Why do AP chronos not have a visual caseback?

[jag32]

Why does the RO and ROO have a visual caseback but the ROC and ROOC do not?

[gops]

Maybe they are not proud of the movement.....

[benlee]

AP typically don't show display caseback if it's not an inhouse movement. ROC is still using the F.Piguet movement. That should change when AP implement their inhouse chrono movement ( recently seen in the Code ) into the Royal Oak.

[LirimP]

That’s the reason I got a 15400 instead

[karasus]

Originally Posted by jag32

Why does the RO and ROO have a visual caseback but the ROC and ROOC do not?

Older ROOC had a soft iron cage around the movement, to make it immune to magnetism. No point in putting a display caseback where you look at a slab of iron protecting the movement from your smartphone.

"A soft-iron plate was mounted underneath the dial and soft-iron inner case covering the movement prevented the caliber 2126/2840 movement from being vulnerable to magnetic fields."

https://www.fratellowatches.com/aude...-oak-offshore/

[wisguy]

I owned a ROC 26399 and once took the caseback off, the F Piguet movement is well finished but the rotor is not something you'd want to see everyday.

I guess it's part lazy and part not wanting to make it thicker? The rotor I assume can be easily changed to an existing variant.

[wisguy]

Originally Posted by wisguy

I owned a ROC 26399 and once took the caseback off, the F Piguet movement is well finished but the rotor is not something you'd want to see everyday.

I guess it's part lazy and part not wanting to make it thicker? The rotor I assume can be easily changed to an existing variant.

Meant 26300...

[jag32]

I noticed a lot of companies besides AP do the same. For example, the Vacheron Constantin Overseas has a visual caseback but the Overseas Chrono does not. Same with the Gerard Peregaux Laureto, the regular one has a visual caseback but chrono does not. Is this because most chrono movements have he added antimagnetism feature to ensure accuracy of the chrono?

[GB-man]

the in house code does as does the the laptimer :)

[karasus]

Originally Posted by jag32

I noticed a lot of companies besides AP do the same. For example, the Vacheron Constantin Overseas has a visual caseback but the Overseas Chrono does not. Same with the Gerard Peregaux Laureto, the regular one has a visual caseback but chrono does not. Is this because most chrono movements have he added antimagnetism feature to ensure accuracy of the chrono?

For older ROO chronographs with JLC movements and VC gen 1&2 chronographs there is a technical reason/justification (improved anti magnetism).

In these watches there are two cases inside the watch. A soft iron cage inside (will rust if wet) and a waterproof stainless steel or other corrosion resistant outer case. This method makes the whole movement amagnetic but is quite hard/inconveniet because it tends to make the watch thicker unless you have a high quality ultrathin base movement. This was one of the better methods before silicon/carbon/ceramic movement parts to amagnetise a watch. Same method was used in the original Rolex Milgauss.

AP RO chrono does not use this, they don't want to show the f.piguet movement. Gen 3 VC is inhouse and uses silicon with modern materials to achieve amagnetism.

[Sho-nuff]

Originally Posted by wisguy

I owned a ROC 26399 and once took the caseback off, the F Piguet movement is well finished but the rotor is not something you'd want to see everyday.

I think AP's implementation of the FP movement is great to look at. Did the one in your 26300 look different to the reference picture below?

[Amiroo]

Originally Posted by LirimP

That’s the reason I got a 15400 instead

Really? I'd maybe consider a 15202 over the chrono due to the movement but the 3120 isn't anything to drool over. And I have a RG 15400 boutique dial...

[wach16]

Here is a video of a watchmaker at AP assembling the 2385 in an ROC...Agree with the rotor being bland (especially with the rotors in other lines) but still a gorgeous movement.

https://www.facebook.com/audemarspig...4850670718422/

[wisguy]

Originally Posted by Sho-nuff

I think AP's implementation of the FP movement is great to look at. Did the one in your 26300 look different to the reference picture below?

Nope, exactly like that.

IMO that rotor design is not designed to be shown, well finished but not very eye catching.

[mav3rick]

i feel the AP 3120 too small for most of the models it is cased in, hence does not look impressive...

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by karasus

For older ROO chronographs with JLC movements and VC gen 1&2 chronographs there is a technical reason/justification (improved anti magnetism).

In these watches there are two cases inside the watch. A soft iron cage inside (will rust if wet) and a waterproof stainless steel or other corrosion resistant outer case. This method makes the whole movement amagnetic but is quite hard/inconveniet because it tends to make the watch thicker unless you have a high quality ultrathin base movement. This was one of the better methods before silicon/carbon/ceramic movement parts to amagnetise a watch. Same method was used in the original Rolex Milgauss.

AP RO chrono does not use this, they don't want to show the f.piguet movement. Gen 3 VC is inhouse and uses silicon with modern materials to achieve amagnetism.

the simple answer in the VC current generation is the movement went to in-house vs previous gens... magnetism or not they were going to show it off IMO. I tend to think the technical side takes a back seat as it should in HH.

[bosch88]

The newer AP Royal Oak Offshore chronos in 42mm and 44mm do have display backs...