Originally Posted by Newcomer
Has anyone had a chance to read the article on Hodinkee yesterday?
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 haven't had a chance to read it but I plan to when I get a bit of time.
Originally Posted by suaviter
Great article ... after this thread with our friend dino and TC's showcasing I have serious Royal Oak fever.
Once you catch RO fever...there is no cure. The best you can hope for is a prescription from the doctor to explain to your wife/significant other why you need a RO!
Originally Posted by HRoi
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
Only the top/cap is hexagonal. Personally, I think its a nice finishing touch, but not that practical on the chrono pushers. I find them a bit slick and a pain to grasp to unscrew. The "teethed" screw down pushers on Daytonas, Overseas and other watches are easier to screw/unscrew.
Originally Posted by in stitches
great read, gorgeous watch, but for me, the simple 3 handed RO is the watch to have. :swoon:
also, thoughts on the 15202?
Originally Posted by robw
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.
Personally, I think its a beautiful watch. The finish greatly exceeds that of what you will get with a current Rolex Daytona. There simply is no comparison. As for the price...well you have to remember you are now dealing with a boat load of gold. Keep in mind a new SS Daytona is under $14,000 ...but in rose its $40,000. As for the AP in steel its about $24,000. So what you are really seeing is prices escalating by about $30K on each watch. In the mid 1990s a steel Daytona was about $4,000 and in gold it was $17,000. In the late 90s a RO chrono listed for $12,500 and in gold it was about $25,000...but you could get bigger discounts on the APs. Fast forward to huge price increase both because watch companies decided they could (even on steel models) and the huge jump in the price of gold in recent years and you now have gold watches that sell for crazy money. Even a basic Calatrava was a $9,500 watch (before huge discounts in the late 1990s you could buy new from ADs for about $6K)...now they are hovering around $30K.
I'm not sure which model you are comparing to a Patek. Patek does some great movements...and maybe its blasphemy, but the 5980 is a hideous watch. Lumpy, and lacking the beauty, and svelte lines of the 5711 and original 3700, and a goofy subdial within a subdial that I find tough to read...oh and in RG I believe its list price was about $80K...so you pay another $25K for its inhouse movement. I'll gladly compare a 5711 to a 15202 Jumbo both in steel, because that is fair in terms of function, metal, and price...but if you want to talk chrono versions of each...the finish is fantastic on both, you don't get an inhouse movement on the RO Chrono (but its a lot less expensive) and its a far better looking chronograph.
As an owner of a RO Jumbo (not a chrono) and an owner of a few Daytonas...I think each is a fantastic watch, with its own merits and its own fan base. Also don't forget, Rolex only has only had an inhouse movement since 2000, prior to that it used a heavily modified El Primero and prior to that a Valjoux 72. So back when they started, none of them used an inhouse movement. Beyond that...check the prices of the Rolex's without inhouse movements and you will find they often exceed those of the current models in the second hand market. In house movements are nice, but they only have so much value in the real world. I own and in house movement Daytona and a El Primero based Daytona and each are really nice...but I favor the old model over the new. I consider myself lucky to own examples from each brand. However, the quality of the RO greatly exceeds what you will find in a Daytona and I can see a premium for them over the current Daytona...but YMMV.
Below is mid 90s Daytona Here is a newer model from just after I purchased it.
Originally Posted by qubed
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?
Gold is insanely soft. It shows hairlines from dress shirts in just a few days. I have a SS RO that I've worn as a daily wearer for 16 months and because I'm careful with it it still looks like new.
Originally Posted by mimo
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.
I think there is room in a collection for ROs of different sizes. When shopping for ROs I considered 15300, the 15400, and the 39mm and 41mm chrono. As far as time only pieces....I favor the Jumbo. Its a classic based on the original specs. Everything about it is exceptional, and I greatly prefer the 2 hands, dark date wheel, dial, and the classic 2121 movement. I just felt for a time only, the 41 was nice...but the proportions seemed a bit off to me, at least on my wrist. While the chrono, I prefer in the 41. The subdials fill out the size better, it takes on a sportier feel than the 39 version. I always liked the 39 chrono, but something about it didn't work for me. I think the 41 Chrono would be my next choice for an AP if I were to ever choose a second RO.
Originally Posted by HRoi
yes sir, and thank you. it is a happy new year for me and between this and the JLC i think i am done for awhile.
Stunning!!! Congrats and enjoy that beauty in good health! Way to ring in the New Year!!!