growing collector base.
In the grand scheme of things, Patek Philippe’s approach under Thierry Stern seems to lean more towards careful iteration and evolution than bold innovation and revolution. While this strategy has undoubtedly been successful from a business standpoint, it does leave enthusiasts yearning for the next truly groundbreaking design.
The truth is, since the old groundbreaking designs of Gerald Genta, the larger players in the industry have been content with iteration over innovation outside of special projects or limited production research prototypes. In fact, the Code 11.59 from AP is possibly the only ‘major’ design innovation (on a regular production watch from a big brand) in recent memory. Can you name any others?
Yes, this isn’t Urwerk, pushing the boundaries of what ‘a watch’ can be. This isn’t MB&F, creating horological machines that challenge one’s conception of time-telling. Patek, like many of its peers, has become a steady-state “oil tanker” in the watch world - stable, reliable, but not particularly agile and not something which can alter its course quickly.
The Cubitus, then, should not be surprising at all. It is a familiar, iterative design because that’s what the market expects and, more importantly, what the brand is comfortable producing. It is - despite the initial reaction - a safe bet in an industry which is inherently risk-averse and is currently enduring a challenging business cycle.
This sort of approach isn’t necessarily wrong. For those who yearn for true innovation, who long for the next Gerald Genta or George Daniels to shake up the industry, this is a reminder that true visionaries are few and far between. Thierry, and perhaps his sons, are basically a safe pair of hands who simply want to nurture the goose laying golden eggs for them. There’s no point making their own version of the Code 11.59, and that’s why they didn’t - and they probably never will.
So while people may critique the Cubitus for its lack of originality, perhaps it is simply a reflection of our times. An era where iteration is king, and true innovation is the exception rather than the rule. In this light, the Cubitus isn’t just a new watch; it is a mirror held up to the industry itself, and it just goes to show, even the biggest ‘independent’ can get too big, and therefore too scared to truly innovate for fear of destroying what they have built.
Still, I’d say Thierry just notched another “W” here - but I can’t wait to hear why you think I’m wrong - see you in the comments section 🥂
The Patek Cubitus will be officially unveiled at a private event in Munich on Thursday (17 October 2024) so stay tuned for more after that event.
PS. As I mentioned earlier, the magazine with the ad is in the footnotes2, in case you still had doubts.
🎈 Small Stuff
🎪 At the Circus with Audemars Piguet
When it comes to high-end watch collecting, only a handful of names carry as much weight as Audemars Piguet. Now, what happens when the very company that created these things seems unsure about the details of its own creations?
This is the story of one collector’s journey through a labyrinth of contradictions, miscommunications, unexpected revelations, and financial losses.
Our tale begins in April 2023, with a seemingly routine inquiry to Sotheby’s auction house. A collector, whom we shall call Mr. X, had decided to part ways with his Royal Oak Quantième Perpétuel 25654ST, complete with a coveted Tuscan dial. Little did he know that this decision would set in motion a series of events that would challenge his understanding of the watch and test his patience with the very company that created it.
The First Twist
As Sotheby’s prepared to list the watch, they performed their due diligence by contacting Audemars Piguet to verify its authenticity. The response they received would be the first of many surprises. According to AP’s records, the watch was not born as a stainless steel model, but rather as a two-tone gold and steel piece.
This revelation sent shock waves through Mr. X’s world. He had purchased the watch based on the assurances from an archive extract from AP, dated January 2020, which confirmed it as a stainless steel model. How could such a discrepancy exist?
A Dialogue Begins
Determined to get to the bottom of this mystery, Mr. X reached out to Raphael Balestra, the Manager of Heritage & Archives at Audemars Piguet. What followed was a series of exchanges that would span months, each bringing new drama to the story.
In his initial response, Balestra acknowledged the error in the original extract and offered to issue a corrected version. However, he dropped another bombshell: the new extract would not authenticate the presence of the Tuscan dial, as such dials were typically reserved for platinum versions of the watch.
Mr. X, understandably concerned about the impact on the value of his watch, pressed for more information. He pointed out that Tuscan dials had been seen on other gold and steel models, and questioned why AP couldn’t confirm the dial’s authenticity.
The Plot Thickens
As the dialogue continued, AP’s position seemed to evolve. They offered to issue a new extract noting an “undocumented transformation” of the watch from gold and steel to stainless steel. However, they maintained their stance on not confirming the authenticity of the dial.
“Our archives do not allow us to determine which dial the watch was originally equipped with,” Balestra explained. “From this standpoint, we can only refer to the standard, which is that Tuscany dials were intended for platinum watches.”
A Glimmer of Hope
In a twist worthy of a thriller, Mr. X managed to source a gold bezel for the watch, potentially returning it to its original two-tone configuration. With renewed optimism, he approached AP once again, hoping to obtain a fresh extract that would reflect the watch had been restored to what AP said was it’s original state. Here it is:
The Final Act
Obviously, AP had one more surprise in store. After insisting that Mr. X send the watch to them for inspection - an unusual requirement for a simple extract request - they dropped the biggest bombshell yet. According to their analysis, not only was the dial not original, but the rehaut and hands were also not the ones the watch was born with.
AP now claimed that the watch should have an opaline dial with nine yellow indexes, a gilded brass rehaut, and yellow gold hands. They even provided photos of what they believed to be the correct components.
The Aftermath
Mr. X, understandably frustrated and confused, pushed back. He questioned AP’s evidence for these claims, their ability to fulfil special orders in the past, and the very nature of their archive extracts. How could a document that supposedly doesn’t guarantee authenticity be used to make definitive claims about the components of a watch?
As of October 2024, the saga remains unresolved. AP has offered to restore the watch to what they claim is its original configuration, but at a cost - both financial and to the uniqueness of the watch itself. Mr. X, feeling caught between a rock and a hard place, has declined their offer and requested the return of his watch.
Reflections
This whole story serves as a stark reminder of the uncertainties that can lurk beneath the surface of even the most prestigious watch brands. It raises questions about the nature of authenticity in the world of vintage watches, the reliability of manufacturers’ archives, and the challenges collectors face in navigating what can be a truly high-stakes landscape.
For now, Mr. X’s Royal Oak remains a testament to the saying that in the world of vintage watches, the only certainty is uncertainty itself.
Alright, enough free sh1t for this week - onto the good stuff 😂