Talking about AP, PP, and VC, and their respective reputations has kind of got me thinking recently. As a relative newcomer to horology, it is interesting to read the perspective of others in regards to the 'trinity.' As a younger guy (at least in regards to most on this thread), I feel like I have a very different perspective of the trinity than most. I think that out of the three, I definitely view PP to be in a league of its own (I am excluding AL&S). PP is definitely what I have always perceived as the tip-top of the tier. Somewhere below them I view VC. I actually never heard of VC until I became more interested in watches. Even now, I view them as a slight step down from PP, but in the same realm.
What I find kind of funny is how people tend to lump AP in with PP and VC (and AL&S). At least from my perspective, I generally associate AP with rappers, nouveau riche, etc. In a lot of ways, like a more expensive Hublot or possible IWC. Now, that is not to say that I necessarily think that. There are a lot of AP pieces that I would LOVE to own. I just typically do not think of them as being part of that top tier anymore. They do not market like PP or VC, they have much more 'mainstream' styles, they use celebrities. When I think of AP, I automatically think of the ROO, and various special editions.
I guess I just find it interesting, because for me, AP just does not hold the same cachet as I think it does for other generations.
Yes AP makes a lot of sort of blingy LE watches but if you see one up close, the quality is immediately evident. They make nearly all their movements in-house now and their haute horology department is among the best. It would be a mistake not to rate them at a level with PP and VC.