# Am I the only one that doesn't like AP Royal Oak?



## PrisonEscapementWheel (Dec 26, 2018)

Am I the only one that doesn't like the Royal Oak range? Its this combination of tank-tread bracelet, octagonal bezel and _bezel screws. _What possible reason could there be for bezel screws? They also do a lot of skeletons and I think that's a fad that refused to die decades ago.

That being said the movements are fine. And they really have some very, very nice dials. But the rest of the watch is just unsightly.

Code 11.59? Great. Jules Audemars? Those look fine. But the RO? No thank you. I'd rather wear this ghastly thing


----------



## major75 (May 21, 2015)

Lol I thought I was one of the very few that didn't like it.
Unpopular opinion but it doesn't do anything for me. I actually don't like the integrated bracelet either.
I think the dials are the only part i like yet i can not deny the craftsmanship, fit and finish.
Overall I think the Ap RO is quite ugly...


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

Yep u guys are the only two I know , and that’s ok.
Cheers 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VanAdian (Apr 11, 2018)

No, you are not, and I suspect there are many more; too afraid to incur the wrath of the horological "puritanists". 
I for one do not care for an RO either; and will even go you one better - I don't much like a nautilus either.


----------



## Igor01 (Jul 28, 2013)

Hated the RO look for years until one day I tried a 15400 on and immediately knew I had to have it. But yeah, I can see how RO dramaticly industrial lines can be offputing. I will say this though - the watch not only looks sharp on the wrist but also wears super comfy, only the rubber straps offer better comfort.


----------



## RCooper993 (Jul 23, 2018)

I wasn't a fan until I found the one that spoke to me. 

The bracelet is a thing of beauty and the dial's construction is amazing.

Go try a few on and then you may find your way.

RC


----------



## whatsarolex (Nov 23, 2017)

You're not. I've tried several references and shrug each time they're on my wrist. I find the RO dated and too expensive to maintain/repair _for what it is_. Overall, I believe AP is the weakest of the holy trinity. They got lucky with a Genta design, changing the definition of luxury watches, helping save the Swiss watch industry, and I applauded them for that. However, they are a one trick pony.


----------



## mlcor (Oct 21, 2013)

I liked the APRO for a while, then decided I disliked it, then decided I liked it after all and bought a black dialed 15400. It can be polarizing, and IMO no one should be lambasted for either liking it or disliking it.

Furthermore, I'm with VanAdian, don't like the Nautilus, never have, don't think I ever will. YMMV.


----------



## EnderW (Mar 16, 2015)

I think the look is not universally loved, but construction of the case and bracelet is top notch.
Bracelet on RO is probably the most comfortable I've tried from across dozens of brands\sports watches
And while the screws (nuts) in the bezel were weird at first, they grow on you stylistically. They actually allow for a very cool case construction w screws\nuts going all throughout from caseback to bezel, and I like how the whole thing comes together


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

mlcor said:


> I liked the APRO for a while, then decided I disliked it, then decided I liked it after all and bought a black dialed 15400. It can be polarizing, and IMO no one should be lambasted for either liking it or disliking it.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm with VanAdian, don't like the Nautilus, never have, don't think I ever will. YMMV.


Mix feelings as well but for different reasons:

Well it's always a mix feelings for me between how they look in pics vs joy/lack of joy when you wear them. After owing all kind of watches , I decided to not have a RO or Nautilus, and I don't have any right now with no plans to buy neither as well. My reasons are not because I don't like them , my reason is that I buy watches for joy. In other words every time I had a RO or a Nautilus I couldn't enjoy them , their bezel is so delicate that it wasn't fun at all. And to wear them with this " wrist awareness" all the time no way ; Didn't make sense to me , to expend all that money to live with a watch that you have to limit their wear and be worried when you do. But yeah in pics they are awesome, specially the RO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gangrel (Jun 25, 2015)

I like the RO; I don't love it, tho. Prefer more dial, less bezel. Probably not in my top 5 in this range, but the right size...right dial color...I wouldn't mind.


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

Many people don't like the RO. Most don't feel the need to start threads about it, though. 

I didn't like it much either, until I tried one on. The look isn't for everyone, but it's hard to argue with the quality, fit, and finish of the thing.


----------



## djcoronel (Mar 31, 2018)

i, too, dislike the royal oak. ghastly!


----------



## Iron swan (Jun 12, 2018)

You’re not alone, I find them extremely boring & unattractive. 

About the only thing I like is how thin they are.


----------



## whatsarolex (Nov 23, 2017)

Iron swan said:


> About the only thing I like is how thin they are.


One of the reasons why the movement is fragile.


----------



## Leonine (Mar 27, 2012)

Ugly little things.


----------



## regulateurBear (Sep 1, 2018)

pas pour moi.....


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Royal Oak bashing?

I cannot participate but my 15202 says hi.

Happy Sunday!


----------



## major75 (May 21, 2015)

TedPhatana said:


> Royal Oak bashing?
> 
> I cannot participate but my 15202 says hi.
> 
> Happy Sunday!


Haha Bashing. Not even close. I will always have respect for RO for importance and the part it played for the mechanical watches but just not pleasing to my eyes.

Wear it in good health. The dial looks awesome still.


----------



## BT1985 (Jan 8, 2019)

I used to hate it. Recently decided I love it. The new Jumbo with salmon dial wants desperately to be on my wrist....










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

BT1985 said:


> I used to hate it. Recently decided I love it. The new Jumbo with salmon dial wants desperately to be on my wrist....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, the deceptively heavy and expensive one in white gold.


----------



## BT1985 (Jan 8, 2019)

TedPhatana said:


> Oh, the deceptively heavy and expensive one in white gold.


That's the one. I never said it would end up on my wrist....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Sure as heck is not going to end up on mine. Well, unless a generous person gifts it to me. Wouldn't that be a nice gesture? Throw in a the new VC Overseas Ultra Thin Perpetual in rose gold on the gold bracelet, drool......



BT1985 said:


> That's the one. I never said it would end up on my wrist....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RPF (Feb 28, 2008)

PrisonEscapementWheel said:


> Its this combination of tank-tread bracelet, octagonal bezel and _bezel screws. _What possible reason could there be for bezel screws?


If you notice, the "screws" are flushed hexagons. They cannot turn, despite the flat screwhead profile. The "screws" are actually fixed bolts. The "nuts" are on the underside, but they also look like screws, except they are circular for a change.









The screw slot on the bezel are merely decorative. It accentuates the octagon.


----------



## regulateurBear (Sep 1, 2018)

for me it's rather simple....RO is a design rather than a horological issue....now for me, as someone that loves watches, the emphasis is watchmaking rather than dial or case look, I don't see a reason to pay such premiums that AP allows itself to ask just because a watch has an octagonal bezel and a tapisserie dial, it's simply not enough...it's not that I do not like it, it's just that what I get for my buck, it's simply not enough....
when on their entry steel time/date model you need to say good-bye for nearly 20K, I do not think getting an octagon case and special dial are sufficient...period...


----------



## cinealta (Dec 20, 2013)

I too am not fond of the design elements.


----------



## Stockegsix (Feb 27, 2013)

I never cared for them as well in the beginning until I saw one in the flesh. Then went back a few days later and purchased it.


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

Love them or hate them - they were a massive factor in saving the non precious metal, swiss sports watch industry, when quartz was all the rage. 

From all the fanatical collectors of mechanical wrist watches - we thank you Gerald Genta and the Royal Oak.

PS - I really like the RO but the ROO leaves me cold.


----------



## major75 (May 21, 2015)

I find it absolutely hilarious that Gerald Genta didn't even like watches or wear them. Haha, the irony.

A quote from one of his interviews in 2009 “I don’t like watches! For me, watches are the antithesis of liberty. I am an artist, a painter; I hate having to adhere to the constraints of time. It irritates me.”


----------



## Jsf721 (Oct 10, 2014)

I love tbe royal oak offshore in rose gold. I just cannot justify a purchase. 

Guy i coached little league with wore one. For my 40 birthday my wife asked what I wanted. I obviously had no idea what it was at the time. I said. Get me Scott’s watch. It’s got a rubber band. Should not be too expense. Wrong !

Would love to but won’t ! So now I admire from afar when I see one.


----------



## slcbbrown (Nov 12, 2009)

I've never been a fan-- just a taste thing.


----------



## steeevvvooo (Oct 18, 2018)

This arrived yesterday. I wasn't initially a fan but a couple of friends have them and they have really grown on me. As a luxury sports watch they are hard to beat, although certainly more luxury than sports.









Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

steeevvvooo said:


> This arrived yesterday. I wasn't initially a fan but a couple of friends have them and they have really grown on me. As a luxury sports watch they are hard to beat, although certainly more luxury than sports.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow - now that's an Offshore I actually like!


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

GETS said:


> Wow - now that's an Offshore I actually like!


No that's not an offshore is actually AP new ROC

This is an offshore , mine



















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steeevvvooo (Oct 18, 2018)

heuerolexomega said:


> No that's not an offshore is actually AP new ROC
> 
> This is an offshore , mine
> 
> ...


Correct. Ref 26331. Nice offshore you have there too

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## GETS (Dec 8, 2011)

heuerolexomega said:


> No that's not an offshore is actually AP new ROC


Thanks,

I pay no attention to the AP range as I only really like the Royal Oak and have never really liked their other watches!

I'm now a fan of the ROC!!!


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

steeevvvooo said:


> Correct. Ref 26331. Nice offshore you have there too
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Thanks my friend , and your panda is 41mm (now that I see the reference number) not the new 38mm just debuted in SIHH last January, I thought wow you got it fast , but I don't think they will be available until May or something like that in the US. Love that beautiful blue panda of yours, though 
I am on the list for the 38mm but don't think I can buy it , no funds , I saw this and couldn't resist 












GETS said:


> Thanks,
> 
> I pay no attention to the AP range as I only really like the Royal Oak and have never really liked their other watches!
> 
> I'm now a fan of the ROC!!!


Don't blame you , their new line code 11.59 is controversial at best. Maybe next year they get it right

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steeevvvooo (Oct 18, 2018)

heuerolexomega said:


> Thanks my friend , and your panda is 41mm (now that I see the reference number) not the new 38mm just debuted in SIHH last January, I thought wow you got it fast , but I don't think they will be available until May or something like that in the US. Love that beautiful blue panda of yours, though
> I am on the list for the 38mm but don't think I can buy it , no funds , I saw this and couldn't resist
> 
> 
> ...


I usually lean towards white gold for precious metals but that looks really amazing

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

steeevvvooo said:


> I usually lean towards white gold for precious metals but that looks really amazing
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


Thanks mate I like both, this is what I have for white gold , not the classic Patek that everyone associated the brand with but I really have fun with it










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steeevvvooo (Oct 18, 2018)

heuerolexomega said:


> Thanks mate I like both, this is what I have for white gold , not the classic Patek that everyone associated the brand with but I really have fun with it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very nice. I traded a 5396r with breguet numerals for the AP plus cash my way. I found the Patek was more formal than I needed, despite it being more versatile than some other versions due to the breguet. I know I will wear the AP much more. Cash given back to me went towards this... 116509 white gold

Need to move a couple of other watches to balance the books (with the wife...) but these two will get much more wrist time than the Patek did or the couple of watches I will be selling (Glashutte original Panoreserve blue and JLC deep sea Chrono)

Patek pilot looks like a great watch though although I've never seen one in person.









Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

steeevvvooo said:


> Very nice. I traded a 5396r with breguet numerals for the AP plus cash my way. I found the Patek was more formal than I needed, despite it being more versatile than some other versions due to the breguet. I know I will wear the AP much more. Cash given back to me went towards this... 116509 white gold
> 
> Need to move a couple of other watches to balance the books (with the wife...) but these two will get much more wrist time than the Patek did or the couple of watches I will be selling (Glashutte original Panoreserve blue and JLC deep sea Chrono)
> 
> ...


You did good in getting rid off that 5396r with breguet numbers , I prefer the old version with batons in white gold actually. Patek annual calendars are not the best purchase choice at this moment. Market is all about sport watches, and by deciding that i won't be buying Nautilus, Royal oak or Aquanauts because the taking care of the bezel ( a pain ) then the choices become very limited.

Love the Daytona as well , mine is in stainless steel though










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Carl.1 (Mar 27, 2006)

Ugly things. Much like Hublot in the ugly world.


----------



## Freshpow78 (Feb 11, 2019)

I owned a 15400 for a few years. It didn't take me long to realize that it wore way to large for my liking, as well as being way too blingy for my liking. Not only that, the bracelet was way to much of a scratch magnet and, especially for a "sport" watch, I felt like I had to baby it way too much.


----------



## thetony007 (Jul 4, 2018)

TBH, I'm not a super fan but it's alright.
However, those offshores are just terrible for me;; again, matter of personal taste but that watch has just become too hollywood like.


----------



## Contaygious (May 9, 2014)

Prefer their futuristic ones like John mayor has. Or octo watch.


----------



## bobernet (May 16, 2015)

Many years ago, I didn't like them. Seeing and trying in person planted a seed that eventually matured. Now I'm a big fan.


----------



## 14060 (Nov 27, 2010)

It depends on the reference. I'm not a big fan of the Offshore.


----------



## oztech (Apr 30, 2015)

Over the years I have warmed up to everything about them but cost with that said don't believe i will ever have one.


----------



## 3leggedpony (Oct 11, 2013)

No burning desire for one like I do for some of the other hard to source watches. Prefer it to the PP Nautilus though which does nothing for me.


----------



## ZisguyZaphod (Feb 20, 2019)

I can understand the praises they get. The quality and execution are there. They RO's are nice. But are they $20-30,000 nice? Wellll..............


----------



## Dragonspridenyc (Apr 22, 2019)

I love it, it’s one of my favorites. Especially the bracelet imo makes a statement 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zyxheart (Apr 19, 2019)

I had no interest in this model until I saw 15407st. Still ROO are not for me


----------



## SuperOrbital (Sep 21, 2017)

Don’t understand the fascination with this entire model line. Something like the 15400ST is more palatable, but the design overall (especially the bezel hardware) is just garish and rude.


----------



## m0c021 (Feb 17, 2014)

Have you seen it in the flesh? I hated it in photos but found it a beauty in person. I wrote it off and only even saw it because the AD had all the top brands there. Now I have one.


----------



## restorer2001 (Jul 30, 2018)

I agree, I try to make myself like it but I’m the end the thing is just to odd looking for me to buy. I’m not sure what it is but it’s not an attractive piece in my eyes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dmb359 (Apr 8, 2015)

There's lots of people that don't like every watch, and prefer something else...thats why so many different companies and designs can be successful. 

Nobody should need to be convinced to like a watch, just like what you like, and who cares what anyone else thinks.

I personally love the case shape, bezel screws, bracelet, etc of the RO.


----------



## andycoph (Apr 6, 2011)

I am actually looking to get one for my collection in the future.


----------



## Emcphers (Sep 17, 2017)

When I first saw them I really disliked them. They've since grown on me and a do really like the bracelet style but I don't think I'd ever want to own one. Tastes do change over time though.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## andycoph (Apr 6, 2011)

Emcphers said:


> When I first saw them I really disliked them. They've since grown on me and a do really like the bracelet style but I don't think I'd ever want to own one. Tastes do change over time though.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


The bracelet is very well built and comfortable, try out one in an AD. Maybe if the price is 1/3 I would have bought one already. haha!


----------



## 3leggedpony (Oct 11, 2013)

I have come close so many times to pulling the trigger on a blue dial version but I just can’t seem to convince myself to spend that much on a watch that has a bracelet without a microadjust feature. It is too much to spend if there’s a risk it will be uncomfortable and I know from experience my wrist swells and shrinks all day long in the summer. 
The new overseas has a similar style integrated bracelet that has a microadjust feature so it is entirely possible to implement without changing the look


----------



## lakjat (Mar 16, 2014)

Not my ideal high end watch. i saw the AP royal oak in the flesh... on someone's wrist actually. Never saw it in the ADs. I could recognize it instantly... Was'nt too impressed though... May be it has to grow on you... 
But why should such an exclusive watch grow on you ?... it should instantly appeal to you....!!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## matthew P (Aug 1, 2013)

Was never a fan until I handled one in a boutique..... the bracelet is pure sex.

I used to really like the APRO but I’m loving the redesign and if I ever have the opportunity it’s a watch I would love to own. 


•• sent by two turn tables and a microphone ••


----------



## IGotId (Feb 14, 2012)

I love the RO, I only sold mine as I was afraid of scratching the bezel!


----------



## BostonWatcher (Jun 28, 2012)

lakjat said:


> Not my ideal high end watch. i saw the AP royal oak in the flesh... on someone's wrist actually. Never saw it in the ADs. I could recognize it instantly... Was'nt too impressed though... May be it has to grow on you...
> But why should such an exclusive watch grow on you ?... it should instantly appeal to you....!!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Most of the watches that I like the best have grown on me over time as my taste evolves, so no, one does not necessarily need to love it immediately.

The Speedy Pro, AP RO and others, to me, when I was starting out in this hobby, did not appeal to me, but now, after many years, they do because I've learned what really great watches require regarding finishing, movement decoration and fine tolerances of manufacture that make them worth what they cost.

Not everyone wants to or can appreciate the subtleties required to differentiate fine items of any category, I see it in my business all the time, but mostly, I see those that suggest things are not worth it among those that can't tell the difference, and that's OK, the best things are not targeted to everyone, that's why they are luxury items.

I don't own an AP RO, but I sure as heck would if I could afford one. Pic on my wrist of an 15400.


----------



## lakjat (Mar 16, 2014)

wschofield3 said:


> Most of the watches that I like the best have grown on me over time as my taste evolves, so no, one does not necessarily need to love it immediately.
> 
> The Speedy Pro, AP RO and others, to me, when I was starting out in this hobby, did not appeal to me, but now, after many years, they do because I've learned what really great watches require regarding finishing, movement decoration and fine tolerances of manufacture that make them worth what they cost.
> 
> ...


Agree. I was not a big fan of the Monaco until recently.... But i got one after I really felt I should own one......BTW, your wrist shot is v nice.....

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## HRC-E.B. (Dec 18, 2012)

The RO was not something I really liked or understood when I started in this hobby. With time, and as tastes evolve as mentioned above, and as I had the opportunity to handle a few in the metal, it has become an object of desire for me.

However, that doesn't mean I'll eventually buy one, as first of all it is very expensive and, second, one of its weakest points is that I don't believe this is a watch that stands up to normal wear and tear very well. By that I mean that if some watches maintain their appeal as they gather signs of use (most sports Rolex models, for example, age well and gain a sort of character as they age and gain a patina), one of the primary appeals of the RO is its exquisite finishing, different fine surface treatments, sharp angles, etc. These getting dulled by scratches and dings that inevitably happen after enough normal wear kind of disfigure it, which isn't the case for something not as angular or with such fine surface treatments. That would be my main hesitation in spending so much money on one.

If I could afford to own one and only wear it on special occasions in "safe" settings, then things would be different.

That said, I think this is still an extraordinary design, the one that all of the others (Patek Nautilus, the RO Offshores, any Hublot) were intended to replicate while not copying, a feat no other watch ever really achieved.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

Hard for me to say, as I've never had the opportunity to see one in the metal. Unfortunately, I came to the hobby about a year too late, and by the time I was ready to appreciate the higher end of the horology scale, they were not to be found anywhere. And now? With the 15400 discontinued and the 15500 on a slow boat, it's probably going to be years before I have a chance to see either. 

Having said that, I have mixed feelings about the RO. I really like the tapisserie dial, especially in ruthenium grey, but not a fan of the handset or indices. (Much prefer both on the newer 15500.) The bracelet seems nice in pictures, but I'm not sold on the case design, which is a bit more angular than generally care for. 

And at the risk of sounding like a complete turd, I'm not sure how I feel about the association AP has cultivated with ballers and rappers. I mean, that *shouldn't* factor into things, and I realize I sound like an utter hypocrite for wearing Rolex given the reputation associated with the brand, but whereas I'm okay with Rolex being the "middle class aspirational watch," AP seems to be the watch of choice for the "nouveau riche," with some really hard-on-the-eyes, tricked out, pave diamond, in-your-face, et al designs that make the Leopardtona look utterly sublime. 

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## UberDave (Jan 13, 2015)

3leggedpony said:


> I have come close so many times to pulling the trigger on a blue dial version [...]


Do you have some secret connection which would enable you to purchase a blue dialed RO whenever the fancy strikes? AP boutiques keep telling me I'll have to wait a long time.


----------



## GrouchoM (Jul 11, 2013)

Alysandir said:


> And at the risk of sounding like a complete turd, I'm not sure how I feel about the association AP has cultivated with ballers and rappers. I mean, that *shouldn't* factor into things, and I realize I sound like an utter hypocrite for wearing Rolex given the reputation associated with the brand, but whereas I'm okay with Rolex being the "middle class aspirational watch," AP seems to be the watch of choice for the "nouveau riche," with some really hard-on-the-eyes, tricked out, pave diamond, in-your-face, et al designs that make the Leopardtona look utterly sublime.
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


I thought that was Hublot?:think:


----------



## 3leggedpony (Oct 11, 2013)

UberDave said:


> 3leggedpony said:
> 
> 
> > I have come close so many times to pulling the trigger on a blue dial version [...]
> ...


Ha, no I have looked at pre-owned


----------



## WatchCavalry (May 2, 2019)

i never like the design of it initially, especially the grande tapisserie dial. But it grew on me over time as I went around researching about the history of the top 3 watches. And now i'm waiting for the delivery of my first AP!

I always though, why would people want waffles on their wrists that cost 5 figures?

It'll be great if their bracelets have micro adjustments for hot days though. I see it in the Rolex and VC bracelets so I'm not too sure about the comfort on the wrist of the AP on hot days


----------



## ehan87 (Jan 13, 2019)

I never liked the design of APRO other than the fact that it was designed by Gerald Genta until very recently. When I tried 15450 on my wrist for the first time, it started growing on me and planning to get on in the foreseeable future.


----------



## GrussGott (Nov 15, 2012)

The AP RO was ok 10 years ago, but just like Rolex subs, it's a pretty played out design.

Some luxe designers like LV can get away with the same look year after year, but even Porsche evolves the design ... I guess AP has done that, but, eh, played out, and the code 1159??? It's like their designers are 80 years old - no steel sports??? what were they thinking?


----------



## gary4421944 (May 7, 2019)

I have never been a fan of the Royal Oak line either....it seems way overdone to me.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

I’m not a fan of agents designed watches period.


----------



## Gunnar_917 (Feb 24, 2015)

I’m not a fan of agents designed watches period.


----------



## watchintime (Jun 8, 2019)

AP Royal Oak has it's place in the watchmaking world imo. They have some fantastic offerings. The offshore though -- is the flashy in your face ugly cousin. It's the pro athlete 'look at my cash' watch of choice. Again, just an opinion


----------



## euro-rs (Aug 23, 2014)

Jorge - add me as person #3. AP watches have always looked 20 years behind the time. I travel the world and have perhaps seen 2 of them ever worn -- including places such as Cannes, Zurich, Barcelona, London, etc. Their 1970's watch designs are simply not beautiful. I have tried to like AP -- but have bought Patek and Breguet every time.


----------



## Cayenne06 (Aug 16, 2018)

Never been a fan. I could warmup to the Code 11:59 though........


----------



## WatchCavalry (May 2, 2019)

Cayenne06 said:


> Never been a fan. I could warmup to the Code 11:59 though........


You should really get your hands on the code 11:59. The side profile is really interesting with the domed crystal. The photos online don't do it justice. I played around with it when I placed the order for the RO and was actually tempted for a while. hahaha


----------



## WatchCavalry (May 2, 2019)

Cayenne06 said:


> Never been a fan. I could warmup to the Code 11:59 though........


You should really get your hands on the code 11:59. The side profile is really interesting with the domed crystal. The photos online don't do it justice. I played around with it when I placed the order for the RO and was actually tempted for a while. hahaha


----------



## WatchEater666 (May 27, 2019)

Can't get into the aesthetic yet strangely don't mind the nautilus.


----------



## Azizu (May 4, 2018)

don't like is a tough word, it is a beautiful watch with proven track record of more than 40 years.
however, there are alternatives to the RO that are more attainable out there.
the VC overseas is a real contender...


----------



## jpoehler (Jan 26, 2019)

I’m sure your not the only one, but why? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tycdavd (Oct 16, 2018)

RO 15400 is my holy grail. Also cannot stop purchasing other RO inspired watches like Jeanrichard Terrascope and Eterna Royal Kontiki. Though really do not like PP Nautilus.


----------



## Ranger822 (Feb 9, 2013)

Considered the RO Jumbo - but after comparing to the Nautilus, there just wasn't a great reason to consider the RO any further.


----------



## ndrs63 (Dec 30, 2017)

VanAdian said:


> No, you are not, and I suspect there are many more; too afraid to incur the wrath of the horological "puritanists".
> I for one do not care for an RO either; and will even go you one better - I don't much like a nautilus either.


I commend your courage!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ndrs63 (Dec 30, 2017)

Igor01 said:


> Hated the RO look for years until one day I tried a 15400 on and immediately knew I had to have it. But yeah, I can see how RO dramaticly industrial lines can be offputing. I will say this though - the watch not only looks sharp on the wrist but also wears super comfy, only the rubber straps offer better comfort.


Was certainly an acquired taste for me as well

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## V25V (Jun 14, 2018)

Royal Oak is great but think AP missed the mark with going 41mm.


----------



## elmydog (Oct 13, 2019)

I don't either. Too many better watches out there IMO


----------



## kryzdabr (Nov 5, 2019)

Personally I love the RO, but I will say I have heard mixed reviews. I think the design has stuck to close to the original for a lot of people and given they first started production of the RO in 1972 it is understandable that the design may feel outdated and in the end every person has their own personal opinion. 

You're free to like and dislike any watch and for sure nothing wrong with not going with the crowds if it doesn't do anything for you.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

Alysandir said:


> Hard for me to say, as I've never had the opportunity to see one in the metal. Unfortunately, I came to the hobby about a year too late, and by the time I was ready to appreciate the higher end of the horology scale, they were not to be found anywhere. And now? With the 15400 discontinued and the 15500 on a slow boat, it's probably going to be years before I have a chance to see either.
> 
> Having said that, I have mixed feelings about the RO. I really like the tapisserie dial, especially in ruthenium grey, but not a fan of the handset or indices. (Much prefer both on the newer 15500.) The bracelet seems nice in pictures, but I'm not sold on the case design, which is a bit more angular than generally care for.
> 
> ...


Reading my response now is pretty funny, given that I ended up acquiring one three months later. I guess I talked myself into the fact that rappers and ballers wear the blinged out versions or the much chunkier ROO versions. LOL

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Funny that Royal Oak started of as a single watch and then turned into, kind of multiple sub segments, within itself. Many so called purists will always opt for the 15202 with the JLC thin movement, and thinness and elegantness, but overall, if you want the general look of it, most "oak" iterations will do. Offshore, albeit huge, stills has the notorious octagonal bezel, albeit usually sans bracelet. 15400/15500 ticks most of the boxes sans the thinness and coveted movement of the 15202.

Sometimes I miss the 15400, sometimes I miss the 15202. I don't miss the fragility of the 15202, I hope AP, or even JLC, can make the movement as slim, if not slimmer than it is in its current iteration, but substantially more robust than it currently is. I wouldn't even adjust the time for fear of issues with the crown, I would just see what time it stopped at and wear it from there.

May buy the 15202 again someday cause it's so close to the first luxury sports watch, don't know.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

TedPhatana said:


> Funny that Royal Oak started of as a single watch and then turned into, kind of multiple sub segments, within itself. Many so called purists will always opt for the 15202 with the JLC thin movement, and thinness and elegantness, but overall, if you want the general look of it, most "oak" iterations will do. Offshore, albeit huge, stills has the notorious octagonal bezel, albeit usually sans bracelet. 15400/15500 ticks most of the boxes sans the thinness and coveted movement of the 15202.
> 
> Sometimes I miss the 15400, sometimes I miss the 15202. I don't miss the fragility of the 15202, I hope AP, or even JLC, can make the movement as slim, if not slimmer than it is in its current iteration, but substantially more robust than it currently is. I wouldn't even adjust the time for fear of issues with the crown, I would just see what time it stopped at and wear it from there.
> 
> May buy the 15202 again someday cause it's so close to the first luxury sports watch, don't know.


Great post . . . I miss the 15202 sometimes but my 15450 (with a better fit on my small wrist) tempers that sentiment so as it passes quickly. Agree whole heartedly with the fragile nature of the crown/setting mech of the 15202, though in fairness I wouldn't mind if AP somehow could robust the 15450 gearing/crown a bit.


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Thank you.

I guess the 15202 was "Jumbo" (pun intended) on you as the original Royal Oak sentiment goes. There is a supposed backward trend to "reasonable" sized watches now. Not sure how that fairs for IWC and Omega Seamasters above 42MM.

Either way, I guess AP will always, supposedly, have the mantle of "I was first" in the so called realm or luxury sport watches. That still means something to me, even if it cannibalized all of AP's other lines...



drhr said:


> Great post . . . I miss the 15202 sometimes but my 15450 (with a better fit on my small wrist) tempers that sentiment so as it passes quickly. Agree whole heartedly with the fragile nature of the crown/setting mech of the 15202, though in fairness I wouldn't mind if AP somehow could robust the 15450 gearing/crown a bit.


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Can I see the AP on your wrist? And what is your wrist size? Wanted to ask you before but forgot.



Alysandir said:


> Reading my response now is pretty funny, given that I ended up acquiring one three months later. I guess I talked myself into the fact that rappers and ballers wear the blinged out versions or the much chunkier ROO versions. LOL
> 
> Regards,
> Alysandir


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

TedPhatana said:


> Can I see the AP on your wrist? And what is your wrist size? Wanted to ask you before but forgot.


EDIT: Was responding to wrong post.

I'll try to get a couple photos up when I get home. I'm wearing the Globemaster today.

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## heuerolexomega (May 12, 2012)

I love my Royal Oak










To each it's own , not everyone has to like it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mpalmer (Dec 30, 2011)

I have always been impressed with the Royal Oak in the metal. Personally, I would not think it would be a polarizing design (by today’s standards anyway). The real question, is not whether it is a beautiful piece, but whether one likes it better than alternatives at the price point it plays at (no shortage of nice options here) and whether one is fine with paying the piper when it comes for the servicing costs (which can be plenty of eye opening).


----------



## pkincy (Jul 12, 2009)

I would guess you are in the minority, but you are free to like and dislike any watch you want. I have no watch that I enjoy wearing more than a 15400. It just has such great wrist presence mostly from the band and case design.


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

The Royal Oak is a weird one for me. I think they age terribly. You see a new one, and it’s gorgeous. Five years later, it looks like a beat-up pawn shop special. They just seem to collect scratches and dings, and not in an attractive “weathered” way. They remind me a lot of a 1980’s Ferrari Testarossa. You look at old publicity shots of the car, glossy and new with the lighting just right, and it looks amazing. Then you see one rattling around town present-day, looking like the owner bought it salvage title at a police auction. I dunno why the RO’s look so bad with wear. Maybe they use a softer steel for the model? I know the first prototypes were made of soft gold because it was originally too difficult to make the bracelet out of steel... Perhaps when they put the watch into production, they selected a 316 with softer heat-treat? 

I also agree with others that AP shouldn’t be in the Holy Trinity. They are mostly a sports watch company at this point. That’s what they do. And honestly, they don’t do it as well as Rolex. I don’t care if Rolex makes a thousand watches via automated factories to every one AP... The finished products are superior sports watches. Period, full stop. Now I definitely wouldn’t put Rolex in the Holy Trinity, so any marque that can’t compete with them shouldn’t be either. I’ve thought for a while that the HT should be VC, PP, ALS.


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

TedPhatana said:


> Can I see the AP on your wrist? And what is your wrist size? Wanted to ask you before but forgot.


Sorry for the delay. And sorry for the crap pictures; I'm not much of a photographer. For reference, my wrists hover between 7.75 - 8" depending on the weather; I do have one extra link inserted in the bracelet.

Wrist shot:








Size comparison between a maxi-case Rolex Sub (40mm), the APRO (41mm), and the big daddy BP (43mm).








Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

starter said:


> The Royal Oak is a weird one for me. I think they age terribly. You see a new one, and it's gorgeous. Five years later, it looks like a beat-up pawn shop special. They just seem to collect scratches and dings, and not in an attractive "weathered" way. They remind me a lot of a 1980's Ferrari Testarossa. You look at old publicity shots of the car, glossy and new with the lighting just right, and it looks amazing. Then you see one rattling around town present-day, looking like the owner bought it salvage title at a police auction. I dunno why the RO's look so bad with wear. Maybe they use a softer steel for the model? I know the first prototypes were made of soft gold because it was originally too difficult to make the bracelet out of steel... Perhaps when they put the watch into production, they selected a 316 with softer heat-treat?


I think it may have more to do with the finish. Rolex has a very satin finish (for the non-polished parts, that is), while the APRO has a brushed finish where you can still see the brush marks. If my experience is any indication, my Sub collects just as many scratches as my APRO, but they blend in with the satin finish, whereas the they stand out more on the APRO because it goes against the grain of the brush marks.



starter said:


> I also agree with others that AP shouldn't be in the Holy Trinity. They are mostly a sports watch company at this point. That's what they do. And honestly, they don't do it as well as Rolex. I don't care if Rolex makes a thousand watches via automated factories to every one AP... The finished products are superior sports watches. Period, full stop. Now I definitely wouldn't put Rolex in the Holy Trinity, so any marque that can't compete with them shouldn't be either. I've thought for a while that the HT should be VC, PP, ALS.


You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, I disagree that the APRO is a sports watch. AP commissioned Genta to create a design that could be a gentleman's only watch, a hybrid of sports and dress. So yes, the APRO has some hallmarks of a sports watch in that it is made of steel, has screwdown crown, some models having a full balance bridge, etc, but it wasn't designed to go out and climb mountains or ocean dive with, so putting it head-to-head against Rolex and saying it can't compete is like putting your sports coupe against your off-roader and claim it's terrible at negotiating deep mud. If it helps, think of it less as a sports watch and more of a tough dress watch.

As to whether AP should be in the Trinity of Swiss watchmakers because they aren't as well known for the rest of their catalog as they are for their most popular product, I would observe:

A) is it AP's fault that their most popular product continues to be well-loved FIFTY years later? I mean, AP *does* make other watches.

B) I've heard people make the same claims about VC, and I'd ask you the same as I asked those folks, "who do you replace them with?" (Hint: the answer is NOT ALS, because the Trinity has long referred to SWISS watchmakers, and ALS is, of course, German.) So what then is the argument that say, Breguet, or JLC, deserve to supplant AP in the Trinity?

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Alysandir said:


> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, I disagree that the APRO is a sports watch. AP commissioned Genta to create a design that could be a gentleman's only watch, a hybrid of sports and dress. So yes, the APRO has some hallmarks of a sports watch in that it is made of steel, has screwdown crown, some models having a full balance bridge, etc, but it wasn't designed to go out and climb mountains or ocean dive with, so putting it head-to-head against Rolex and saying it can't compete is like putting your sports coupe against your off-roader and claim it's terrible at negotiating deep mud. If it helps, think of it less as a sports watch and more of a tough dress watch.
> 
> As to whether AP should be in the Trinity of Swiss watchmakers because they aren't as well known for the rest of their catalog as they are for their most popular product, I would observe:
> 
> ...


I think you may be conflating tool watches with sports watches. Regardless of Genta's intentions, the Royal Oak is certainly a sports watch. There are only two types of wrist watch- dress and sport. Tool watches are a subset of sports watches. A sports watch may not be a tool watch, but a tool watch is always a sports watch. Rolex's Professional line are tool watches (and by extension, sports watches). The Classic line are sports watches. Aesthetic aging issues aside, the Royal Oak is a fine watch, but put it up against a Rolex, and it doesn't have much going for it, beyond exclusivity. While it's true that AP makes other watches, the majority of their lineup at this point are sports watches... And they are simply not the best sports watches made. Hence my feeling that they are not deserving of their spot in the HT.

As far as HT being Swiss-only, I've never bought into this. For starters, it's a fairly new phrase- we're not talking some trifecta of honor that was awarded hundreds of years ago by the mayor of Zurich- more like decades ago by some random WIS on an inter web forum. Secondly, Swiss-only is an arbitrary distinction. I mean, the manufacturers outside Switzerland are few and far between. Why not just say "the best three watches that aren't ALS or GS"? And since GS isn't really in contention, why not just say "the best three watches that aren't ALS"? There's no real reason why ALS can't be part of the HT. And they are certainly more deserving than AP, in my opinion. ALS is making true haute couture... and I think that's what the HT is really about, after all. Not the workaday watches these companies sell (if you can call watches at this price-point workaday, ha ha) but the super-models on the catwalk. The statement pieces that drop at Basel, intended to showcase exactly how sublime a timepiece can be when no limits on man-hours, money or reason are imposed. AP simply doesn't do that anymore- not to the extent that VC, ALS, and PP do. And PP is on thin ice as well, imho.


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Congrats!

Looks great on you.

Does it get the most attention out of your sport watches?



Alysandir said:


> Sorry for the delay. And sorry for the crap pictures; I'm not much of a photographer. For reference, my wrists hover between 7.75 - 8" depending on the weather; I do have one extra link inserted in the bracelet.
> 
> Wrist shot:
> View attachment 14723353
> ...


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

starter said:


> I think you may be conflating tool watches with sports watches. Regardless of Genta's intentions, the Royal Oak is certainly a sports watch. There are only two types of wrist watch- dress and sport. Tool watches are a subset of sports watches. A sports watch may not be a tool watch, but a tool watch is always a sports watch. Rolex's Professional line are tool watches (and by extension, sports watches). The Classic line are sports watches. Aesthetic aging issues aside, the Royal Oak is a fine watch, but put it up against a Rolex, and it doesn't have much going for it, beyond exclusivity. While it's true that AP makes other watches, the majority of their lineup at this point are sports watches... And they are simply not the best sports watches made. Hence my feeling that they are not deserving of their spot in the HT.


Tell me, what is a JLC Perpetual Calendar? Steel; 40mm; grand complication. Clearly that's not the criteria of a dress watch - too big; not precious metal; too many complications - yet no one would reasonably suggest that this is a sports watch. Same could be said of the very limited Lange 1 that ALS produced cased in steel; I mean, ALS doesn't (err, didn't) make sports watches, so something's clearly out of joint! So now, if I present you with a watch that's 38mm, less than 8.5mm thick, minimal complications, and uses the ultra-thin caliber JLC 920 dress watch movement, well *now* we can safely say that this is a dress watch, right? Well no, it's the original AP Royal Oak "Jumbo."

My point to this thought exercise being, it would seem there are more than just dress watches and sports watches in this world; there is no one characteristic - such as casing in steel - that makes a watch a sports watch, any more than a solid gold Rolex Day Date is a dress watch. Hence, I feel it is somewhat of a pointless exercise to compare a sports watch (Rolex) to a hybrid dress/sports watch (APRO) and call the latter inferior when the point of the latter is not to be a sports watch, but something else entirely.

But I will say, respectfully, that I got a chuckle out of the comment, "Regardless of Genta's intentions," as if to imply that the most famous name in luxury watch design failed to accomplish what he set out to do because you believe the final product to be inferior to a Rolex.



starter said:


> As far as HT being Swiss-only, I've never bought into this. For starters, it's a fairly new phrase- we're not talking some trifecta of honor that was awarded hundreds of years ago by the mayor of Zurich- more like decades ago by some random WIS on an inter web forum. Secondly, Swiss-only is an arbitrary distinction. I mean, the manufacturers outside Switzerland are few and far between. Why not just say "the best three watches that aren't ALS or GS"? And since GS isn't really in contention, why not just say "the best three watches that aren't ALS"? There's no real reason why ALS can't be part of the HT. And they are certainly more deserving than AP, in my opinion. ALS is making true haute couture... and I think that's what the HT is really about, after all. Not the workaday watches these companies sell (if you can call watches at this price-point workaday, ha ha) but the super-models on the catwalk. The statement pieces that drop at Basel, intended to showcase exactly how sublime a timepiece can be when no limits on man-hours, money or reason are imposed. AP simply doesn't do that anymore- not to the extent that VC, ALS, and PP do. And PP is on thin ice as well, imho.


Again, respectfully, it doesn't really matter whether you've bought into it or not. The phrase "Holy Trinity of Swiss watchmakers" is the phrase, as coined. You may disagree with it, of course; you may feel that it should encompass the best watchmakers from the entire world (Credor, anyone?), but that doesn't change the fact that no other country came into the equation when the phrase was adopted. Nor does it change the fact that the maisons of the Holy Trinity represent things like longevity, provenance, haute design, and all the other things that may or may not matter to the average person, but for which is catnip to the watch cognoscenti. To that end, I think WIS tend to think very highly of ALS, but even they have their shortcomings. For example, a lot has been said about the poor reaction to AP's Code 11.59 collection, but I would also observe that the reception for the ALS Odysseus was just as negative.

I also find it rather interesting that you're ready and willing to boot both AP and PP out of the trinity, yet VC - the one most frequently discussed (at least in my time here) as in the most danger of falling out of the trinity - gets a pass from you.

If we do not speak again, Merry Christmas to you!

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## Alysandir (Jun 29, 2016)

TedPhatana said:


> Congrats!
> 
> Looks great on you.
> 
> Does it get the most attention out of your sport watches?


Thank you, kindly! I would say that - now that I'm coming out of the honeymoon phase of ownership (where I was basically 7 days/week with it) - that my wear pattern is settling in roughly as follows:

APRO: 3-4 days/week
Sub: 2-3 days/wk
Oris SoL: 1-2 days/wk (usually weekends)
Globemaster: 1 day/wk
BP: 1-2 days/month (change of pace)
Snowflake: 1-2 days/mo (change of pace)
Everything else: chilling in the watch box, except the Frogman which gets used as needed for dirty work

Regards,
Alysandir


----------



## islander009 (Mar 4, 2018)

I can honestly say that I was not a fan... but then a good friend got theirs in a 37mm which I thought might be too small for my tastes. Got around to meeting him up and tried it on and was blasted away with his build quality and fit. Now it’s on the list to own in the future. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## starter (Aug 21, 2010)

Alysandir said:


> Tell me, what is a JLC Perpetual Calendar? Steel; 40mm; grand complication. Clearly that's not the criteria of a dress watch - too big; not precious metal; too many complications - yet no one would reasonably suggest that this is a sports watch. Same could be said of the very limited Lange 1 that ALS produced cased in steel; I mean, ALS doesn't (err, didn't) make sports watches, so something's clearly out of joint! So now, if I present you with a watch that's 38mm, less than 8.5mm thick, minimal complications, and uses the ultra-thin caliber JLC 920 dress watch movement, well *now* we can safely say that this is a dress watch, right? Well no, it's the original AP Royal Oak "Jumbo."


With respect, I think it's clear your argument is laboring under the burden of misinformation... The JLC Perpetual Calendar is unarguably a sports watch. Dainty features do not always make a dress watch... The Cartier Tank has even more dress design cues than the JLC PC, and yet it is regarded by most WIS as the original sports watch. And as far as the Royal Oak Jumbo goes, you're referring to a watch that in it's standard configuration sits on a very modern integrated steel bracelet. Not exactly the stuff of dress watches.



Alysandir said:


> My point to this thought exercise being, it would seem there are more than just dress watches and sports watches in this world; there is no one characteristic - such as casing in steel - that makes a watch a sports watch, any more than a solid gold Rolex Day Date is a dress watch. Hence, I feel it is somewhat of a pointless exercise to compare a sports watch (Rolex) to a hybrid dress/sports watch (APRO) and call the latter inferior when the point of the latter is not to be a sports watch, but something else entirely.


Again, the Royal Oak is certainly a sports watch. Modern, angular case, screws on the bezel intended to resemble the port hole of a ship, modern integrated steel bracelet. There is nothing "hybrid" about it... It is one of the great sports watch designs of the 20th century. But design alone does not make a sports watch the best. The durability and movement come into play too. And in that regard, the Royal Oak does not bring much to a fight with Rolex.



Alysandir said:


> But I will say, respectfully, that I got a chuckle out of the comment, "Regardless of Genta's intentions," as if to imply that the most famous name in luxury watch design failed to accomplish what he set out to do because you believe the final product to be inferior to a Rolex.


The most famous name in luxury watch design? I dunno. I think Antoni Patek is a pretty famous name. Or Adrien Philippe. Also Jean-Marc Vacheron. Jules-Louis Audemars and Edward-Augueste Piguet both enjoy a little fame too. And I think I've heard of some guy called Hans Wilsdorf as well. But seriously, there is no denying Genta was a great watch designer. His Royal Oak, IWC Ingenieur, and Patek Nautilus are all iconic sports watches. But then again, the current base-model Ingenieur packs a calibre 35111, which is a modified Sellita SW300-1... Would you argue that simply because Genta styled the watch, it is inherently superior to what Rolex is producing?



Alysandir said:


> Again, respectfully, it doesn't really matter whether you've bought into it or not. The phrase "Holy Trinity of Swiss watchmakers" is the phrase, as coined. You may disagree with it, of course; you may feel that it should encompass the best watchmakers from the entire world (Credor, anyone?), but that doesn't change the fact that no other country came into the equation when the phrase was adopted. Nor does it change the fact that the maisons of the Holy Trinity represent things like longevity, provenance, haute design, and all the other things that may or may not matter to the average person, but for which is catnip to the watch cognoscenti. To that end, I think WIS tend to think very highly of ALS, but even they have their shortcomings. For example, a lot has been said about the poor reaction to AP's Code 11.59 collection, but I would also observe that the reception for the ALS Odysseus was just as negative.
> 
> I also find it rather interesting that you're ready and willing to boot both AP and PP out of the trinity, yet VC - the one most frequently discussed (at least in my time here) as in the most danger of falling out of the trinity - gets a pass from you.
> 
> If we do not speak again, Merry Christmas to you!


By stating that it "doesn't matter whether I've bought into it or not" it appears you are suggesting that the idea of the Holy Trinity is set in stone. If you do a little more research, I think you will find this is not the case. Again, the very concept of a Holy Trinity is new. This is not something that came about due to a century-old competition or storied, ongoing debate among watchmakers in Zurich.

Rather, it is kind of a slap-dash idea that came about on the various WIS forums. Who knows how people will come to view this concept in the future? I think more than a few people, particularly on the Rolex forums, will say that I know a few things about watches. And that I can say with some degree of expertise that the notion of the Holy Trinity being Swiss only is, well, a silly concept. And many more people, far more knowledgeable than myself, concur. Why is the Holy Trinity Swiss only? What's the point? Particularly when there is really only one or two watchmakers outside Switzerland producing product that would qualify for consideration?

To put it in perspective, who would make the argument that the Toronto Blue Jays shouldn't be able to win the chance to represent the American League in the World Series, because they happen to be based in Canada? Someone who doesn't know baseball, that's who. And I will submit (and I think more than few WIS will agree with me) that the whole initial concept of the Holy Trinity as Swiss-only was largely informed by people who perhaps didn't know watches as well as they should. It's a flawed and arbitrary premise, and in my estimation, will almost certainly change in the future. The unofficial notion has already changed amongst some of the true master WIS whom I respect.

And as far as VC getting the boot over AP? Again, respectfully, I think you're dealing with some bad info. The new Overseas was only three years ago... It's a tremendous watch (and yes... Very much a sports model).

Happy Holidays to you as well! I hope it's a good one so far! And please don't misinterpret anything I've written as hostile or aggressive... I just love a good horological debate- and this certainly qualifies, ha ha!


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

"can't we all just get along?" Rodney King


----------



## Perazzi-man (Oct 14, 2014)

I like the AP RO. Mine has the white/silver dial. BUT I like my VC Overseas better and it gets arm-time 3x to the RO. Only people here care about Holy Trinity and dress/sports dilemna.


----------



## danimal107 (Nov 28, 2019)

I don't hate the RO but I don't love it... Rather have the AP diver...


----------



## wolfie1 (Apr 22, 2010)

Hahahaha

What he said!


TedPhatana said:


> "can't we all just get along?" Rodney King


----------



## Jhchr2 (May 25, 2019)

The Royak Oak was the watch that started my fascination with watches. Trying it on in person was a huge let down for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## xherion (Jun 29, 2017)

Jhchr2 said:


> The Royak Oak was the watch that started my fascination with watches. Trying it on in person was a huge let down for me.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was totally the other way around.
I hated how it looked in pictures, but when I saw it on someone's wrist and saw how it has huge wrist presence and how the bracelet plays with light, I was mesmerised.
And when I tried it on myself.....game over.......got it soon after.


----------



## drhr (Mar 14, 2011)

Always fascinates me the varied likes/dislikes of this watch stuff though I guess one can say that about all of life . . .
Oh, I love the RO, fortunately for my bank account, not keen on any other AP models . . .


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

Sir - I am surprised you found the 15202 big on you. Looks quite smashing on your wrist, from the photos, if I may say.



drhr said:


> Always fascinates me the varied likes/dislikes of this watch stuff though I guess one can say that about all of life . . .
> Oh, I love the RO, fortunately for my bank account, not keen on any other AP models . . .


----------



## TedPhatana (Nov 1, 2011)

I got caught in a duplicate!!!!!


----------



## GrussGott (Nov 15, 2012)

Jhchr2 said:


> The Royak Oak was the watch that started my fascination with watches. Trying it on in person was a huge let down for me.


For me the Royal Oak is like a 1957 Ford Thunderbird:







Classic design, unique, looks good with some people not so much with others, not a very versatile design, beautiful, but can also look dated and played out.

Especially given there are 10,000 RO variants - you can probably get one in your college colors, maybe even with the logo.

So for me it's kinda cool in someone else's garage, but not mine.


----------



## Nachapon (Jan 5, 2020)

Never really understand the appeal of AP royal oak and even though the bracelet is pure comfort, the 41mm of 15500 really turn me off when i first tried them on at the AD. 
Months later, i have a chance to try 15300 and then 15202 and now my opinion is going from never understanding the hype to wow this is really a stunning watch. 
From my humble opinion, i think AP shoud continue with 39mm dial. Especially the blue 15202 as it is simply stunning.


----------



## Watchmick (Sep 25, 2020)

PrisonEscapementWheel said:


> Am I the only one that doesn't like the Royal Oak range? Its this combination of tank-tread bracelet, octagonal bezel and _bezel screws. _What possible reason could there be for bezel screws? They also do a lot of skeletons and I think that's a fad that refused to die decades ago.
> 
> That being said the movements are fine. And they really have some very, very nice dials. But the rest of the watch is just unsightly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Watchmick (Sep 25, 2020)

I couldn't agree with you more I think it's the most overrated of the popular watches I think the nautilus is so much better looking .


----------



## dbostedo (Feb 26, 2014)

Watchmick said:


> I couldn't agree with you more I think it's the most overrated of the popular watches I think the nautilus is so much better looking .


Oh my gosh... you're so wrong!

And welcome to WUS!


----------



## Tomatoes11 (Feb 17, 2015)

You really need to see it in person. You also need to see the light show from the light reflecting off of the bracelet and case.


----------



## Gallowglass (Sep 16, 2020)

I'm not a fan and wouldn't buy one. I have no idea why I feel this way but it's my eye looking at the watch. Purely subjective.


----------



## CSG (Feb 3, 2014)

I never liked them either. Looked at them years ago and thought, "meh."


----------



## DoraTheExplorerII (Dec 12, 2014)

They are way better in real life than photos, amazing design but too blingy for me.


----------



## coldbrew (Sep 27, 2020)

I was on a similar boat where I didn't like how the Royal Oak looked and I just didn't understand why it was so hyped. Like the previous comments, once I saw it in person... that was where everything changed. Now it's a grail of mine.


----------



## Ew322538 (Feb 27, 2017)

coldbrew said:


> I was on a similar boat where I didn't like how the Royal Oak looked and I just didn't understand why it was so hyped. Like the previous comments, once I saw it in person... that was where everything changed. Now it's a grail of mine.


seems to be common theme. Something about the angles though. _shrug_


----------



## Beaunecrusher (Feb 10, 2014)

It seems there are a number of people who disliked the watch, tried it on and fell in love. I had the opposite reaction, liked it, bought it and found myself disliking the crown and screws on the bezel, especially the crown which reminded me of something I would find in a child’s erector set. I decided to sell it, made a profit and bought a Breguet XX and several cases of good Bordeaux with the remainder.


----------



## Tohono Rat (Apr 23, 2018)

I think part of it is a matter for personal style. Those who like blingy baubles on their wrist like it. Those who like understated elegance don't. There is no right answer. Personally, I fall in to the latter category, so I tend not to like them. I can appreciate them, though, for what they are. And yes... I have seen and tried them on several times.


----------



## KtWUS (Mar 19, 2016)

I'm glad they exist but I'll never buy one!


----------



## Yamidan (Jan 24, 2019)

I liked the “elegant sport watch” style until I held it in my hand. I’d go with a PP Aquanaut instead. I definitely acknowledge and respect the model though.


----------



## SolarPower (May 14, 2012)

Personal choices differ and the reasonings for the opinions is what makes discussions interesting. I like my 20 y.o. RO and think this is possible "one gentleman's watch".


















The mechanical automatic self-winding Audemars Piguet caliber 2324/2825 movement is rhodium-plated, with engine-turned "Grande Tapisserie" and "Cotes de Geneve" decorative embellishment. It's constructed with a shock absorber mechanism, 38 jewels, a straight-line lever escapement, and a monometallic balance. It includes a self-compensating flat balance spring, and a 21K gold rotor segment. Adjusted in 6 positions. 28800 vph. Plus a module on top for day/date/moonphase complications resulted in 45 jewels total.


----------



## IGotId (Feb 14, 2012)

Initially didn't like them; then bought a white dial 15300 which I found to be kind of boring over time. Sold it after awhile.


----------



## blakestarhtown (Jul 14, 2018)

VanAdian said:


> No, you are not, and I suspect there are many more; too afraid to incur the wrath of the horological "puritanists".
> I for one do not care for an RO either; and will even go you one better - I don't much like a nautilus either.











Blasphemy sir, how dare you? You have to bow down and lick Gerald Gentas deceased shriveled ball sack. It is a requirement to be a WIS.


----------



## ugawino (Jan 20, 2019)

The design does not appeal to me at all. The octagonal dial/crown, the screws, the bracelet....not for me. 

It is very clearly a 70s design that I think has aged very poorly.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

Alysandir said:


> For example, a lot has been said about the poor reaction to AP's Code 11.59 collection, but I would also observe that the reception for the ALS Odysseus was just as negative.


I think this is largely because they weren't what people have come to expect from each respective company. In AP's case the CODE 11.59 wasn't a Royal Oak (shocking!). In ALS's case the Odysseus was a sports watch (shocking) in steel (gasp!).

Interestingly, I like (most of) the original CODE 11.59 releases, but don't like so much what they've done with it since. The Odysseus, the original steel I think is a brilliant design; the newer iterations in white gold are nice, but I don't think they are better than the steel, even though they seem to be more widely accepted as "more proper" for ALS.


----------



## AnonPi (Aug 19, 2020)

starter said:


> As far as HT being Swiss-only, I've never bought into this. [...] There's no real reason why ALS can't be part of the HT.


You're looking at this wrong. PP, VC & AP will always be The Trinity. ALS is now The Singularity.


----------



## Vallée de Joux - (Oct 19, 2020)

AnonPi said:


> You're looking at this wrong. PP, VC & AP will always be The Trinity. ALS is now The Singularity.


Ahaha I like what you did there.

PP, VC and AP have long been considered the Trinity for a reason.

A.Lange wont necessarily threaten any of them nor join them. Different brands, values, culture.. everything.

A whole different approach to watchmaking.

I like them all!  😅


----------



## [email protected] (May 25, 2020)

I'd love to try one on but sadly all the good dealers in CT are closed. Not that we have many anyway.


----------



## bigclive2011 (Mar 17, 2013)

I love them, but unfortunately demand for the model I would choose, time only blue dial, has pushed the grey price up to crazy levels, and thus more than I would pay for a watch.

Getting one at list is a non starter as well, so I will just admire from afar as I do with Roger Smith watches.


----------



## loudbryan44 (Jul 30, 2020)

used to hate it, but learned to love it once I saw it in person


----------



## Vallée de Joux - (Oct 19, 2020)

loudbryan44 said:


> used to hate it, but learned to love it once I saw it in person


Thats spot on.

I dont think one can truly admire the quality of the piece until one holds it in its hands.

Still to this day, I have yet to see a more fascinating bracelet to behold.

The price tag wont let you forget that either.


----------



## Perazzi-man (Oct 14, 2014)

Never hated it , but when I got mine , I loved it instantly.


----------



## Rip_Murdock (May 25, 2016)

I too think the Royal Oak is ugly. I wouldn't wear one if it was given to me for free.


----------



## ruhobo (Jan 15, 2016)

I actually started an indirect thread on this on the public forum. I didn’t like the RO but bought one because it was available at MSRP. After a week on the wrist, it’s my everyday watch now.


----------



## tstrand1204 (May 10, 2016)

I’ll add the Patek Nautilus to that as well. Neither is my style at all


----------



## rcsub (Jun 24, 2019)

In 1971 ( I think ) Gerald Genta gets a call from AP asking him if he could build an AP SS Sports watch, oh and I need it by tomorrow ( I believe it was for Basel or something like that to get customers back from the evil quartz. Genta reluctantly says yes sees a deep dive mask and the rest is history except, that the watch bombed, it was way too expensive and looked like an alien spaceship to them. They just didn't get it and so sales were not so good. My point is, that disliking how the RO looks is the same thing the entire public thought the first time they saw it too. And then came Rap, then Rappers who love their dope watches from Royal Oak. I consider it a right of passage to think AP's are ugly only to get used to them and appreciate them later. Even when they copy Patek by dropping their most celebrated piece and then making a green one.


----------



## mchou8 (Jun 12, 2011)

Royal Oaks are OKAY. The bracelet is definitely a work of art. They are extremely well made and high quality. The hype on them makes them less desirable in my view. I'd buy one at retail if I could (not for investment purposes)


----------

