The Fourth Wheel, Issue 125

First thoughts on the Cubitus, and the problems with trying to be honest

Hello and welcome back to The Fourth Wheel, the weekly watch newsletter that would like to start by saying hello to the dozens of new subscribers that joined us this week. I am sorry to inform you that I don’t offend a significant figure in the watch world every week, so if that’s what you came for you’ll have to make do with my regular mix of honest opinion and bad jokes¹. If I did, it would clearly be good for business, but believe it or not, I have no interest in starting feuds. More on that below.

I had floated the idea of a rapid-fire round-up of new launches, but we are right in the thick of it with new watches cropping up all this week and next, so I think I will keep my powder dry. Today we can talk about the Patek Philippe Cubitus. Ill health prevents me writing much more - I’m fine, more or less, but I’ve seen more of Lewisham hospital in the last 36 hours than I’d have liked. But! Onwards! The world of watches waits for no man…

---

---

The Fourth Wheel is a reader-supported publication with no advertising, sponsorship or commercial partnerships to influence its content. It is made possible by the generous support of its readers: if you think watch journalism could do with a voice that exists outside of the usual media dynamic, please consider taking out a paid subscription. You can start with a free trial!

Here’s a little taste of what you might have missed recently:

The Truth About Water Resistance
Everything I Learned About Hairsprings By Visiting Minerva
Review: Zenith’s Expensive Orange Dive Watches
Hall’s Gastronomy of Watchmaking
Hodinkee: Up, Down and Sideways

---

First, a moment of reflection

Before we get onto this week’s main topic, there is some unfinished business from last week. It behoves me, I think², to explain - for new readers and perhaps the wider world - why I take the approach I do.

I don’t come here to be controversial. I don’t think of myself as deliberately provocative or sensationalist. I don’t hide behind anonymity, as many critics do on Instagram, but I do speak my mind. That isn’t always the easiest path. I started The Fourth Wheel because nowhere else gave me the opportunity to say what I wanted and because there was a real vacuum in the luxury watch world when it came to honest, unfiltered opinion, and I know that you, my readers, appreciate that.

My criticism, in the main, is reserved for subjects that are worth it. By which I mean brands, companies and individuals of whom we have come to expect a certain standard. I don’t waste my time, or yours, telling you that Invicta makes lousy, ugly watches. Every week I publish a list of what I consider to be the best and most interesting articles, videos, podcasts or other forms of content that I’ve seen over the last seven days. To make this list I read dozens and dozens of articles; there are watch websites that I rarely, if ever, recommend to you, but I read plenty of them just to make sure I haven’t missed a gem. There’s a reason Hodinkee’s stories are by a clear margin the most recommended on The Fourth Wheel.

I’m by no means the first to express this sentiment but it is one I hold dear: we criticise most keenly those we want to see succeed. But I do criticise, and while I often return to what I’ve written and soften it somewhat before publication - a practice I recommend to all - I don’t mince my words when I think something’s not as it is being held out to be.

The last two and a half years has taught me a little about how powerful that can be, however. I’ve upset people, sometimes, and I’ve made a few mistakes too. That’s only natural but the stakes are higher if you’re going to make it your business to criticise others, so when I do get something wrong you’ll always see me own up to it, correct it and apologise - front and centre, never hidden away behind the paywall or in a footnote. I take the accuracy of what I publish seriously, and if someone feels unfairly treated by something I’ve written I am always quick to offer a chance to set the record straight.

Following the publication of Issue 124, my take on the news that Hodinkee was recently acquired by Watches of Switzerland Group, I posted the newsletter on LinkedIn in the manner required of all relentless self-promoters these days and Ben Clymer, as many of you obviously already know, replied, criticising the article for its many alleged inaccuracies.

It’s beyond obvious that Ben knows more than me about the matter. As I said above, putting your head above the parapet to criticise is a risky business, but I feel comfortable now, as I did last week, saying that everything I presented as fact was drawn, accurately, from public sources. A great deal of what I wrote was personal opinion, repeated gossip and speculation, all of which I feel was clearly defined as such. Sometimes we cannot see the wood for the trees, however, so I apologise for any undue inferences that might have been made as a result of what I wrote.

I extended the offer of a clarification and correction but at the time of writing this, haven’t received a reply. That is a first; people who are upset at what I write usually can’t wait to tell me what I got wrong. But no matter. The offer still stands, and if possible I will welcome the opportunity.

---

The Cubitus

I wasn’t in Munich for the launch event and haven’t handled the watch, so everything below comes with the caveat that I might feel completely differently once I do. But this isn’t a review of the watch, and I think most of what I need to know, I’ve got from what I’ve seen and read.

First of all, a few thoughts on the ‘leak’. I knew the watch was genuine, as I’d seen a screenshot of an advertising layout that was going to press a few weeks ago. It wasn’t for Fortune magazine either. Patek Philippe is known to still be a big believer in print advertising (a minority position, these days) and several different titles were sent the Cubitus campaign in time for their print deadlines.

Cubitus ref. 5822P. All images courtesy of Patek Philippe

In this day and age, it actually impresses me that none of them leaked it. I mean, behind closed doors people like me had seen it, but no-one shared it on social media. When Fortune came out, and the screenshot was shared across Instagram, the speculation and convoluted theorising that went on was wild. The truth is almost always simpler and more mundane - there is just no way in the world that Patek Philippe, or any brand I can think of, would seed a fake ad campaign to throw people off the scent. The date was weird! The tagline was wrong! (It wasn’t.) There wasn’t a reference number! And so on. We tie ourselves in knots trying to second-guess everything that we see, looking for layers of meaning that just aren’t there. Adverts like this are usually put together from rendered images rather than actual photoshoots, which can account for all manner of tiny differences between the watch as advertised and the finished product in real life. This is for a number of reasons: it’s much cheaper, and often the watch isn’t completely finished by the time the ad campaign needs to be put together - it will have been made weeks or even months ago, scrutinised and signed off by layers of management, before being sent out to advertising agencies and publishers. Also, if you are looking to avoid leaks, a photoshoot is a terrible idea; there are always dozens of people on set, not all of whom will care or know not to share what they’ve seen, even though my experience is people are usually highly professional, you are exposing the watch to a lot more eyes this way.

But the way things went down with Fortune… I’ve never seen anything quite like it. Firstly it’s extremely rare for a magazine to bring its publication date forwards at short notice. As a rule, us journalists aren’t known for having things ready ahead of time. How do I know this is what happened? Patek Philippe sent an email to all attendees of the Munich event, openly calling out Fortune for changing its publication date and reminding all guests that the embargo of 20:30 local time on October 17th still stood. Any consideration whatsoever that Patek Philippe might have been playing 4D chess dissipated in this moment - publicly airing its frustrations with Fortune was really surprising and a sign of how high emotions were running behind the scenes.

When an ad is sold into a magazine, it either comes via an agency or directly from the advertiser, to the salesperson at the publishing house responsible. At big companies this person will often be selling ads across multiple titles, print and digital; the agency, or in-house rep, will be handling ad sales for the entire year and a standalone launch campaign like this - as opposed to regular business like the outside back cover, Patek’s preferred ad placement - will have been booked in a long way in advance. There are, conservatively, half a dozen people in the chain across all sides who will all have been acutely aware of publication dates. Someone will have been in big trouble. I have no idea what went on but assuming Patek is telling the whole truth, there must have been an incredibly good reason for Fortune to bring the issue forward and risk antagonising such a high-profile advertiser. Thierry Stern told the FT he was “disappointed and shocked”; he told Revolution that “some mistakes are forgivable but this is not one of them”. Incredibly strong language. I’d be very surprised if Fortune is carrying Patek Philippe ads in the foreseeable future. The level of anger doesn’t shock me, but to give it both barrels in public is very unusual.

Cubitus ref. 5821/1AR

The reaction to a new collection is such a meta-event these days: you’ve got the event itself, the first-hand reaction to the watches from those who were there, the reaction from all the press and influencers who weren’t there, and then the reaction from the public to all of the above. The public’s awareness of and frustration with the way the game is played is fascinating; every reaction to the Cubitus is questioned, scrutinised through the lens of commerce. On one level I applaud the widespread awareness of how the world works, but it’s also wearying, and often tips over into paranoia and hyper-suspicion. We’ve reached a point where genuine praise is distrusted - “you’re just trying to curry favour with Patek for their advertising budget, or the chance of an allocation” - while harsh criticism can often feel performative, as if journalists and social media commentators feel they have to express some negative emotion so as to demonstrate their independent thought. Temper your praise with some light criticism and you’ve reached the perfect balance of apparently honest analysis - or so the cynical response will go. It has become almost impossible to speak your mind without being branded a sycophant, a contrarian, a manipulative cynic or a shill.

I’m still going to try, though. For transparency: I do care about my relationship with Patek Philippe, because I’ll write about them for many other publications across the year. But I’m not in their innermost circle of journalists, and I’m not going to hold back from highlighting what I do and don’t like about the Cubitus.