Originally Posted by Axelman 17
I know it is unlikely to get a lot of TWAT love but I have a secret obsession with the AP ROO Diver. I find the layout harmonious and really like the squares on the face (not sure what they are called). Im not sure I would shell out $20K for a diver but I do love looking at it.
I think it's called a "waffle" dial, although that may be unofficial!
When I was bashing the giant ROOs, it wasn't really this I had in mind. After all, the RO it's a sports watch in nature and origin, so making a chunky version with a rubber strap and other dive-y accoutrements is no more ridiculous than Patek making the Aquanaut. Sure, it's true that $20k is a lot for a diving accessory, and you'd probably be upset were you ever to scratch that lovely brushed case. But then it's all a matter of degrees. It's a bit much next to a Sub or a Seamaster, but a lot less silly than a gold one.
And that's really what I (and if I might take His Royal Highness's name in vain, Dino) was railing against: making a watch like this out of rose gold with a tourbillon in it, still in diver proportions with diver functionality on a diver's rubber strap, for $200k, is what's silly. Making endless Skittles-coloured limited editions with fake carbon flanges and luminous extraneous twattery, for $50k. That's what is silly.
At the end of the day, this is a dive watch, so it's big, on a rubber strap, and heavy-looking. And it's an AP so it costs quite a lot. I can't say I have anything really to criticise about either of those things. This is the one that makes sense. It's the brothers and sisters I can't quite rationalise, but then since when was any of this rational? :)