# comparing Hublot vs Audemars piguet



## cspower

I am considering purchasing either a Hublot Big Band or a Audemars Piguet Offshore. Does anyone have any comments on which is the better watch?

Thank you,
Charles


----------



## RJRJRJ

Depends what you mean by better. Id say the better movement is in the AP, but Hublot is no slouch. Id buy the one that I think looked better. At this level of watch, the quality is gonna be with both.


----------



## Janne

Which exact models did you have in mind?
It is a more of an aesthetical question than anything else.


----------



## Guest

Post moved.


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: Apples v prunes


----------



## kiwidj

RJRJRJ said:


> Id say the better movement is in the AP, but Hublot is no slouch. Id buy the one that I think looked better. At this level of watch, the quality is gonna be with both.


Totally agreed. :-!


----------



## Hartmut Richter

I would also say that you can't compare the two, although people could call me biased against Hublot.

I have never been a fan of Hublot and in recent years have seen them becoming somewhat worse. For one thing, they call themselves a manufacture when they just copy the Valjoux 7750 for which they have not had any development input. I know that they are planning on really bringing out a movement of their own but this is in the future and we are talking about the present. For another thing, I deplore the trend of all black watches which are there - and these are the words of the CEO, JC Biver! - just as a fashon statement, not to really tell the time! A company that comes up with this sort of thing isn't really serious about watches IMO.

Set against that, we have AP with a long history of very grand complications, a recent history of true manufacture movements and one of the few companies that are 100% in private ownership and not part of a consortium (Swatch, Richemont, LVMH, etc.). Not much of a comparison, I would say.

Of course, the main things to look at when buying a watch are overall quality, value for money and whether it makes your heart smile. I don't own any of either brand so I can't speak there. If you have looked at both watches/brands in-depth and think you prefer the Hublot, by all means go for it.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## mikemargolis

Dear Mr. Richter and all Watch-U-Seek-ers,

I am also biased, as I am the Sales Director for Hublot of America. This is my first post on your forum, as it popped up on my Google Alerts last night.

So, please allow me to address the general comments of this thread, and then those of Mr. Richter specifically.

First off, I will say that AP is a lovely watch, with a rich 125+ year history, and I am very admiring of the brand, their offerings, business acumen, designs and manufacture.

Next, the answer to this question is simple: Buy whichever you love more, whichever speaks the loudest to your heart, and of course, whichever you can afford.

Now, please allow me to address (rebut??) Mr. Richter's comments:



Hartmut Richter said:


> I have never been a fan of Hublot and in recent years have seen them becoming somewhat worse. For one thing, they call themselves a manufacture when they just copy the Valjoux 7750 for which they have not had any development input.


We have spent over $20 Million on CNC machines and the manpower and brainpower involved to run these machines and to also design TWO brand new, completely new in-house movements. These movements were announced and prototypes shown at Basel 2009, are in beta-testing now, and will begin to be installed in watches in 2010.

In the mean time, we have had a manufacture movement since 2007 in that we make our own base plates for our super lightweight Magma Bang and Wally Bang. These watches are made of "hublonium" which is a proprietary alloy of magnesium, aluminum and a hardening agent called Titanex to make a super light yet 500 vickers hard metal. In order to keep the weight of the entire watch down, we make the movement *IN-HOUSE *out of hublonium for the Magma and titanium for the Wally. This results in an entire watch weighing less than 75 grams, that is case, movement, strap and buckle, the lightest automatic chronograph ever created by any company.

Yes, the movement is a copy of the tried and true 7750 base plates, this is a workhorse movement whose patent has expired, and so many companies other than ETA make 7750s. You can debate whether an in-house manufactured 7750 is "in-house" or not, but the fact remains that we are indeed a "manufacture" as we make these movements in our own building with our own machines and our own employees.

The difficulties of building plates of super hard materials are immense. When you push a jewel into a brass plate, the brass is soft and deflects, accepting the jewel. When you push a jewel into titanium, the jewel cracks and you throw it away. So the tolerances required to make the in-house movement are extremely tiny, and it is no small feat of manufacturing or engineering to make this movement.



Hartmut Richter said:


> For another thing, I deplore the trend of all black watches


Obviously it is your right to like or not like our designs. The All Black was indeed invented by Hublot (as was the rubber strap, and how many companies have followed us on that?), and has since been copied by other brands. You may not like the All Black watches, and that is fine, but it has been a great success for Hublot.



Hartmut Richter said:


> which are there - and these are the words of the CEO, JC Biver! - just as a fashon statement, not to really tell the time!


I would say that Mr. Biver's point was that ANY fine timepiece today is a fashion statement from the wearer to the world. We all know that quartz and cellphones do an admirable job keeping time, and so whenever ANYONE spends money for a fine timepiece (and I will let the spender define "fine" whether it be a $500 watch or a $500,000 watch), they are making a statement to others and to themselves.

Thank you kindly for allowing me to visit your forum, and to voice my opinions.


----------



## GinGinD

Hello, Mr Margolis. Welcome to WUS and to the High End Watches forum. We look forward to your contributions. 

Jeannie


----------



## mikemargolis

Thanks for the welcome Jeannie. It's "Mike," as "Mr. Margolis" was my father.


----------



## GinGinD

mikemargolis said:


> Thanks for the welcome Jeannie. It's "Mike," as "Mr. Margolis" is my father.


And _my_ dad was an army officer who taught me rather old-fashioned manners. :-d

Good to have you on board, Mike. Here's a thread in our Omega forum you might enjoy. https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=327022

Jeannie


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Thank you for your comments. It was not my intention to get the message across that "Hublot make overpriced/trashy watches". My first message would be that "I am not a great fan of Hublot watches" - which is down to personal taste - and the second to answer the original question of "How does Hublot compare with Audemars Piguet". Which I would still answer by saying that AP are in a somewhat different league to Hublot and Hublot will have to go a hell of a long way to achieve parity. More specifically, I would broadly reply to your points as follows:

1. I am aware that Hublot have replaced the bridge materials in their copy of the Valjoux 7750 movement. And that they have done the research for this. As a metallurgy company, I would give Hublot full credits. On the other hand, we are talking about watchmaking. To me, (development of) a movement principally consists of the design, not the materials. This is particularly so in something like the Valjoux 7750. The more complex a movement becomes, the more difficult it is to design it and even more difficult to design it well. The Valjoux 7750 is a complex, integrated automatic chronograph which has been rationalized for mass production and yet can be made to run as accurately as you could expect a mechanical watch to run. All this development work has been done for Hublot. Set against this, the development of a new material for the structural parts is not that difficult and to me does not really fall into the "watchmaking" category.

2. I am aware that new, truly in-house Hublot movements are being developed and will probably think more highly of Hublot once these arrive. I am not a great fan of Panerai but do think rather more highly of them than I used to now that they have become a true "manufacture" - and not just with one movement but with quite a few in recent years! Set against this, I am inclined to laugh a little at companies like Corum being listed as a manufacture since they have only one movement they make in-house (the "Golden Bridge") and the design for that was actually by Vincent Calabrese. Again, no real development work, no watch movement *designing *skills needed there. *This *is what marks a *true *manufacture in my opinion.

3. In the days of clocks on cell phones and computers, I agree that watches, particularly mechanical ones, are at least partly a fashion statement. However, I think that this is (or ought to be) still secondary to them telling the time. And by his own admission, Mr Biver's intention was a watch that was so black that you could hardly tell the time, if at all! Thankfully, the design department managed to tone the idea down a little. I shake my head in disbelief at a tourbillon which has no hands and doesn't tell the time (announced as soon to be brought out, by the German watch magazines) - all you can see is the balance going round and round! Such things are to me rather a waste of time. But then, I don't even have a cell phone (although I do work at the computer every day!), so I depend on the thing on my wrist a little more than others.....

On the whole, I still concur with what I said in my original post. If anyone wants to buy your products, I will certainly not stand in their way. I wish you and Hublot good luck on their way and maybe in a few years time, they will stand on roughly the same level that Panerai stand now (at least in my opinion, if not also in that of many others, including those who define terms such as "manufacture").|>

Hartmut Richter


----------



## ulackfocus

mikemargolis said:


> These watches are made of "hublonium"


Uuuuh, huh-huh...he said "hublonium".










:-d :-d :-d :-d :-d :-d

Sorry couldn't resist. ;-)

Welcome Mike, and can you tell me if there's any chance of a "Little Bang" or "Middle Bang" coming out for us non-gargantuan guys? And if you have a chance, can you put an end to this debate over rapper 50 Cent's watch?:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=326552


----------



## asadtiger

its great to have you here Mike...that adds a lot of credibility to such a debate when you can get comments first-hand from the people who work on these things than people who only see or hear about them...your points about Hublot have highlighted many positive aspects of the brand and their product that I was unaware of..hope to hear more often from you 

and on the discussion, what ever floats your boat...Hublot 'looks' better to me...and VC Overseas is the best of the lot in this category


----------



## bograd

I'm amazed by the fact that people can compare a manufacture like AP, with more than 130 years of history, many amazing manufacture calibers, complication watches, in fact a true Haute Horlogerie brand, with a marketing hype like Hublot, which is a brand that uses ETA movements, and just recently developed an in-house calibre. The rest is just pure marketing, in order to explain the huge prices.


----------



## crabman

bograd said:


> I'm amazed by the fact that people can compare a manufacture like AP, with more than 130 years of history, many amazing manufacture calibers, complication watches, in fact a true Haute Horlogerie brand, with a marketing hype like Hublot, which is a brand that uses ETA movements, and just recently developed an in-house calibre. The rest is just pure marketing, in order to explain the huge prices.


Yep, if you want to be considered a manufacturer of the highest caliber you have to be capable of designing watches and the most complicated movements in house. You need to have the tooling and skilled craftsmen to build these pieces. You have to be capable of finishing the watches to the highest standard. It is no small task repairing complicated movements and you must have under your roof people capable of making those repairs. You can make great watches without putting a check mark next to those things but you are not in the same class as a manufacturer that can.


----------



## Watchbreath

:roll: Since Christiaan van der Klaauw uses ETA, where would you put him?


crabman said:


> Yep, if you want to be considered a manufacturer of the highest caliber you have to be capable of designing watches and the most complicated movements in house. You need to have the tooling and skilled craftsmen to build these pieces. You have to be capable of finishing the watches to the highest standard. It is no small task repairing complicated movements and you must have under your roof people capable of making those repairs. You can make great watches without putting a check mark next to those things but you are not in the same class as a manufacturer that can.


----------



## kiwidj

Welcome to WUS, Mike. Good to see you here. :-!


----------



## handwound

I can only echo Jeannie and Dave's hearty and heart felt welcomes, Mike! Any time we can have someone from one of the watch houses participate here it is more than welcomed.

Take your coat off and stay a while, won't you?


----------



## Hartmut Richter

Well, I wouldn't go too hard on them for developing "Hublonium". Zenith have "Zenithium" for some of their escapements and Rolex have "Rolesium" for some of their cases. You'll never find companies describing their alloys as "30%Nickel-60%Steel-10%Vanadium" (as a fictitious example) - for one thing it's too long a name, for another, it gives the game away and for a third, having done all that research, you'd want it to be publically connected with the company! As long as it does the job, and hopefully better than what was there before, you can call it what you like. Where do you think the name "Nivarox" came from - and do you think that _*that's*_ silly?!!

Hartmut Richter


----------



## Arthur H

Welcome to WUS Mike. very interesting insight indeed. I do agree with you that any high end watch must speak to its potential owner. and not just the Brand it also comes down to the individual model.
Thanks again for the insight into Hublot


----------



## crabman

Watchbreath said:


> :roll: Since Christiaan van der Klaauw uses ETA, where would you put him?


What about Patek in that vein? To my knowledge no one makes everything themselves in all cases, even Seiko. My point is that an outfit that does have such capability regardless of using them in all cases would have to be considered in a different class based on those abilities than one that does not. Would you consider Niccolò Paganini as both a great composer and virtuoso of the highest caliber to be in the same class as someone who was a virtuoso but had no skills or body of work as a composer? Not having the latter skills doesn't take away from the former or make such skill less worthy but like it or not such a person could not be considered to be in the same class in terms of capability. So it is with the manufacture of watches. I am no elitist and am currently mulling the purchase of a watch with an ETA movement but I call it what it is...


----------



## nbourbaki

ulackfocus said:


> Uuuuh, huh-huh...he said "hublonium".


Classic, laughed out loud.


----------



## esm

is Hublot really a hi-end watch company? Or is it just a hype (for now anyway?)


----------



## automatik

bograd said:


> I'm amazed by the fact that people can compare a manufacture like AP, with more than 130 years of history, many amazing manufacture calibers, complication watches, in fact a true Haute Horlogerie brand, with a marketing hype like Hublot, which is a brand that uses ETA movements, and just recently developed an in-house calibre. The rest is just pure marketing, in order to explain the huge prices.


Enough said. AP ALL THE WAY!


----------



## FrankinCA

*"Better'' is subjective at best>>>*

if you poll 20 AP owners and 20 Hublot owners, you will get two sets of answers.

Also, bear in mind, there is alot of cross over. There are AP owners who have Hublot watches in their collections and vice versa.

AP has a rich history. True, and Hublot is certainly a newer company, but look where they are now. Hublot has certainly raised the bar on many levels. The Big Bang is available in several iterations [ceramic, black PVD]. How many other brands have followed suit? No, I think Hublot should be taken seriously.

My preference between Hublot and AP would be an AP Royal Oak Offshore. Would I pick it because I think it's better than a Hublot Big Bang?No, I would pick it because I find the design more compelling. The fact that it has an in house movement is also an added plus.

Just my 2cents.

By the way, congratulation on having this dilemna! I wish I was in a similair quandry! Best of luck.

Frank


----------



## pompe

I have no idea wich to chose BUT i know the king of Sweden Hrh Carl XVI Gustav Bernadotte wears a Hublot (and ocasionaly rado and longiness).

I guess this wont make u buy a Hublot but i tought it could be fun to know.


----------



## kiwidj

This thread could do with some pics! :rodekaart

So here are some nice Hublots I got to see a while back at a watch fair...





































APs coming up next...  :-!


----------



## kiwidj

:-!


----------



## Hartmut Richter

*Re: "Better'' is subjective at best>>>*



FrankinCA said:


> Hublot has certainly raised the bar on many levels. The Big Bang is available in several iterations [ceramic, black PVD]. How many other brands have followed suit? No, I think Hublot should be taken seriously.


On the whole, I still think that watchmaking is first and foremost about making watch movements. Look at the many makers then and even now who just buy the parts, put them together and sell them with their own name on the dial. Although Hublot don't rank among these, I nevertheless rate their contribution to case (material) technology as secondary. It's the same with Rado: they never made any movements and nowadays, they principally (wholly?!) make quartz watches, yet they have pushed case technology to its limits. Do they rank as highly in my opinion as AP or JLC or Zenith? Certainly not.

Hartmut Richter


----------



## watchhound

cspower said:


> I am considering purchasing either a Hublot Big Band or a Audemars Piguet Offshore. Does anyone have any comments on which is the better watch?
> 
> Thank you,
> Charles


IMO, there is no comparison. For my money would be the AP every time. Many of the reasons have already been mentioned.


----------



## Andrés

The AP ROO gets my vote.


----------



## Janne

Yesterday, I had a real in-depth look and feel on several high end/exclusive brands, AP, Hublot, PP, JLC, Panerai and Lange.
What struck me, was the incredible design similarities between the AP and Hublot. 
The watchseller, that I and my wife spend almost two hours with, mentioned that both are designed by the same guy.
Is this true?


----------



## watchhound

Janne said:


> Yesterday, I had a real in-depth look and feel on several high end/exclusive brands, AP, Hublot, PP, JLC, Panerai and Lange.
> What struck me, was the incredible design similarities between the AP and Hublot.
> The watchseller, that I and my wife spend almost two hours with, mentioned that both are designed by the same guy.
> Is this true?


The designer of the original AP Royal Oak (which spawned other models in the line) was Gerald Genta, a famous designer who designed many iconic watches. Genta did not, to my knowledge, have anything to do with the design of Hublot watches. (Someone feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). You might make the argument that the Big Bang line is something of a copy of the look of the AP's.

Once you look under the hood - the difference is striking as AP has some wonderful in-house movements that are very respected in horology while Hublot is more of a fashion watch designer (IMO), using mostly off the shelf movements. The chrono movement in a Big Bang is essentially the same movement you would find in very inexpensive Hamilton or other entry-level brand (a basically unmodified 7750) which is one of the things that turned me off to the brand. Why would I pay 9-10k for the same movement? Because it has a ceramic bezel and neat screws?


----------



## Janne

As said, I had a relly, hands on (and wrist-on) look and feel. The design similarity (visual design) was staggering.
The seller (25years+ in business) mentioned something about a replica. To say it nicely.

My wife (I was there with her, to get her a X-mas pressie, which she did not know) said something quite funny about the stealthy Hublot. 
She saw no point in spending new-car-money on something so ugly you can not even see the time on.


----------



## watchhound

Janne said:


> As said, I had a relly, hands on (and wrist-on) look and feel. The design similarity (visual design) was staggering.
> The seller (25years+ in business) mentioned something about a replica. To say it nicely.
> 
> My wife (I was there with her, to get her a X-mas pressie, which she did not know) said something quite funny about the stealthy Hublot.
> She saw no point in spending new-car-money on something so ugly you can not even see the time on.


Certainly it is a matter of taste and the Big Bang line and its derivatives have been very popular. I don't think the movement issue really matters to the mainstream watch buyer and it is certainly true that the base ETA movements are both reliable and durable. I personally don't care for the line and I suspect they will wind up being more of a trendy watch then anything lasting. On the other hand, I consider the AP Royal Oak a true classic and the 15300 one of my favorite all time watches.

Another argument that can be made is that AP has also gone a little crazy with the various derivations of the Offshore, some of which I find very unattractive. At the end of the day, there is something for everyones taste and that is a good thing.


----------



## kiwidj

watchhound said:


> Another argument that can be made is that AP has also gone a little crazy with the various derivations of the Offshore, some of which I find very unattractive.


Yeah, I must agree with you there. <|

I like'em simple...


----------



## tsaojam

my personal opinion is that watches over a few K are "overpriced" anyhow for what they do, which is tell time more poorly than a quartz. However, people who buy these watches are usually either after:

a. status symbol
b. watch fanatics

As I fall into category B, for me the premium on watches like AP are purely based on a perceived "artistic" value and horological history. And in that sense, I wouldn't put Hublot in the same category because I agree that AP's history and watchmaking tradition is on a different level - again in time Hublot may rise to that level but that's why tradition and history is so valuable, it takes time to build (and shouldn't just be bought!). 

I just picked up an AP and I absolutely love it, and it has a particularly special appeal as I've always liked the manufacture and its designs, and it all started with my father's AP which has of course run flawlessly for decades.

My father in law recently purchased a Hublot Big Bang, and I have to say personally it didn't do much for me, and maybe I'm biased but the feel and everything was just at a different level. Having said that, I've handled a few Hublots that I think are very nice, but it's a personal opinion that I'd spend that kind of money on other brands. My father in law has a bunch of nice watches, but to be quite honest I really don't think he cares or knows the difference between the movement in his Hublot and his Pateks.

But again, if you're willing to spend the money, and these are certainly luxury items, spend it on whatever makes you happy. I mean if Omega or their group bought AP, I wouldn't buy one anymore and that's not reason but just me! ;-) Come to think of it I'd be pretty devastated if that ever happened...


----------



## WatchFan56

...ap...


----------



## NightScar

Good to see you around this neck of the woods Mike.

I am biased since I own a Hublot (which Mike helped me on acquiring) but I do like Hublots overall look over the AP.


----------



## big bird

Obviously each to their own, for me Hublot is a bit p-diddy ... but then that's where a brand like this is coming from - the Investment bankers and footballers and people who have waaay more money than they know what to do with and really just need some way to spend it conspicuously will line up to buy this stuff - but it's more about chest beating than horology - if King Kong wore a watch he'd wear Hublot ... just my opinion

BTW both the AP Royal Oaks and the Big Bangs are clunky looking baubels to mine eye, they just protest too much, Dr Freud would have a field day...

ok, i'm gonna run and hide now!

bb


----------



## NightScar

Not all Hublots are clunky, it fits perfectly on my tine wrist.


----------



## shandy

Firstly let me say kudos to Mike for posting, it is indeed refreshing to see someone from a high end company taking the time to post. 

I must admit I do not know enough about hublot to make comments, asthetic wise I am not sure they are fully my cup of tea but just the fact Mike has taken the effort to post makes me want to check out the brand more fully. There is a lot to be said for the personal touch I believe!

Welcome Mike and I hope you stick around and explain to those of us not fully conversant with your brand a bit more about it and it's horological philosophy:-!


----------



## mleok

In all fairness, both the Hublot Big Bang and the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Offshore are amazing feats of marketing and are runaway financial successes for their respective companies. If this was my first high-end watch, I would choose neither of them, preferring instead a more subdued Audemars Piguet Royal Oak Jumbo.


----------



## Stensbjerg

crabman said:


> Yep, if you want to be considered a manufacturer of the highest caliber you have to be capable of designing watches and the most complicated movements in house. You need to have the tooling and skilled craftsmen to build these pieces. You have to be capable of finishing the watches to the highest standard. It is no small task repairing complicated movements and you must have under your roof people capable of making those repairs. You can make great watches without putting a check mark next to those things but you are not in the same class as a manufacturer that can.


+1
Did they made there new movements all by them self or did some one help them to get startet?
I have been told that Pams new inhouse movements are based on JLC know-how,maybe Hublot did something like that to.


----------



## mikemargolis

The Hublot Unico movement is 100% developed, designed and built in house in our factory in Nyon, Switzerland with our machines and our people.

This movement is NOT a product of our 30 former BNB employees.


----------



## Stensbjerg

mikemargolis said:


> The Hublot Unico movement is 100% developed, designed and built in house in our factory in Nyon, Switzerland with our machines and our people.
> 
> This movement is NOT a product of our 30 former BNB employees.


Thats what I call a big investment compare to what you did before,
I will never be a Hublot fan actullay there is not one thing I like about these watches,but I take my hat of for the way you did the inhouse thing
if you didn't get any help from anyone outside the company then it is real inhouse to me but still not in the same league as AP but we all must start some where.


----------



## 80talisten

No ....ing way. Audermars Piguet is in a another league. Hublot is overpriced crap to me.


----------



## Stensbjerg

tsaojam said:


> my personal opinion is that watches over a few K are "overpriced" anyhow for what they do, which is tell time more poorly than a quartz. However, people who buy these watches are usually either after:
> 
> a. status symbol
> b. watch fanatics
> 
> As I fall into category B, for me the premium on watches like AP are purely based on a perceived "artistic" value and horological history. And in that sense, I wouldn't put Hublot in the same category because I agree that AP's history and watchmaking tradition is on a different level - again in time Hublot may rise to that level but that's why tradition and history is so valuable, it takes time to build (and shouldn't just be bought!).
> 
> I just picked up an AP and I absolutely love it, and it has a particularly special appeal as I've always liked the manufacture and its designs, and it all started with my father's AP which has of course run flawlessly for decades.
> 
> My father in law recently purchased a Hublot Big Bang, and I have to say personally it didn't do much for me, and maybe I'm biased but the feel and everything was just at a different level. Having said that, I've handled a few Hublots that I think are very nice, but it's a personal opinion that I'd spend that kind of money on other brands. My father in law has a bunch of nice watches, but to be quite honest I really don't think he cares or knows the difference between the movement in his Hublot and his Pateks.
> 
> But again, if you're willing to spend the money, and these are certainly luxury items, spend it on whatever makes you happy. I mean if Omega or their group bought AP, I wouldn't buy one anymore and that's not reason but just me! ;-) Come to think of it I'd be pretty devastated if that ever happened...


If you think watches over a few k is overpriced then get a G-shock it will tell you all about what you need to know about the time,
we all have our watches for our own reasons,I don't have mine as a status symbol to show other people,but I do spend more time on watches then "normal" people 
but I don't see my self as a fanatic,to me it also is about they joy to wear something in high quality and I use my time on many other things too.

Straight up I see Hublot as way overpriced and no way near highend and I also think they have looked way to much on a AP RO when they "came up" with the design,
and as a Liverpool supporter I also don't like the Man U link offcouse,I see it as a footballer watch and in my world that is for sure not a good thing.

AP has also gone and become a celebrity watch,and I think many outside the watch world have them because they want to buy som style they just don't have,
but all dosen't change that they make som really great watches and have a big story and know how.


----------



## Jason1

Wow, I wish I found this thread in 2009 when it first started! Great posts here.

I too was very curious about the style similarities these two brands share and have often wondered why this topic doesn't crop up more often in luxury watch discussions.

AP is my choice, by a long shot, if I had to choose one. To be more specific, it would be the AP ROO with a blue leather strap and a white/blue face . This is my favourite watch of all time and I hope to reward myself with one of these beauties next year (if my new venture does well - fingers crossed lol).

I do believe though, both these watches are very, very nice and I would be more than happy with either of them. 
I like both, Hublot's & Audemars Piguet's modern designs but the craftsmanship and reputable watchmaking history that AP has is what swings it for me and it is by a huge margin. 

That said, I wouldn't mind owning a big bang someday too. I enjoy wearing different watches for my different moods and occasions. I know most watch enthusiast don't think much of TAG Heuer but I personally love them and it is TH that I choose to wear around my house everyday even though I own a few much more luxurious high-end watches. I simply enjoy them. Maybe because I'm an motor-sport fan.
The Breitling Navtimer is also a personal favourite of mine and is my choice for most social events. I guess what I am trying to say is...which will you enjoy more? Regardless of the history and what others think. 

I personally like history in a watch maker and knowing about the quality and craftsmanship of every detail in the watch puts a smile on my face which is why my favourite watch ever is an AP but you must ask yourself, do you care about this? Not everyone does and there is nothing wrong with that. Like I said, I also very much enjoy TAG's, all depends on my mood and I am lucky enough to be able to own many watches but if I could only have one, then the history and quality would come into play.

So... I appreciate the aesthetics of both but if I had to choose 1 of these brands I would have no problem picking AP. 

Audemars Piguet is just in another league I'm afraid and that is not just my humble opinion 

Please update us with your choice and how you are enjoying it (or not lol).

J


----------



## Watchalex

On brands and overall AP is in another league. Sorry. Not even close.

On Off-shore versus Big Bang, I think these are mostly monstrous design aberrations of their originals. The originals, like the one shown by Night Scar or the 15202 and 15300 by AP, are indeed very nice watches. But the new ones are overdone showpieces for the nouveaux riche. Some of them, styled not as excessively, like the simple APRO in the pic by kiwi, are OK. But look at those Montoya and other beasts. They are both just milking the big watch and new money cow, basing these horrendous designs on their stylish originals, thereby, unfortunately, desecrating their own heritage. A real pity it is. 

I am all for trying something new and redefining your self as a company but then let it be really something new and ideally something as good as what made you famous.

That said, as awful as I find the general Hublot direction, as a casemaker and in material engineering they do have some very nice prowess to show. I have not reviewed any of their in-house movements but would like to learn more about those.


----------



## almeladze

So on point! So 100%! Great point on the metals versus engineering of the movement! Where do I sign?



Hartmut Richter said:


> Thank you for your comments. It was not my intention to get the message across that "Hublot make overpriced/trashy watches". My first message would be that "I am not a great fan of Hublot watches" - which is down to personal taste - and the second to answer the original question of "How does Hublot compare with Audemars Piguet". Which I would still answer by saying that AP are in a somewhat different league to Hublot and Hublot will have to go a hell of a long way to achieve parity. More specifically, I would broadly reply to your points as follows:
> 
> 1. I am aware that Hublot have replaced the bridge materials in their copy of the Valjoux 7750 movement. And that they have done the research for this. As a metallurgy company, I would give Hublot full credits. On the other hand, we are talking about watchmaking. To me, (development of) a movement principally consists of the design, not the materials. This is particularly so in something like the Valjoux 7750. The more complex a movement becomes, the more difficult it is to design it and even more difficult to design it well. The Valjoux 7750 is a complex, integrated automatic chronograph which has been rationalized for mass production and yet can be made to run as accurately as you could expect a mechanical watch to run. All this development work has been done for Hublot. Set against this, the development of a new material for the structural parts is not that difficult and to me does not really fall into the "watchmaking" category.
> 
> 2. I am aware that new, truly in-house Hublot movements are being developed and will probably think more highly of Hublot once these arrive. I am not a great fan of Panerai but do think rather more highly of them than I used to now that they have become a true "manufacture" - and not just with one movement but with quite a few in recent years! Set against this, I am inclined to laugh a little at companies like Corum being listed as a manufacture since they have only one movement they make in-house (the "Golden Bridge") and the design for that was actually by Vincent Calabrese. Again, no real development work, no watch movement *designing *skills needed there. *This *is what marks a *true *manufacture in my opinion.
> 
> 3. In the days of clocks on cell phones and computers, I agree that watches, particularly mechanical ones, are at least partly a fashion statement. However, I think that this is (or ought to be) still secondary to them telling the time. And by his own admission, Mr Biver's intention was a watch that was so black that you could hardly tell the time, if at all! Thankfully, the design department managed to tone the idea down a little. I shake my head in disbelief at a tourbillon which has no hands and doesn't tell the time (announced as soon to be brought out, by the German watch magazines) - all you can see is the balance going round and round! Such things are to me rather a waste of time. But then, I don't even have a cell phone (although I do work at the computer every day!), so I depend on the thing on my wrist a little more than others.....
> 
> On the whole, I still concur with what I said in my original post. If anyone wants to buy your products, I will certainly not stand in their way. I wish you and Hublot good luck on their way and maybe in a few years time, they will stand on roughly the same level that Panerai stand now (at least in my opinion, if not also in that of many others, including those who define terms such as "manufacture").|>
> 
> Hartmut Richter


----------



## almeladze

Nicely put. King Kong and P-Diddy references hit it right on the head LOL



big bird said:


> Obviously each to their own, for me Hublot is a bit p-diddy ... but then that's where a brand like this is coming from - the Investment bankers and footballers and people who have waaay more money than they know what to do with and really just need some way to spend it conspicuously will line up to buy this stuff - but it's more about chest beating than horology - if King Kong wore a watch he'd wear Hublot ... just my opinion
> 
> BTW both the AP Royal Oaks and the Big Bangs are clunky looking baubels to mine eye, they just protest too much, Dr Freud would have a field day...
> 
> ok, i'm gonna run and hide now!
> 
> bb


----------



## WTSP

Amazing how this thread has been resurrected. Hartmut made some great points. I think it's worth noting that AP outsources the chronograph module on the Offshore from Dubois Depraz.










Looks pretty similar to the module that DD used to provide to Omega...










...and to numerous other brands such as Girard Perregaux and JeanRichard.


----------



## ZIPERIAN

WTSP good point.


----------

