The Watch Appreciation Thread - Page 1629
Styles mentioned in this thread:
Tyre-Kicker's Diary: Audemars Piguet (Click to show)
Thanks largely to Dino's most eloquent and informative evangelism, I had to see a Royal Oak in person. My local AD has a couple of APs, but the only ROs are either ladies', or freakish Offshore models - the kind of thing that Derek S would buy if he won the lottery, and wear to the beach with mink-lined budgie-smugglers and a tiara.
But in pictures at least, the one that I like most is the RO chronograph. I like the standard one too, but the simple date (sorry, "day counter"!) irritates. In the chrono, it is neatly pushed into the background by the subdials and location. So, simple question: do you have a steel RO, please sir? And they did. Two.
Warning: Day Counter (Click to show)
So this is it. I like the white dial because it really shows up the "tapisserie" and makes the subdials stand out nicely. Also, everything Dino said about the quality of this thing is serious. The first thing I noticed was that the edge of every link in the bracelet felt sharp and neat against my hand when I picked it up. The case, obscured here slightly by the plastic cover, is just perfect. It's an extraordinary piece of manufacturing.
There's a problem, though. It's big. This is the current standard RO, and at 41mm, it's not what I wanted it to be. What I love about the RO, like the Nautilus or Daytona, is that it works as a sporty, distinctive dress watch. You can wear it with a polo and jeans or a suit for a meeting just as easily. Except now you can't because it's too big. It doesn't slide under the sleeve easily, and with the shiny multiplier effect of the integrated bracelet it shouts pretty loud from your wrist. That's what the ROO does, and why I don't like them. Disappointment. BUT there's a smaller one. The "unisex" 37mm model. Not in the chrono, but same case to try and here it is:
Now, I wear a 35mm dress watch quite a lot, so I'm used to smaller watches. And this 37mm RO was once upon a time the standard, I think. It's pretty good. Almost. Because somehow, maybe it's just the size inflation in modern watches, but it's not big enough. Now it's subtle under the sleeve, it feels nice enough. But it's somehow lost its manly sportiness. What I'm asking myself is whether I want the one that no longer exists: the single size of yesteryear, the 39mm they don't make any more.
They do make it in gold, though. So I tried the one they had, on a strap, but I think the point is made:
That's the size! Apart from the strap's being too tight, it was perfect. Also, I might be swaying to the blue dial having seen this. It's pleasingly warm and loses none of the texture. I'm told it's the colour of the original RO too. So this, in steel, on a bracelet? Now only available used? But for about $12k. That's cheaper than a new Daytona. Actually, it's about the same as a nearly-new Daytona. I have learned something new here. I know the size that looks and feels right, and it's not what I expected. And I know that I no longer automatically want a Daytona if and when I look for a watch in this category - and there's a choice for the same price.
(Travel safe, Nuke!)
Mimo, AP still makes a 39mm RO, its the ultra-thin 15202 Jumbo. Its production is far more limited than that of the 41mm 15400 and from what I have heard, you rarely see them at AD's. AP is sending most of their Jumbo production to the AP boutiques. In addition, I prefer the dial of the Jumbo as it has the smaller original size Clous de Paris. Its size allows it to straddle that fine line of being able to look great with jeans but elegant enough for a suit and tie. I find the 15400 is now a bit more sports watch oriented (although it still will work with a suit), and looks a tad less dressy in the new size, unless you are built like a line backer in the NFL. Also, if one is choosing a blue dial, its important to note that the RO Jumbo 15202, the RO 15400, and RO Chronograph all use a different shade of blue for their dials.
I like the RO Chronograph, its a great sports watch. It shares the same base movement as the Overseas (F.Piget 1185), but I prefer it to the Overseas Chrono. I find it a bit more understated, especially when both are on bracelets. The current Overseas bracelet is a bit too blingy for my taste with the Maltese Cross shape flowing through the bracelet design.
In the end the fit and finish are simply superb no matter which model one is viewing. I've said it before but its worth repeating, IMHO its a watch where you can really see why it costs what it does.
^^ Thanks, Dino!
Not on your wallet...
Oh, and I forgot to mention: despite its ground-breaking case construction and sporty demeanour, it's water resistant to 30m. So don't drop it in your mimosa. :)
OHHHHHH DAMN. one day....one day i'll have to share a story on a datograph that was available to me. VERY strange/awkward/hilarious story.
this. and thanks for your reply to my question.
dino - great post, i enjoyed reading that and i hope to do a run down of my watches like that.
i agree 100% that considering resale is a very fine thing when making a purchase, i know i do. much in part because of what derek says, that if i want to flip/sell to buy something else, i want to be moving up, not down, and i really dont want to take a bath. did that once and it was not pleasant. and strong resale helps me in that way. but i think many people dont care, and i think thats fine too, assuming they dont need to care.
Got me thinking about favourite makers. That's Dino's favourite done, and his other favourite Vacheron Constantin I didn't get to as it's elsewhere. I did go to Frilly's favourite Patek Philippe, but didn't do anything. They didn't have a Nautilus, that I wanted to see in person and compare to the RO. And there was literally nothing there that I would want. Not because it wasn't nice, but because their selection was composed mostly of gold, and their only platinum piece I didn't like (a particular Gondolo). What's more, all the good stuff is only what Frilly shows us on his wrist every week. So I didn't bother. Oh. I did laugh at the salesman for having a "Guess" fashion watch. He took it in good heart.
So, onto a real TWAT favourite, and following on from what Nuke said this evening:
Tyre-Kicker's Diary: Jaeger LeCoultre [Sponsored by "In Stitches"] (Click to show)
There are some JLCs I like the look of. The Master Home Time, the Master Reserve, the Geographic (especially the platinum one with the flip cover on the case back), and several more. Maybe the most obvious would be the MUT Moon, which is beautiful in person, but the simple date annoys me. Also the Grand Ultra Thin. But the latter was a disappointment to me: perhaps if it had something going on on that huge dial in terms of texture. Perhaps if the hands were blued or the hour markers were interesting (they look a tiny bit like a Seamaster's, but flat). Perhaps a lot of things, but in the flesh, I didn't love it. It needs more personality, and as Nuke said, some JLCs are just boring. What I've found is that there are a lot I like, but I struggle to love one. Make the GUT a mm or two smaller, blue just the hand on the seconds subdial...give the dial some tone or texture. And I'll love it, maybe.
There are two that I find very lovable. The Duometre, which is usually gold and I didn't take a closer look. And the Reverso. With the Reverso, I have an issue though: I like the quintessential solid caseback for its original purpose, of protecting the watch when turned. It's also a nice idea to engrave for a family heirloom or similar. But in general, it's a dress watch, which means I'm generally liking stick markers, and a bit of interest on the dial. Enter the Grande Taille or "big size". Lovely guilloche, traditional style, small seconds that I love, and blued hands. Perfect. Except that the "big size" isn't, really. Bigger than the original, bigger than the girls' one. But smaller than the others. I put it on, and it just wasn't right. I was so disappointed I didn't even take a pic. Stitchy mentioned this before. As we're about the same size, I should have listened to him: I just figured as a Squadra and Panerai owner he liked big watches. But Stitchy spoke truth: the "Grande Taille" is a little modest.
But there are dozens of Reversos, and two that I like. Basically, we're into the 1931:
I absolutely loved the way this sat against my wrist. OK, the Arabic numbers wouldn't have been my choice, but given the style they actually look pretty good. The blued hands and guilloche are lovely. I really, really liked this watch when I didn't expect to. I kind of expected then to like its slender and evil twin, and I did:
Isn't that lovely? They're pretty hard to choose between. There's also the Rouge, although I didn't bother with that. I know it would lose out to the others in a head to head for wearability, and I have another red-dialed plan at some point anyway. So it's between the neat, clean, stick markers and slimness on the cool black dial. And the rich guilloche, blued hands and satisfying wrist presence of its sister. Maybe one of each for day and night? After all, should they really be separated?
And talking of day and night, a couple of other sisters came to visit....
Not that either of those are for me. It has to be the solid caseback I think, unless it's something really unusual. But I've learned a good lesson from having these in hand: the one I wanted, isn't the one I actually want. That's the 1931. Or two. I have some time to think about it...
In the mean time, a brief interlude, dedicated to "Fanboi" Stitchy: