Well, 44Ti just stopped winding

[PJ S]

Tyler, you do realise ebauche means kit? In other words, AP's watchmakers are the ones who are assembling the parts and responsible for lubricating the module, just like the base movement it sits on.
Even if DD were supplying a fully assembled module, the synthetic oils & grease used would not dry up for a number of years.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

My thinking was, let's say 92% of product never comes back for warranty work. If upping this to 99% would cost $500 per unit (for all units), then it's costing them $7000 per unit within that 7% "improved" group.

But as with a lot of the watch companies, we can only guess how things work. I am not afraid to buy another AP, as long as I'm buying new with warranty.

i get the logic as its cost/benefit. The issue with AP is with such low production numbers to begin with as opposed to Rolex the problem seems amplified. There are not that many watches out there but we are hearing about a lot of issues.

There are members with 20%, 30%, or in my case 50% failure rates in their ROO chronograph collection. Im not suggesting 50% is the actual failure rate but it sure seems like that when its your watch.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Tyler, you do realise ebauche means kit? In other words, AP's watchmakers are the ones who are assembling the parts and responsible for lubricating the module, just like the base movement it sits on.
Even if DD were supplying a fully assembled module, the synthetic oils & grease used would not dry up for a number of years.

whatever it is it doesnt work, everything else is just speculation as to why it isn't working. Defend DD all you want, but there are issues, period. DD is the module supplier and AP puts them in watches or assembles them or whatever. It isn't working very well, especially recently. I really don't get why it matters who's fault it is as i don't really care who is to blame but the current situation of DD modules + AP watches isnt ideal and moving away from a non ideal situation is preferable.

[aleeboy]

I am having issues, same as the OP, and that's all that matters for me as an owner of an AP watch.

Unfortunately I did not find out there was an issue with my watch's chrono module until recently as I did not use the chrono all that much - thank goodness for my relentless drive to time the perfect boiled egg!

I would not recommend any ROO chrono.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

clearly the latest batch of DD modules is bad.

Originally Posted by tyler1980

…I really don’t get why it matters who’s fault it is as i don’t really care who is to blame…

You obviously care enough to have apportioned blame to Dubois Depraz, and my “defence” of them is based solely on your assumptions that they’re the ones sending AP duff modules – which is nonsense given the greater number of modules they supply and fit to ETA base movements by comparison, and even RM.
At the end of the day, whether ebauches or fully assembled, the responsibility lies with the client (in this instance, AP) to correctly assemble them to their base movement, properly lubricated.

Given that AP has increased production to 40K watches over the last 12-18 months, wouldn’t it be fair to say (like Patek too) they have overextended themselves in doing so?
That would certainly explain more now seemingly being missed by the QC process in place.
Cynically, you could even say that they are aware of just how often owners bother with using the chronograph function, and since it’s rarely, then it’s easier to knock them out as quick as they can, and deal with any returned under warranty or billable servicing.

All that said and done, ideally it would be better if the ROOCs had an integrated chronograph – maybe the 25th Anniversary of the ROO will be the right time and range to launch it in.

https://youtu.be/rigsCqKsVVw?t=4m21s

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Patton250

I’ve owned five APs and three of them had to go back for service. I don’t know how many Rolexes I’ve had but I did have a submariner break once. AP makes a beautiful watch and I hope to always own them however they are remarkably delicate compared to tool watches like Rolex and incredibly overpriced for what you get. I don’t blame anyone who pays that much for a watch to be upset if the movement brakes. IMHO

Agreed, and I'm certainly not trying to diminish that, my response was coming from the post to which I replied: it just grates on me when folks who have never owned an AP use threads like this to troll and dogpile on the brand. There are reports of problems in the Rolex forum all the time, but people here don't use them as a platform to engage in brand-bashing.

Rolex is a great brand (wearing my GMT today ), but in my experience they are far from trouble free. The following survey on the main TRF Rolex forum had roughly 27% issue rate with Rolexes that required return to Rolex, so for people to act as though the watches never break or have issues, and that every brand which does is junk, is wildly inaccurate and unsupported by the facts.

Here's the link to the Rolex reliability survey I mentioned.
https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=419887

Plenty of issues with Rolex watches to go around. Mechanical stuff is not, cannot, and never will be as reliable as a simple quartz mechanism, it is a labor of love to own these little beasties. :)

[SMD]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by PJ S

You obviously care enough to have apportioned blame to Dubois Depraz, and my “defence” of them is based solely on your assumptions that they’re the ones sending AP duff modules – which is nonsense given the greater number of modules they supply and fit to ETA base movements by comparison, and even RM.
At the end of the day, whether ebauches or fully assembled, the responsibility lies with the client (in this instance, AP) to correctly assemble them to their base movement, properly lubricated.

Given that AP has increased production to 40K watches over the last 12-18 months, wouldn’t it be fair to say (like Patek too) they have overextended themselves in doing so?
That would certainly explain more now seemingly being missed by the QC process in place.
Cynically, you could even say that they are aware of just how often owners bother with using the chronograph function, and since it’s rarely, then it’s easier to knock them out as quick as they can, and deal with any returned under warranty or billable servicing.

All that said and done, ideally it would be better if the ROOCs had an integrated chronograph – maybe the 25th Anniversary of the ROO will be the right time and range to launch it in.

https://youtu.be/rigsCqKsVVw?t=4m21s

they are bad, clearly. I don't know why they are bad or who's fault it is nor do i care. They are bad. Doesnt matter if AP isnt assembling them properly or there is a manufacturing defect from DD. Its a problem though. Yes integrated chrono would be better. AFAIK the ROC is still modular but is pretty integrated for a modular construction and is less of a base movement with a chronograph sitting on top like with the ROO.

[AK797]

We must also remember there is a snowball effect on forums, once someone breaks cover and reports an issue then more and more feel free to do so. On the PP forum we have also had periods of high reportage of issues and then like now almost nothing for months, altho obviously there are other issues with that brand now. Main thing for me is still how quickly brands deal with issues. Hopefully this forum raises AP's awareness and improves their QC as I know they will not want this staining the brand.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

AFAIK the ROC is still modular but is pretty integrated for a modular construction and is less of a base movement with a chronograph sitting on top like with the ROO.

The ROC use the Frederic Piguet 1185 integrated chronograph movement – the exact same as fitted to the VC Overseas 49150, and Blancpain FF models.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by AK797

We must also remember there is a snowball effect on forums, once someone breaks cover and reports an issue then more and more feel free to do so. On the PP forum we have also had periods of high reportage of issues and then like now almost nothing for months, altho obviously there are other issues with that brand now. Main thing for me is still how quickly brands deal with issues. However hopefully this forum raises AP awareness and improves their QC as I know they will not want this staining the brand.

that is true. So the older watches may have been under reported. I see how that may be the case and its not worse now, but just the same. Its plausible

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by PJ S

The ROC use the Frederic Piguet 1185 integrated chronograph movement – the exact same as fitted to the VC Overseas 49150, and Blancpain FF models.

I know its a F Piguet. Its technically a modular construction right? But, its fairy integrated unlike the ROO and is why it fits the ROC case as its thinner. The ROO has the chrono sitting on top and isnt integrated at all hence why the date is so far down inside on the base movement, making the internal cyclops necessary. The module is just sitting there on top.

Introduced by Frederic Piguet in 1988, Cal. 1185 is a modular movement but highly-integrated.
https://www.watch-wiki.net/index.php?title=Piguet_1185

Hodinkee says the same thing. Jack Forster i believe.

[SMD]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

I know its a F Piguet. Its technically a modular construction right? But its fairy integrated unlike the ROO. The ROO has the chrono sitting on top and isnt integrated at all hence why the date is so far down inside on the base movement, making the internal cyclops necessary. The module is just sitting there on top.

Introduced by Frederic Piguet in 1988, Cal. 1185 is a modular movement but highly-integrated.
https://www.watch-wiki.net/index.php?title=Piguet_1185

Hodinkee says the same thing. Jack Forster i believe.

JemV is that you?

More reading and less posting and you would know the answer to this question. Read Clymer 2014.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SMD

JemV is that you?

More reading and less posting and you would know the answer to this question. Read Clymer 2014.

thats why im asking. Ive found lots of info saying its modular, but highly integrated. PJ said its integrated.
http://www.chronometrie.com/chronomovs/cm03.html

Some of us do like to learn here.

There is confusion as they are talking about the same thing: http://forums.watchuseek.com/f381/vc...l#post41325762

As much as im not a fan of you, i still won't call you Jem. Low blow

[AshAP]

Originally Posted by SMD

JemV is that you?



More reading and less posting and you would know the answer to this question. Read Clymer 2014.

I've met Tyler and I can assure you he is not Jem7v in any way shape or form.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

I know its a F Piguet. Its technically a modular construction right? But, its fairy integrated unlike the ROO and is why it fits the ROC case as its thinner. The ROO has the chrono sitting on top and isnt integrated at all hence why the date is so far down inside on the base movement, making the internal cyclops necessary. The module is just sitting there on top.

The movement is a fully integrated chronograph design – no two ways about it.
Maybe there’s confusion due to the VC Overseas’ big date, which I’d imagine is a module, due to the fact there’s a date wheel already provided for, as can be seen on the ROCs and Blancpains.
In other words, you can’t separate the chrono from the base caliber like you can with the DD on the 3120 or ETAs, etc.

It’s cheaper to design and develop a base caliber upon which modules can be added in order to be able to offer a range of models with different features, than it is to design five sole-purpose designs with identical movements, for example.
Patek does that – 5990 vs 5960. Both use the same 28-520 integrated concentric register chronograph base, but one with DT, the other with AC. Same goes for the various 240 and 324 models.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by PJ S

The movement is a fully integrated chronograph design – no two ways about it.
Maybe there’s confusion due to the VC Overseas’ big date, which I’d imagine is a module, due to the fact there’s a date wheel already provided for, as can be seen on the ROCs and Blancpains.
In other words, you can’t separate the chrono from the base caliber like you can with the DD on the 3120 or ETAs, etc.

It’s cheaper to design and develop a base caliber upon which modules can be added in order to be able to offer a range of models with different features, than it is to design five sole-purpose designs with identical movements, for example.
Patek does that – 5990 vs 5960. Both use the same 28-520 integrated concentric register chronograph base, but one with DT, the other with AC. Same goes for the various 240 and 324 models.

makes sense, good to know.