Here’s what’s wrong with Patek Philippe’s Cubitus 5822P

I recently wrote that the greatest watch of the 21st century is Patek Philippe’s Calatrava Reference 5226G, a watch that caused some controversy when it was released in 2022. Just last month, Patek released a far more controversial watch: the Cubitus Reference 5822P. Although Patek released two references (and three color variants) in the Cubitus line, the brand led the way with the 5822P platinum calendar watch in its first advertising campaign, allowing this reference to generate initial reactions.

It’s hard to remember a greater shock at the release of a new line of watches than the reaction the Cubitus provoked. The Audemars Piguet Code 11.59 saw a similar reaction when it was released in 2019. Personally, I found Code 11.59 numbing, but the general reaction seemed repulsive. Why such reactions to new watches from these storied members of the so-called Horological Holy Trinity? Both Audemars Piguet and Patek Philippe have had to contend with the insurmountable legacy of the Royal Oak and Nautilus, respectively. Releasing alternatives to these Gerald Genta-designed watch icons of the 1970s – and hits of the last decade – always elicited strong reactions.

However, the Cubitus 5822P did not seem to provoke intellectual disapproval or careful consideration. Instead, it triggered an immediate gut rejection. Friends, family and colleagues alike gasped. Hodinkee’s Ben Clymer noted at the beginning of his article that “this is not a love letter,” and then spent many paragraphs padding out what is ultimately a pretty negative take. I have yet to read a single sentence openly praising the Cubitus, but I have read hundreds of sentences attempting to understand the clock.

The Cubitus 5822P is so controversial that I’ve now read everything from psychological theories about human reactions to novelty (we’ll get used to it) to historical contextualizations (it’s the Nautilus of today) to quasi-Jungian depictions of the zeitgeist ( No simple explanation, sorry). All were unusually ponderous – even philosophical – attempts by journalists to understand the clock. The more I read, the more confused and curious I remained.

Then I tried on the 5822P at a Patek Philippe boutique in Hong Kong. Many have said that the Cubitus is better in person, and while I somewhat agree (because, like all Patek Philippe watches, the quality is amazing), I still walked away with the feeling I had when I saw the photos : shocked by this The was the new Patek Philippe. Yes, the Cubitus is thin and mechanically impressive and impeccably crafted, but none of that changed how jarring it was for me to see the Cubitus 5822P. To be honest, I couldn’t get over the fact that there seemed to be something there incorrect with the reference 5822P. As I mentioned, the execution is impeccable, so there had to be something to the design.

Coincidentally, just as the Cubitus was coming onto the market, A. Lange & Söhne sent out images of the new Lange 1 with an embargo. We recently published a few stories about the Lange 1, including a new full story and an anniversary story in the November issue of Robb reportand a special edition of our weekly digital column Shopping time. So I spent about a week thinking hard about this German watch, widely considered a design masterpiece. And I noticed the similarities to the Cubitus: general asymmetry, different sized subdials and a large date.

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

However, if you follow the design of the Cubitus dial, you get an unusual triangle that divides the rectilinear dial into areas of seemingly random size and shape. The subdials leave the bottom five hour markers in different lengths and shapes. The large date window appears to take the weight away from the 12 o’clock marker that normally anchors a dial with a logo underneath. Perhaps most importantly, the 5822P’s central shaft has no meaningful relationship to the subdials.

Is it possible that there is something fundamentally “missing” in the design of the Cubitus 5822P? If so, was that why the publication was so shocking?

To check my interpretation of the Cubitus, I spoke to well-known watch designer Matt Smith-Johnson, who has long offered reworked designs of existing watches. Regarding the 5822P, Johnson said Robb report that: “The arrangement of the elements on the dial is not attractive.” It doesn’t feel balanced.” He further points out that the day wheel uses what he calls a “Euro-type” that has been stretched vertically, a gaffe of graphic design.

Johnson turned his gaze to the bottom half of the dial and echoed my reaction: “Look how choppy those indices are between four and seven o’clock. It looks like this [the movement] was shoehorned.”

It’s not easy to place all the elements on a watch face exactly where you want them. The movement of the Lange 1 was designed from the ground up so that the dial elements are precisely placed in accordance with the golden ratio. In the Cubitus we find the caliber 240 PS CI J LU, which is derived from the well-known family of 240 calibers, more precisely the 240 PS IRM C LU used in the Nautilus 5712. Apparently Patek has made many modifications to the Cubitus movement, but the crucial placement of the subdials does not appear to have been changed.

Comparing the serene Lange 1 with the Cubitus 5822P raises persistent – and probably unanswerable – questions about aesthetics: Are there proportions and ratios that reliably deliver beauty almost always and for almost everyone? Or can compositions with varying appeal (perhaps based on cultural preferences) be thrown around randomly? In other words, is beauty universal or relative?

My answer is a fairly typical hedge: I support the idea of ​​universally appealing compositions (I use the rule of thirds all day long with good success), but I also believe that we can become accustomed to, and even prefer, designs that betray aesthetic norms and design rules and therefore initially seem disturbing.

When I was 12, I came into possession of a Clash cassette. It sounded like a mess and it hurt my ears. To be a cool kid, I insisted on listening. After about a week I got used to The Clash. After another week I liked the music. After another week, The Clash was one of my favorite bands and I was on my way to punk rock.

More than a few journalists have suggested that some of us may just have to push past our initial reactions to the 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 inflexible over time. So perhaps the Cubitus 5822P is better suited to younger buyers whose tastes are still developing. Or maybe there really is something fundamentally wrong with the design, an insurmountable lack of visual harmony, asymmetry with no underlying logic. Wherever you land on this point may depend on your aesthetic philosophy, and this watch could lead us to another reckoning between essentialists and relativists. For this I can say that the Cubitus 5822P is – to use an expression I often hear in the art world – “a very sophisticated piece”.