This 5196 Calatrava is, by all appearances, an aesthetically-pleasing, classically designed watch - there is not much to criticize, unless you're dedicated to the rapper style.



Let's, though, take a look under the hood:



We see the classic cal 215 movement, which is very high quality, but...looks a little under-sized for this 37mm case, no?

I can't tell you how long this caliber has been in production, but long enough to remember when it filled up a 33mm case. So, when the market changed, and people started demanding larger-diameter watches, the company met that demand by simply plunking a traditional movement into a larger case.

Now..we all know this isn't the first time we've seen this, nor will it be the last. And, you can always justify the move by lower-tiered watch companies, as a cost-saving measure. But Patek? A company that has a market perception as the Rolls Royce of horology? I think they could have developed a larger, more robust movement for their line of larger-diameter watches. This behavior by them just seems underwhelming, and cheapens my perception of the brand. What say you?

 

Developing a new movement is not cheap, and Patek Philippe's market for a classic hand wound watch isn't all that big so I don't blame them for doing it like this although it is a bit grating since they are supposed to be one company that does things by the book horology wise. I would never buy a modern Calatrava in a 37mm case for the simple reason the second dial rides way too high because of the use of a small caliber. It looks silly to me, but most buyers won't be bothered. There are better watches in this category than PP, but many people will buy it because of the name on the dial. In many ways Patek Philippe is overrated and not what they used to be, but I don't think business has ever been as good for them as it is today. A company can ride the coattails of their history for a long time.

 

Just curious here, what's the actual size of the 215 movement?

Are there any advantages of larger movements in terms of [insert your favorite criteria here] as compared to smaller movements? Which makes me think of another question, what's considered a small or large movement? Again, I'm just curious...

 

To my understanding a bigger movement should be more precise than a small one, at least that was the case in the 1920s and the later introduction of the Chronometer competitions. It also looks better and gives somewhat the feeling that the Case and the Movement were made for each other. Not sure how valid those arguments are to be honest.

 

My rudimentary understanding is that larger, thicker movement components, all other things being equal, are more robust.

As for what's relatively large, or small, others can weigh in on that; my comment was mostly relative to the case it's sitting in.

 

How often do you look at your watches movement?

 

Still, this is one of the many reasons why I respect so much ALS: they design the entire watch from the ground up.

 

If you have a Lange , often !

 

I know it’s there. In a less prestigious watch, such an undersized movement would be reasonable. They have no love for hand wound watches? Disappointing.

 

A Lange is much better value for your money in mho

 

Totally agree, I sold a PP 5035P to get the 1815 chrono.The used market for Lange is very good value. Service costs are prohibitive though as are PP.

 

I wish it would cheapen to the point where I could afford ine

 

Honestly, it seems fairly lazy to me. A company like that should be able to spend some cash on movement development

 

This is exactly the most important point for me. One can argue that a larger movement could hypothetically be better mechanically, but let's face it, the PP cal 215 is a fantastic movement, and there's really no justification to make it larger on that count. And one could say that it's just odd to have such a small movement in a large watch, but as mentioned above, one doesn't look at the movement very often. For a center-seconds watch, I would not be bothered, but the sub-dial position is not appealing to me on the dial for the 37mm watch. If I look at the position of the subdial in an older 33mm Calatrava (or even 31mm), the dial looks much more balanced and attractive.

 

Well, at least it's a nicely finished spacer, unlike this one in a ladies Patek...



I always surprised at how surprised people are to find out that a movement is much smaller than the case it's in. This is so commonplace, it's puzzling why it's being seen as some anomaly.

This Vacheron is the same, but the movement is fantastic from a construction and quality point of view. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a large spacer required:



How about this Longines...



Oops...bad spacer can be seen! Chuck that puppy in the garbage! Preferably my garbage thanks.



The idea that using a spacer is some modern thing driven by the very recent desire for larger watches is completely false. It has been going on for decades and decades...

 

yea...its not like designing an improvement to the 215 is difficult

 

Good point. Small movements/spacers may not necessarily be bad by themselves, but when they affect the aesthetics of the dial, that's a problem.

 

curious, what was/is the difference in market price between the 2 sizes? Because if it is close to the same then it is quite alright. a newly developed larger movement would logically drive the voice up.

 

All the time. Maybe you are buying the wrong watches.

 

Pictures like this make me want to hunt some old US pocket Watches, someone going to be mad at home.