# What is with Patek and hacking seconds?



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

Majority of movements that people care about from PP (i.e. most of the non-complications, as well as annual calendar) dont seem to have this? There might be arguments saying its classic or something, but I am not sure I can buy this...


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Yeah I'm not sure why either why my Calatrava doesn't have hacking function.
Even a basic mechanical movement usually has it...


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

To my knowledge just 3 pateks have hacking seconds: 5959, 5170 and the new Regulator 5235g


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

heuerolexomega said:


> To my knowledge just 3 pateks have hacking seconds: 5959, 5170 and the new Regulator 5235g


Has the 5235G been released yet? This watch has been delayed over and over again.


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

heuerolexomega said:


> To my knowledge just 3 pateks have hacking seconds: 5959, 5170 and the new Regulator 5235g


My point exactly... so why? I dont see any appeal in this.


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

ttup said:


> My point exactly... so why? I dont see any appeal in this.


That's because (I assume) that for you the exact setting of a watch - including the seconds - is very important to you? If that is so there are still very easy ways of setting a non hacking watch to the second.

In addition - if your dislike of a non hacking movement is for other reasons (let us know what they are) then you're potentially projecting the things that you believe are important in a good movement onto others?


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

GETS said:


> That's because (I assume) that for you the exact setting of a watch - including the seconds - is very important to you? If that is so there are still very easy ways of setting a non hacking watch to the second.
> 
> In addition - if your dislike of a non hacking movement is for other reasons (let us know what they are) then you're potentially projecting the things that you believe are important in a good movement onto others?


Well, I think hacking is a neutral and/or advantageous thing to have, with no downside, like running LED headlights in a car, or a quick set date mechanism. If I take a particular watch in your collection that you have that is hacking and I say that I'll make it into non-hacking, most people (I imagine) would say no, please keep it hacking the way it is, and vise-versa. So that leads me to conclude that yes, it is a good thing to have, or at least it doesn't hurt. It doesn't mean that I need to set it to the exact second, but that its just nice to have. I understand that non-hacking movements can set the seconds other ways, but again, its just nice to have. So if most people (let me know if I am wrong about this) think its nice to have, then why doesnt it have it? Especially since this is Patek, and also especially since it is a relatively simple.


----------



## RTea (Jun 3, 2010)

I figure as long as people keep buying their stuff, they don't see any reason for change. 

Seems like hacking seconds is a big deal in the public and other sub-forums until you get to "history" like PP and the El Primero where they get a pass. 

I like hacking seconds but don't feel it to be a necessity. A nice feature sure, but I wouldn't pass on a watch that I like that lacked it.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

Cost savings.


----------



## GlenRoiland (Jul 4, 2012)

lmcgbaj said:


> Cost savings.


Really???


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

GlenRoiland said:


> Really???


Haha I highly doubt it, if it were stuff like blued hands or something like that, maybe... I am so curious, is this just sheer laziness?


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

I believe it has something to do with their desire to not stop a movement in motion from a romantic sense, and from a technical standpoint that stopping the balance introduces rate variation. Or so that was their argument iirc.


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

omeglycine said:


> I believe it has something to do with their desire to not stop a movement in motion from a romantic sense, and from a technical standpoint that stopping the balance introduces rate variation. Or so that was their argument iirc.


Yes that's exactly what Patek says when asked about this. Don't know how valid it is but that's what they claim.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

GlenRoiland said:


> Really???


No. Not really.

I am sure, generally speaking, Patek owners(not those who are WIS) do not need or use the hacking function to sync their Calatrava to the atomic clock.

PP knows this and does not care about it.

However, I do value the hacking function when testing the accuracy of my watch. Yes, you can get around it, but that is not the point. This goes to show a bit further evidence to support the thread "Patek Philippe: Does the Emperor have no clothes?"

Some companies get a bit comfortable when at the top. Not sure if this is any evidence of that or they just don't value this function in a watch.

Here is a popular quote: "When you own a Patek, you decided what time it is." Why would you need hacking?


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

omeglycine said:


> I believe it has something to do with their desire to not stop a movement in motion from a romantic sense, and from a technical standpoint that stopping the balance introduces rate variation. Or so that was their argument iirc.


That was what I was looking for... somewhat valid I guess... haha


----------



## seanwontreturn (Aug 9, 2013)

Or Patek probably just doesnt want you to know if it tells accurate time, as opposed to ALS, GO and some Swiss top brands that even give flyback hacking seconds or jumping hacking seconds function to some of their offering.


----------



## The Naf (Mar 31, 2012)

Why did Rolex have that cheap clasp for so long? Did it really think it was superior or nostalgic? Bah! Because it was functional and they were still selling bucket loads of watches...

All this talk of romanticized notions of not halting a movement in motion or not introducing rate variations sounds a lot like post rationalization to me. They don't do it simply because they don't have to. The questions one must ask are: 

Will adding a hacking function allow them to sell significantly more i.e. enough to justify the cost of implementing it in all their references? 
Will it boost profitability? 
Will it increase prestige? 

Even if they offered each of their references with a hacking feature at an additional cost most people would opt out? From a business point of view it doesn't necessarily make any sense to implement this feature. They are already at the top. They probably believe they have nothing to prove. Whereas all the underdogs (ALS perfect example) will strive to improve and innovate and offer superior/equal products at better prices Patek has the luxury of "resting on it's laurels" so to speak and charging a pricing premium simply by virtue of its brand equity.

We are all too familiar with how conservative the Swiss watch industry can be. If they are succeeding with their current strategy (as they clearly are) they probably feel little need for change.


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

Patek focuses on parts of the movements differently than other manufacturers. Perhaps making a hacking feature is not as essential as accuracy, durability, aesthetics, efficiency etc.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Crunchy said:


> Patek focuses on parts of the movements differently than other manufacturers. Perhaps making a hacking feature is not as essential as accuracy, durability, aesthetics, efficiency etc.


Is it the case that Pateks have superior accuracy, durability and higher power reserves?

I suppose they might and probably did lead at one point.
Although at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if an equivalent movement from many other manufacturers performed same or better, since these are no longer essential to wrist watches.


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

shnjb said:


> Is it the case that Pateks have superior accuracy, durability and higher power reserves?
> 
> I suppose they might and probably did lead at one point.
> Although at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if an equivalent movement from many other manufacturers performed same or better, since these are no longer essential to wrist watches.


Well they certainly 'self certificate' nowadays in terms of their accuracy tests, which are much tighter than the Geneva seal of approval specifications.

From their website:

_"The purpose of the Patek Philippe Seal was to create a new, world recognized benchmark for Patek Philippe watches that would incorporate all of the standards that have always made a Patek Philippe watch special. This decision was not made in an egotistical manner but rather was aimed at formalizing and communicating what stands behind the Patek Philippe quality, internally and outside the company, and to bring a stronger guarantee of excellence to their customers. The directives of the Patek Philippe Seal are very strict, stronger than any other benchmark from any other watch company and most importantly envelop the watch in its entirety. And so after more than 120 years, Patek Philippe has started to replace the long standing Geneva Seal with the Patek Philippe Seal beginning in mid 2009. This change over will take approximately 2 years to complete and like the Geneva Seal will only apply to mechanical watches."_









Now do I think Patek have the most accurate time pieces in the World (better than a Grand Seiko say) probably not. But it is reassuring to know that hacking or non hacking they are very accurate watches.

PS - I place virtually no value on hacking movements despite most of my watches having them.


----------



## The Naf (Mar 31, 2012)

Really the very idea of self certification is ludicrous...a certificate or seal IMHO has value when it is from an independent organisation. In-house certifying was clearly dreamt up in the marketing department and if anything reduces costs for PP and saves time...really isn't it enough to say that all Patek Phillipe watches meet some of the strictest in-house quality control and aesthetic criteria? Why make a seal of your own and stamp it on your watch? Its no as if another band can have their watch given the PP seal...it is no more meaningful than the branding on the dial which in of itself should be an assurance of having a watch that meets Pateks strict in-house checks...because the dial says its a Patek...rant over

The Naf now Free


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

GETS said:


> Has the 5235G been released yet? This watch has been delayed over and over again.


They have issues with the movement, they are rectifying it and hoping to start delivering sometime at the end of the year. But who knows? I also heard that it might not be released at all, but that I will seriously doubt because after all the expectation for this watch and not delivering it would look like a failure, don't think Patek wants to send that kind of message.


----------



## omeglycine (Jan 21, 2011)

I know GS has the -3/+5, however, if anyone would have a claim to producing the most accurate wristwatches, Zenith would be the first to come to my mind. Not trying to stray too far from the thread, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

The Naf said:


> Really the very idea of self certification is ludicrous...a certificate or seal IMHO has value when it is from an independent organisation.


Normally I would agree but not on this occasion. The reason being that PP had no problems passing Geneva Seal specifications prior to 2009 - and as a result one can only surmise that this is a real attempt to do something different and stand apart from the crowd. That or save themselves some money in the process as you say!


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

shnjb said:


> Is it the case that Pateks have superior accuracy, durability and higher power reserves?
> 
> I suppose they might and probably did lead at one point.
> Although at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if an equivalent movement from many other manufacturers performed same or better, since these are no longer essential to wrist watches.


It may vary, but in my experience with pateks, had 3 before, they had very good rate consistency, tighter accuracy controls, and would stay that way for years. I cannot say for sure if I just had good luck, or it's consistent throughout their lines. I've only had the same luck with rolex and omega. About the power reserve, it's the high efficiency winding and not so much about longer power reserve. It is the most efficient winding mechanism i've had (can't compare with rolex because they dont make a watch with PR indicator). I did not have the same experience with other expensive watches like richard mille, lange, blancpain, FM, and JLC.


----------



## Crunchy (Feb 4, 2013)

The Naf said:


> Really the very idea of self certification is ludicrous...a certificate or seal IMHO has value when it is from an independent organisation. In-house certifying was clearly dreamt up in the marketing department and if anything reduces costs for PP and saves time...really isn't it enough to say that all Patek Phillipe watches meet some of the strictest in-house quality control and aesthetic criteria? Why make a seal of your own and stamp it on your watch? Its no as if another band can have their watch given the PP seal...it is no more meaningful than the branding on the dial which in of itself should be an assurance of having a watch that meets Pateks strict in-house checks...because the dial says its a Patek...rant over
> 
> The Naf now Free


I agree with this somewhat.

They could have found a better way to show that they had higher quality controls than other makers.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

GETS said:


> The reason being that PP had no problems passing Geneva Seal specifications prior to 2009 - and as a result *one can only surmise that this is a real attempt to do something different and stand apart from the crowd.*


Not quite.

That is not the main reason behind the Patek Philippe Seal creation.

First, I must say that I am very surprised to see folks quoting Patek's own propaganda as facts. They do make extraordinary watches but at the end of the day, there is lots of marketing that should be filtered by the reader.

So what is the deal with the Patek seal?

First of all, in order to submit a watch for the Geneva Seal, the watch had to be assembled and regulated in the city or canton of Geneva.

Geneva seal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Patek Philippe stopped using the Geneva Seal because its workshops are in different cantons (Vaud and Neuchatel).

The reason Patek chose those locations was because of highly skilled watchmakers availability in the area.

Patek would have needed to send the watch to be finished by someone else in Geneva in order to be able to apply for the Geneva Seal. That was not efficient and practical.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

The Naf said:


> Why make a seal of your own and stamp it on your watch?


Because using the Geneva seal was not practical for them. However, I am sure Patek are not cutting corners when certifying their watches.


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

I would just add that it takes a lot of effort to come with a magnificent timepiece, accuracy being one of them. I had an eta base watch before (Bremont) that was as accurate or more accurate than a Patek. But that doesn't make it a better watch. I look at the timepiece as whole: design, movement, how does it feel on your wrist, , reputation, does brand stand behind their product, stability of the brand, history: somewhat.
I know this is off topic, but I am posting this lines just to avoid loosing perspective.

Now back to hacking seconds.....


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

I agree with the seal being the stupidest marketing idea ever...yet quite successful. It is amazing how many people will go to buy a patek and boast about that seal...
My face is usually -_-


----------



## seanwontreturn (Aug 9, 2013)

GETS said:


> Well they certainly 'self certificate' nowadays in terms of their accuracy tests, which are much tighter than the Geneva seal of approval specifications.
> 
> From their website:
> 
> ...


I never heard of the same story in any other industries that the industry leader (assuming PP is the leader) set up its own standard to self-certificate.


----------



## shnjb (May 12, 2009)

Well despite all the negativity about Patek, I guess a lot of us purchased Pateks so I guess we still like them even without hacking function.
It was interesting to learn what their own explanation for not using it was.

I'm just happy they are not releasing a Miami heat limited edition. 
If they did that and they has no hacking functions and they had their own seal, I would sell mine and never look at the brand again.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

shnjb said:


> I guess a lot of us purchased Pateks .


excuse me? Thats quite the assumption


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

AbuKalb93 said:


> I agree with the seal being the stupidest marketing idea ever...yet quite successful. It is amazing how many people will go to buy a patek and boast about that seal...
> My face is usually -_-


Not sure how stupid was the marketing plot if it worked so good on the population. Hence, marketing goal achieved.

In any case, let's not over hype this.

Patek did not have a choice, they had to leave the Geneva seal due to the preferred manufacturing location.

At this point they could have not used a seal at all or create one from scratch.

I am sure that latter option was more costly but better seen in the eyes of the public.

They did nothing wrong.

Then, the marketing department came in and made a grandiose story about it which some Patek owners love to use.

I still see nothing majorly wrong about it. It's marketing and if you believe there is no marketing used with Patek, then you have a problem.


----------



## AbuKalb93 (Dec 17, 2012)

lmcgbaj said:


> It's marketing and if you believe there is no marketing used with Patek, then you have a problem.


Very well said


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

lmcgbaj said:


> First, I must say that I am very surprised to see folks quoting Patek's own propaganda as facts.


Without being argumentative where did I suggest that Patek's marketing was a fact (you must be referring to me as I am the only one quoting them)?

I simply quoted what Patek claim on their website. I never gave it any credibility and I was quite specific around the point that I didn't think they had the most accurate watches in the World either (I used a Grand Seiko as a comparison).


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

GETS said:


> Without being argumentative where did I suggest that Patek's marketing was a fact (you must be referring to me as I am the only one quoting them)?
> 
> I simply quoted what Patek claim on their website. I never gave it any credibility and I was quite specific around the point that I didn't think they had the most accurate watches in the World either (I used a Grand Seiko as a comparison).


Here is where I got it from.



GETS said:


> Normally I would agree but not on this occasion. The reason being that PP had no problems passing Geneva Seal specifications prior to 2009 - and as a result one can only surmise that this is a real attempt to do something different and stand apart from the crowd.


I must have misread that somehow though. Sorry.


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

lmcgbaj said:


> Here is where I got it from.
> 
> _"Normally I would agree but not on this occasion. The reason being that PP had no problems passing Geneva Seal specifications prior to 2009 - and as a result one can only surmise that this is a real attempt to do something different and stand apart from the crowd."_
> 
> I must have misread that somehow though. Sorry.


Which part of this did you misread (out of interest?) I simply stated that Patek had no problems meeting Geneva Seal specification prior to bringing in the Patek seal? I don't know that anyone has ever argued that Patek watches weren't good enough to pass the Geneva standards - so I'm pretty sure we are in violent agreement on that? I then went on to say that by bringing in their own standard - was to me - a real effort to do something different and stand apart? Now that something might be to save money , be a marketing gimmick :think: or actually raise standards |>? I don't know? I then quoted what they had to say about the whole shooting match.

Anyway - thanks for coming back to me. I just wanted to clarify as I would hate to be pigeon holed as some kind of Patek fan boy who can see no wrong in the brand.

Peace out.


----------



## lmcgbaj (Aug 7, 2012)

GETS said:


> Anyway - thanks for coming back to me. I just wanted to clarify as I would hate to be pigeon holed as some kind of Patek fan boy who can see no wrong in the brand.


No worries. No harm intended and no such intentions.


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

Bump incase someone wants to talk about hacking seconds again rather than the seal.


----------



## GlenRoiland (Jul 4, 2012)

ttup said:


> Bump incase someone wants to talk about hacking seconds again rather than the seal.


Back to regular programming...

it's a funny thing. I use to think hacking second was an essential feature, but I no longer even care. I don't need a mechanical watch to be synchronized to the second, and I switch watches regularly requiring me to reset almost any watch I pick up for the day. Sometimes I'll wear the same watch for a few weeks, often requiring me to reset the one on my wrist since it will often be off by minutes at that point.


----------



## mark1958 (Nov 30, 2012)

It used to be essential for me too. I prefer to have it.. but it is not essential.



GlenRoiland said:


> Back to regular programming...
> 
> it's a funny thing. I use to think hacking second was an essential feature, but I no longer even care. I don't need a mechanical watch to be synchronized to the second, and I switch watches regularly requiring me to reset almost any watch I pick up for the day. Sometimes I'll wear the same watch for a few weeks, often requiring me to reset the one on my wrist since it will often be off by minutes at that point.


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

I think we've established that it is not essential, but preferable. The question is now, why does PP not implement it. Can they be THAT lazy?


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

ttup said:


> I think we've established that it is not essential, but preferable. The question is now, why does PP not implement it. Can they be THAT lazy?


You have been given a few answers:

a) They don't need to (they are the top brand anyway)
b) Romanticism of the movement not being stopped
c) It can effect the balance wheel and consistency of accuracy

You've clearly made your mind up that they are lazy as you seem to have found no other answer that satisfies you? I'm not sure what more you want people to say?


----------



## ttup (May 18, 2013)

I understand, I just wanted to see if anyone else had any other inputs, if not then its still fine. Since as you said, I've already got good answers.


----------



## jacer35 (Jul 10, 2017)

Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us how to set a top end luxury watch without hacking to the second? Obviously if you buy a watch of that level that has been built to be super precise as well as exquisitely finished then you would want to be able to keep it accurate to a few seconds a day.


----------



## Spangles (May 27, 2015)

jacer35 said:


> Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us how to set a top end luxury watch without hacking to the second? Obviously if you buy a watch of that level that has been built to be super precise as well as exquisitely finished then you would want to be able to keep it accurate to a few seconds a day.


You're responding to a post from October 2013.

If you pull the crown and slowly move the hands a tiny bit backwards, the seconds hand will stop, allowing precise time setting. It doesn't hurt the movement, you're not doing it long or super often.


----------



## mlcor (Oct 21, 2013)

Spangles said:


> You're responding to a post from October 2013.
> 
> If you pull the crown and slowly move the hands a tiny bit backwards, the seconds hand will stop, allowing precise time setting. It doesn't hurt the movement, you're not doing it long or super often.


Unfortunately, that doesn't work with all movements. It works with Breguet, but it doesn't work on my Patek Gondolo, or on either of my VCs (Traditionelle and Overseas). For those, the best I can do is know about how many turns of the crown it takes for each to start up, and time it accordingly. That usually gets me to within a few seconds, which is good enough for me.


----------



## jacer35 (Jul 10, 2017)

Thanks for the reply. Yes I realisedthe post is several years old when I replied - I think many people regularly look over old posts for information on this forum. Moving the crown backwards a little to slow down or stop the seconds hand is something I do sometimes on my cheap Seiko 5 but there seems to be conflicting advice on whether this is advisable or not. Not being a watch repairer myself and not having intimate knowledge of the Patek’s movement this is something I would be reluctant to do on a $50,000 watch and does seem somewhat primitive but I guess your point about not doing it for too long is good advice. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KtWUS (Mar 19, 2016)

jacer35 said:


> Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us how to set a top end luxury watch without hacking to the second? Obviously if you buy a watch of that level that has been built to be super precise as well as exquisitely finished then you would want to be able to keep it accurate to a few seconds a day.


Is a top end luxury watch built to be super precise? I thought that was for Rolex and quartz.


----------



## Pun (Sep 2, 2015)

KtWUS said:


> Is a top end luxury watch built to be super precise? I thought that was for Rolex and quartz.


A really pertinent and perfectly valid point indeed.


----------



## jacer35 (Jul 10, 2017)

KtWUS said:


> Is a top end luxury watch built to be super precise? I thought that was for Rolex and quartz.


As mechanical watches go, most Pateks are super precise - that was my point. They are precise but it's hard to take advantage of that precision without hacking. 
Also many mechanical watch owners don't subscribe to this 'purist' notion that seems to be so prevalent on WUS that you shouldn't be concerned with or enjoy precision or accuracy in mechanical watches. Throughout the history of horology mechanical watchmakers have strived for better precision and accuracy in their timepieces and just because a $20 quartz will always outperform it in this area doesn't mean you can't get great satisfaction in getting your mechanical as accurate as possible even though they have now been technologically surpassed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KtWUS (Mar 19, 2016)

jacer35 said:


> As mechanical watches go, most Pateks are super precise - that was my point. They are precise but it's hard to take advantage of that precision without hacking.
> Also many mechanical watch owners don't subscribe to this 'purist' notion that seems to be so prevalent on WUS that you shouldn't be concerned with or enjoy precision or accuracy in mechanical watches. Throughout the history of horology mechanical watchmakers have strived for better precision and accuracy in their timepieces and just because a $20 quartz will always outperform it in this area doesn't mean you can't get great satisfaction in getting your mechanical as accurate as possible even though they have now been technologically surpassed.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned with precision or accuracy in mechanical watches - that's why Rolex was mentioned. What I am questioning is the notion that top end luxury watches are built to be super precise. High end certifications like the Geneva seal requires +/- 1min over 7 days, and FQF requires COSC (+6/-4 per day). Most of the requirements deal with finishing. Not sure if that counts as 'super precise' in your books, but both of those are less stringent than Rolex (I'm not even a Rolex fanboy).

Its not obvious that hacking is necessary to take advantage of precision. The point of precision is reliability, that is, small variation in the time keeping. What you get with hacking is accuracy in matching the initial time set to some other known time keeping device. If, because of a lack of hacking, your watch is a few seconds faster than the atomic clock, precision will guarantee that it'll always be that same few seconds faster and you can always adjust for that mentally. In fact, with the type of precision common in high end watches, the inaccuracy of a few seconds due to a lack of hacking is matched by at most a day or two of imprecision. I.e., in a few days you won't even be able to tell whether the time is off because of your lack of hacking or because of the daily rate.

Where a lack of hacking would really kick in, in my view, is for a quartz watch. Watches that are so precise that the daily rate is dwarfed by the initial inaccuracy of time setting.


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

jacer35 said:


> Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us how to set a top end luxury watch without hacking to the second? Obviously if you buy a watch of that level that has been built to be super precise as well as exquisitely finished then you would want to be able to keep it accurate to a few seconds a day.


Absence of hacking isn't necessarily at odds with excellent time keeping and top level chronometry. Some of the most accurate movements on the market don't hack.

https://www.watchuseek.com/f27/does-el-primero-movement-400-hack-3074322.html#/topics/3074322


----------



## jacer35 (Jul 10, 2017)

KtWUS said:


> I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned with precision or accuracy in mechanical watches - that's why Rolex was mentioned. What I am questioning is the notion that top end luxury watches are built to be super precise. High end certifications like the Geneva seal requires +/- 1min over 7 days, and FQF requires COSC (+6/-4 per day). Most of the requirements deal with finishing. Not sure if that counts as 'super precise' in your books, but both of those are less stringent than Rolex (I'm not even a Rolex fanboy).
> 
> Its not obvious that hacking is necessary to take advantage of precision. The point of precision is reliability, that is, small variation in the time keeping. What you get with hacking is accuracy in matching the initial time set to some other known time keeping device. If, because of a lack of hacking, your watch is a few seconds faster than the atomic clock, precision will guarantee that it'll always be that same few seconds faster and you can always adjust for that mentally. In fact, with the type of precision common in high end watches, the inaccuracy of a few seconds due to a lack of hacking is matched by at most a day or two of imprecision. I.e., in a few days you won't even be able to tell whether the time is off because of your lack of hacking or because of the daily rate.
> 
> Where a lack of hacking would really kick in, in my view, is for a quartz watch. Watches that are so precise that the daily rate is dwarfed by the initial inaccuracy of time setting.


Yes, fair point and I see where you are coming from. I think Thierry Stern of Patek himself said that if you want a timepiece that keeps great time and is accurate then use your mobile/cell phone! Yet his company still strives for excellence in all areas - including exceptional timekeeping precision. I am knit picking and realise it is each to his own but I presume that with the Patek they still have the PP seal which is a rating of -3/+2 per day - which is considerably better than COSC! I do understand the difference between accuracy and precision and using your quartz watch argument I would say that, ironically, being able to hack is also more helpful with a precise mechanical movement than with an imprecise one (eg Seiko 7s27) as the deviation across the different positions is so negligible with a very precise movement that it is harder to adjust for accuracy: firstly by taking into account natural gain or loss of time on the wrist which is usually quite small OR by positional placing when resting (thus speeding up or slowing down the movement - which is one of the fun things you can do with an imprecise mechanical movement to get it more accurate). I agree that having the watch out by 10s or so is not important - it's unlikely to negatively affect your life in any way or cause you to miss a train but personally for me, the icing on the cake would be to be able to synchronise the watch to my local time zone and enjoy knowing it is as accurate as it could be relative to that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spangles (May 27, 2015)

mlcor said:


> Unfortunately, that doesn't work with all movements. It works with Breguet, but it doesn't work on my Patek Gondolo, or on either of my VCs (Traditionelle and Overseas). For those, the best I can do is know about how many turns of the crown it takes for each to start up, and time it accordingly. That usually gets me to within a few seconds, which is good enough for me.


That's funny you say that. I actually tried on the traditionelle (several times). I was able to stop the seconds hand with gentle backwards movement of the crown. It might be a little stubborn. Anyway, maybe something to revisit sometime.


----------



## mlcor (Oct 21, 2013)

Spangles said:


> That's funny you say that. I actually tried on the traditionelle (several times). I was able to stop the seconds hand with gentle backwards movement of the crown. It might be a little stubborn. Anyway, maybe something to revisit sometime.


Hmm, I'll have to try it again. Definitely doesn't work on my Gondolo or Overseas. Separately, I had written to Breguet to ask if it was OK to do that, and they said it was fine so long as you didn't go backwards past a date change, which would be a no-no.


----------



## WTSP (May 6, 2012)

I’ve got an El Primero from the eighties for which this manual 
hacking trick works and one from 2012 for which it does not. I’m not sure if this is generalizable to other movements, but I’m tempted to say that minor differences in movement design can have an impact on manual hacking and that it won’t necessarily be consistent across the various generations of the same movement.


----------



## mlcor (Oct 21, 2013)

WTSP said:


> I've got an El Primero from the eighties for which this manual
> hacking trick works and one from 2012 for which it does not. I'm not sure if this is generalizable to other movements, but I'm tempted to say that minor differences in movement design can have an impact on manual hacking and that it won't necessarily be consistent across the various generations of the same movement.


That could be--my EP won't do that trick, either.


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

Mine has hacking seconds



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xand (Sep 16, 2014)

Patek has recently started implementing hacking seconds. I believe hacking seconds are on the following - please correct me:
5170
5172
5212
5235
5236
5326 (presumably)
5711 (very late models with the same movement as the 5212)
5959


----------



## rand777 (Feb 22, 2021)

Surprised to learn this. It's never bothered me that my El Primeros don't have a hacking second, but I do strongly prefer one, and never imagined most Patek's would be without it.

My favorite hacking seconds is on the JLC Duometre. When you pull out the crown it stops the seconds hand as normal, and when you pull it out to the second position it resets the seconds hand to 0. Mine has been accurate to +0-1s/day and I use this feature whenever setting it.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

I think Patek has a sort of, "you'll buy what we tell you to and you'll like it," philosophy, so no hacking seconds was probably just a case of, "you don't need it because we say you don't."


----------



## OogieBoogie (Oct 3, 2021)

rand777 said:


> My favorite hacking seconds is on the JLC Duometre. When you pull out the crown it stops the seconds hand as normal, and when you pull it out to the second position it resets the seconds hand to 0.


Now that's a cute function!


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

rand777 said:


> My favorite hacking seconds is on the JLC Duometre. When you pull out the crown it stops the seconds hand as normal, and when you pull it out to the second position it resets the seconds hand to 0. Mine has been accurate to +0-1s/day and I use this feature whenever setting it.


Does the JLC also center the minutes hand on the nearby marker? 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


----------



## rand777 (Feb 22, 2021)

GrouchoM said:


> Does the JLC also center the minutes hand on the nearby marker?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk


Only the seconds hand.


----------

