or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 1836  

post #27526 of 48312
Looks great on NATO, Kaplan. I should dress down my Mark XVI that way more often....usually it stays on a black croc-grain strap, and I wind up wearing it more like a dress piece. (It's a pilot's watch after all.) Pretty versatile watch if you think about it.

CHRK 33: congratulations! Have not seen that one in person yet.


Quote:
So this is completely off topic but I just want to go on the record that even though I have a calendar complication piece I still want this 2014 calendar. Thank you for listening.

I'm looking more than listening, frilly biggrin.gif
post #27527 of 48312
Thanks. Did the Mk XVI come on a croc grain strap? I thought it was a real croc? Either way, I found it a little odd that IWC chose to dress the buckle down, from a deployant to a tang, and dress the leather up, going from buffalo to croc, when they replaced the XV with the XVI...


@suaviter, I use a Bergeon tool too (No 6767). Less risk of getting scratches when changing spring bars, than when changing Panerai style straps with a screwdriver, IME.
Edited by Kaplan - 1/7/14 at 5:00am
post #27528 of 48312
Has anyone had a chance to read the article on Hodinkee yesterday?

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/audemars-piguet-royal-oak-chronograph-review

A great article, despite it being review for the most part. Nonetheless, I like the general premise--that the ROC is nothing short of a modern classic. It really is an excellent combination of past and present. I am not sure how I feel about the rose gold, and I feel like the author has similar feelings. Gold may be a big soft, especially considering all the brushed and polished surfaces.
post #27529 of 48312
Nuke - I read it. Great article for sure.
post #27530 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Has anyone had a chance to read the article on Hodinkee yesterday?

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/audemars-piguet-royal-oak-chronograph-review

A great article, despite it being review for the most part. Nonetheless, I like the general premise--that the ROC is nothing short of a modern classic. It really is an excellent combination of past and present. I am not sure how I feel about the rose gold, and I feel like the author has similar feelings. Gold may be a big soft, especially considering all the brushed and polished surfaces.

 

Great article ... after this thread with our friend dino and TC's showcasing I have serious Royal Oak fever. 

post #27531 of 48312
hmm...how does one unscrew a hexagonal screw? that may be explained in the video, but i am not in a position to play it right now
post #27532 of 48312
great read, gorgeous watch, but for me, the simple 3 handed RO is the watch to have. :swoon:

also, thoughts on the 15202?
post #27533 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Has anyone had a chance to read the article on Hodinkee yesterday?

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/audemars-piguet-royal-oak-chronograph-review

A great article, despite it being review for the most part. Nonetheless, I like the general premise--that the ROC is nothing short of a modern classic. It really is an excellent combination of past and present. I am not sure how I feel about the rose gold, and I feel like the author has similar feelings. Gold may be a big soft, especially considering all the brushed and polished surfaces.

I read it. I am an AP fan and own a stainless RO chrono (the prior 39mm model) which I absolutely love. I wouldn't have any problem with wearing the watch in gold either.

However, I have a hard time seeing what this new model brings to the table other than a larger case. It has the same non exclusive chrono mvmt as the prior model (which is I have to say works great and has been running flawlessly for me for years). Without question a beautiful and beautifully made, high quality, high end product, but it seems to me like most of the RO offshore models: extremely cool but not especially interesting. 54k for this watch is hard to justify. The comparison to Patek IMO is a non starter. I don't especially like the nautilus which itself is outrageously priced but they are just not in the same league.

A Rolex Daytona in rose gold lists these days for about 37k or so and that has its own excellent house mvmt. It's very hard for me to see the premium AP is looking for here as justified. Maybe on the secondary or grey market with discounting, the difference between those 2 watches gets a lot smaller. I can see myself paying more for the AP but not much frankly.

I think the idea expressed in the article that the customer AP has in mind for the RO and offshore models (that is most of them, some are quite complicated and interesting) is not really interested in the horological aspects is essentially correct.
post #27534 of 48312
Oho! Something has arrived icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #27535 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRoi View Post

Oho! Something has arrived icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif

TELL US NOW
post #27536 of 48312

That was a great read.  It really points out what Dino always mentions as well in that the bracelet is nothing short of amazing.

post #27537 of 48312

I was a bit surprised to see how scratch heavy the rose gold ROC was. How scratchy are stainless Royal Oaks? Anyone have both a stainless & gold one and can compare them? 

post #27538 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnguy001 View Post

Sorry to hear, TC - the Northeast is getting hammered by a Polar Vortex or something like that. Hope your new watch gets to you safe and sound so you can post tomorrow!

Looks like we are delayed another day . . . Apparently FedEx is having a lot of issues at the NJ location where the watch currently sits. I went watchless again today anticipating wearing it and it is very awkward to be bare-wristed! This is a true test of patience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newcomer View Post

Has anyone had a chance to read the article on Hodinkee yesterday?

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/audemars-piguet-royal-oak-chronograph-review

A great article, despite it being review for the most part. Nonetheless, I like the general premise--that the ROC is nothing short of a modern classic. It really is an excellent combination of past and present. I am not sure how I feel about the rose gold, and I feel like the author has similar feelings. Gold may be a big soft, especially considering all the brushed and polished surfaces.

That rose gold 26320 was/is my grail watch, and admittedly I got the SS RO as a bit of a compromise (at about 1/3 the price). While I don't see ever selling this watch, it was kind of a test run for me to see if the 41mm RO line is everything I hoped it would be. I have to say, I was a bit shocked how banged up their watch was, and I imagine that these guys are somewhat careful with a $50k watch on loan. I'd be a bit paranoid wearing that thing around on a regular basis. Not to mention that the bling factor would probably not be acceptable for most professional situations. I was a little shocked by just how sparkly these 15400/26320 bracelets are once I saw them in person!
Quote:
Originally Posted by suaviter View Post

Great article ... after this thread with our friend dino and TC's showcasing I have serious Royal Oak fever. 

No regrets, and I must say it has far exceeded my expectations!

Quote:
Originally Posted by robw View Post


A Rolex Daytona in rose gold lists these days for about 37k or so and that has its own excellent house mvmt. It's very hard for me to see the premium AP is looking for here as justified. Maybe on the secondary or grey market with discounting, the difference between those 2 watches gets a lot smaller. I can see myself paying more for the AP but not much frankly.

I hear you. But, if you haven't handled a 41mm RO you should check one out, it is far more substantial in size and feel than the Daytona, and the finishing is in a different league IMHO. I can see the merits of both, but in my eyes the ROC is a lot more watch and justifies the price differential.
post #27539 of 48312

During my summer tyre-kicking I came to the same conclusions - the 41mm case is OK, but 39mm is perfect.  And for price comparisons, a mint 39mm ROC costs about $12k used.  As even a used Daytona is still $10k-plus if mint with box and papers, then the ROC looks like a real winner.  But new versus new, I think Rob's probably right: the ROC might still be nicer, but two-Daytonas-nice is debatable.

 

@HRoi as I understand it, you don't: how would you turn a hexagonal screw in a hexagonal hole?  Although they are cut across like screw heads, I think the hexagonal piece you see is actually the nut, into which a normal round screw turns from the inside of the case.

post #27540 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by qubed View Post

I was a bit surprised to see how scratch heavy the rose gold ROC was. How scratchy are stainless Royal Oaks? Anyone have both a stainless & gold one and can compare them? 

regardless of it being an RO, gold is quite a bit softer than stainless steel. everyday, you'll encounter harder materials that will scratch gold than you will with stainless steel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)