I recently wrote that it is the greatest watch of the 21st century. Patek Philippe’s Calatrava reference 5226GA watch that sparked controversy with its release in 2022. Just last month, Patek released a much more controversial watch: cubitus reference 5822P. Although Patek has released two references (and three colorways) cubitus lineIn its first advertising campaign, the brand pioneered the platinum 5822P calendar watch, thus reinforcing this reference that would fuel the initial reactions.

It’s hard to remember a bigger shock than the response Cubitus received to the launch of a new viewing series. Audemars Piguet Code 11.59 saw a similar reaction Will be released in 2019. I personally found Code 11.59 numbing, but the general reaction seemed to be one of disgust. Why is there such a reaction to the new watches of this group called the Horological Holy Trinity? both Audemars Piguet And Patek Philippe We had to navigate through an insurmountable legacy Royal Oak And nautilus respectively. Publish alternatives to these Gerald GentaThe engineered watch icons of the 1970s and the big hits of the last decade were always going to inspire strong reactions.

But Cubitus 5822P did not seem to inspire anything like intellectual disapproval or careful consideration. Instead, it sparked rejection on an immediate, visceral level. Friends, family and colleagues gasped. Hodinkee’s Ben Clymer said at the beginning of his article that “this is not a love letter” and then spent many paragraphs filling in what was written in conclusion. a very negative approach. I have yet to read a single sentence explicitly praising Cubitus, but I have read hundreds of sentences trying to make sense of the hour.

Cubitus 5822P is so controversial that it ranges from psychological theories about human responses to novelty (we’ll get used to it) to historical contextualization (this nautilus For now) semi-Jungian explanations of the zeitgeist (no easy explanation, sorry). These were all unusually clumsy, even philosophical, attempts by journalists to understand the clock. The more I read, the more my surprise and curiosity increased.

I then tried the 5822P at the Patek Philippe boutique in Hong Kong. Many have said that the Cubitus is better in person, and I partially agree with that (because the quality is astonishing, as with all Patek Philippe watches), yet I walked away feeling the same feeling I felt when I saw the photos: shocked This it was the new Patek Philippe. Yes, the Cubitus is slim, mechanically impressive, and impeccably finished, but none of that hints at how jarring it was for me to see the Cubitus 5822P. Frankly speaking, what I couldn’t get past was that it seemed like there was something going on. wrong With reference 5822P. As I mentioned, the implementation is flawless, so there had to be something in the design.

Coincidentally, with the release of Cubitus, A. Lange & Söhne was sending embargoed pictures of the new vehicle Lange 1. We recently published a few stories on Lange 1; These include new news. complete the historyONE anniversary story November issue Robb Reportand a Special edition of our weekly digital column Shopping Time. As a result, for about a week I thought quite deeply about this German watch, widely considered a design masterpiece. And I noticed the similarities with the Cubitus: overall asymmetry, different sized subdials, and large date.

It is known that Lange 1 used the golden ratio and the associated rule of thirds to organize its dial. Without going into too much detail, these are something like rules that guide designers to layouts that are considered universally appealing. As you can see in the image below, the Lange 1 makes its dial asymmetry, but the elements are arranged to form a very nice equilateral triangle. The Lange 1 is generally considered a modern classic of watch design; a great success.

However, when you follow the design of the Cubitus dial, you end up with an unbalanced triangle that splits the flat dial into areas of seemingly random size and shape. The subdials feature the lower five hour markers in different lengths and shapes. The large date aperture seems to steal the weight of the 12 o’clock marker, which usually holds the watch face and a logo underneath. Perhaps most importantly, the 5822P’s central arbor has no meaningful relationship with the subdials.

Is it possible that there is something fundamentally “wrong” with the design of the Cubitus 5822P? If so, is that why the broadcast was so shocking?

I spoke to the well-known watch designer to check my review of Cubitus Matt Smith-Johnsonoffers revised designs of long-pre-existing watches. Regarding 5822P, Johnson said: Robb Report “The placement of the elements on the dial is not nice. It doesn’t feel balanced.” He notes that the daywheel uses what he calls a vertically extended “Euro type.” blunder graphic design.

Turning his eye to the lower half of the dial, Johnson echoed my reaction: “Look how different these indicators are between four and seven o’clock. “It looks like (the movement) has been shoehorned in.”

It’s not easy to get all the elements on a dial exactly where you want them. The mechanism of the Lange 1 was designed from scratch to fit the dial elements exactly into the golden ratio. In Cubitus we find the 240 PS CI J LU caliber, which is derived from the familiar 240 caliber family, in particular the 240 PS IRM C LU used in the Nautilus 5712. It’s clear that Patek has made a large amount of modifications to the Cubitus. movement, but the significant placement of the sub-dials does not appear to have been changed.

Comparing the serene Lange 1 with the Cubitus 5822P raises persistent and possibly unanswerable questions about aesthetics: Are there proportions and proportions that reliably deliver beauty for almost everyone at almost all times? Or can compositions be passed around willy-nilly with varying degrees of appeal (perhaps based on culturally conscious choices)? In other words: Is beauty universal or relative?

My answer is a fairly typical measure: I agree with the idea of ​​universally pleasing compositions (I use the rule of thirds throughout the day to good effect), but I also believe that we can get used to designs and even prefer them. which betrays aesthetic norms and designers’ rules and is therefore initially shocking.

When I was 12 years old, I received a cassette tape from the Clash. It sounded like a mess and hurt my ears. I kept listening in an effort to be the cool kid. After about a week I got used to The Clash. After a week I liked the music. A week later, The Clash became one of my favorite bands and I was on my way to punk rock.

A few journalists suggested that perhaps some of us should persist with our initial reactions to Cubitus 5822P. We just need time to get used to it. But I’m not 12 years old, and my personal tastes have become relatively solidified over time. Perhaps the Cubitus 5822P is better suited to younger buyers whose tastes are still forming. Or maybe there really is a fundamental problem with the design, an insurmountable lack of visual cohesion, an asymmetry with no underlying logic. Wherever you land on this point, it may come down to your aesthetic philosophy, and this hour could lead us into another showdown between essentialists and relativists. For this reason, I can say that Cubitus 5822P is a “very challenging work” – a phrase I often hear in the art world.