Daytona and AP Royal Oak question...

[boa2]

Originally Posted by AndersB

They are similar, and from the same period I believe.

The Royal Oak was first released in 1972, around (I believe) 5 years earlier than the Oysterquartz, and 4 years earlier than the PP Nautilus. The Royal Oak is one of a small group of most iconic watches in the history of watchmaking, and was a huge shift in that it was the first sport watch that treated stainless steel in the manner of a precious metal. It was 20% of AP's entire production that year, and they were predicted by many other companies to head quickly into bankruptcy. Fortunately, it sold, and well. It then spawned quite a few monocoque-cased, elegant sport watches in SS...Patek, Vacheron, IWC, etc. As someone who was at AP at the time (and still is) said to me, "the driver would wear a SS Rolex and the boss in the back seat would wear a gold Rolex...there were no other alternatives." Along came the Royal Oak, a watch whose aesthetic cannot be separated from its role in watchmaking history.

It certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. The model line is huge, so the closest comparison would be the Royal Oak Chronograph to the Daytona. Two very different watches. They wear very differently, and their winding & chronograph operation feels quite different as well. AP makes some very high end and extremely complicated watches, and the one thing that exists throughout the line is a level of finishing that I can only describe as "Wow"!

That said, I'm a huge fan of the Daytona as well, and absolutely love the watch. Some people don't get its appeal either, and I call those people NUTS.

40 years later, it still uses the same movement...


Still the thinnest automatic with a central rotor...


What can you say...it's simply an awesome watch!

[KarlFr]

This thread need to be deleted or locked 'cause it will just cause me to spend even more money on watches.... and this time around APs
As a Daytona owner I'm now drooling over the 15300 ...

[wisguy]

Originally Posted by KarlFr

This thread need to be deleted or locked 'cause it will just cause me to spend even more money on watches.... and this time around APs
As a Daytona owner I'm now drooling over the 15300 ...

Just do it! You won't regret it.

[Kanger]

I've owned every single Rolex sports model in stainless steel, and none even come close to the detailed finishing on an AP. That said, I still love want more Rolex watches for myself, but in my mind, Audemars Piguet will always be above anything Rolex sports models can come up with.

[watchf]

Can you guys go into more details about the magnificent finishing that were mentioned in several posts by several people. I am getting warmed to its shape but want to hear more about what awesome finishing you fellas are talking about. From the many pics posted in this thread I can't see any breath taking finishing other than brushed SS that looks the same as the brushed SS on a Rolex.

[Kanger]

The stainless steel finish, is simply superior. Say a year ago when I started collecting watches, words like chamfer has no meaning to me. But today it does. Not only is the case chamfered, every single link on the bracelet is too. The brushed finish on the AP is just unbelievable and you have to see it to believe it.

Of course, the movement. What can I say. Just type in "Audemars Piguet Calibre 3120" into Google and it's game over.

[veilstylez]

They are two different beast. I've owned a AP RO, ROO and about every SS sports Rolex and my favorite Rolex is the Daytona. But the ROC is something different. The ROC is getting the most wrist time now which says something. The 2 are my favorite watches of all time. But If I had to let one go, it would be the ROC, only because it is a Daytona. but if I had a Panda ROC I might think different.

[OneilC]

I still somewhat regret getting DJ II over finding a SS white Daytona. It has always been my Rolex grail. That said, I would take a ROO over any Rolex without hesitation.

[GTS Dean]

Originally Posted by boa2

The Royal Oak was first released in 1972, around (I believe) 5 years earlier than the Oysterquartz, and 4 years earlier than the PP Nautilus.

Who started the styling influence is somewhat debatable: http://www.oysterquartz.net/style_and_substance.htm






I've owned an OQ for over 25 years and really like the style. I could see a RO in my collection some day.

[psv]

AP Royal Oak (regular RO, ROC and ROO) is one of the most hyped watch lines out there at the moment, which is one of the reason I'm turning a bit sour on them. Every week there is another limited edition in eye-catching bright colors and another ambassador deal with a musician, race car driver or athlete. Not the reason I buy and wear a watch, your miles may vary.

The real icon AP is the 15202, aka The Jumbo. I was "this" close on pulling the trigger on that one quite recently but at the end of the day I realized with was more for its cult-status rather than I actually loved the watch. It doesn't have a second hand, which I find useful. I also prefer watches that can take a bath/dive if need be, and 50m water-resistance just isn't good enough in that department. I did try the AP ROO Diver instead but even if the fit and finish is superb, I honestly think my SubC is far more practical, more comfortable, better lume and better value.

I recently finally got a (black face) Daytona. Sitting on my wrist right now. It is super comfortable, has a great mix between sport and classy, dead accurate, an incredible pedigree and borderline affordable when you compare to the higher-end houses (can't really compare a hand-made watch with a mass-produced one).

Get the one that sings to you. At the end of the day, I care less about cult, hype and horological finesse, I just get the watch that sings to me. The true keepers usually turns out to be Rolex, and Daytona is certainly one of them.

Cheers,

Patrick

[Power Play]

What's with the AP's hexagonal "screws" on the face that aren't really screws?

[Grumpy Badger]

Originally Posted by Power Play

What's with the AP's hexagonal "screws" on the face that aren't really screws?

The actual screws are on the case back so the ones on the front are more like locking nuts.

[Passionata]

AP RO is a very special watch , i think mr Genta s timekeeper is among the 10most important horological design ,however if you want the best chronograph movement ever made ,if you d lke to own a durable trustworthy watch which name equals nobility than go for the 116520,you can argue but doesn t worth

Justmy2cent
Best
George

[boa2]

Originally Posted by GTS Dean

Who started the styling influence is somewhat debatable: http://www.oysterquartz.net/style_and_substance.htm

I'm not sure it is debatable, certainly not chronologically. Gerald Genta designed the Royal Oak, and then the Nautilus. As well as the IWC Ingenieur, etc. And then the Oysterquartz was released. I really like the OQ as well...pretty great watch!

[boa2]

Originally Posted by psv

AP Royal Oak (regular RO, ROC and ROO) is one of the most hyped watch lines out there at the moment, which is one of the reason I'm turning a bit sour on them. Every week there is another limited edition in eye-catching bright colors and another ambassador deal with a musician, race car driver or athlete. Not the reason I buy and wear a watch, your miles may vary.

The real icon AP is the 15202, aka The Jumbo. I was "this" close on pulling the trigger on that one quite recently but at the end of the day I realized with was more for its cult-status rather than I actually loved the watch. It doesn't have a second hand, which I find useful. I also prefer watches that can take a bath/dive if need be, and 50m water-resistance just isn't good enough in that department. I did try the AP ROO Diver instead but even if the fit and finish is superb, I honestly think my SubC is far more practical, more comfortable, better lume and better value.

I recently finally got a (black face) Daytona. Sitting on my wrist right now. It is super comfortable, has a great mix between sport and classy, dead accurate, an incredible pedigree and borderline affordable when you compare to the higher-end houses (can't really compare a hand-made watch with a mass-produced one).

Get the one that sings to you. At the end of the day, I care less about cult, hype and horological finesse, I just get the watch that sings to me. The true keepers usually turns out to be Rolex, and Daytona is certainly one of them.

Cheers,

Patrick

The "new AP LE per week" has stuck like a tagline for a lot of people even though it isn't so by the numbers, not anywhere close in fact. The number of AP LE's has in fact declined to only one or two a year. And of the last three, one debuted for months first in Japan, and two in Latin America. Over the years, there were many, but then again, they sold really well....RB1, RB2, EOD, etc. The marketplace sees the value of limited editions, as do the auction houses. That said, I completely agree. You have to get what you like most.

I'm sorry you're soured on this...



I hope all is well with you and the family!

[boa2]

Originally Posted by GTS Dean

Who started the styling influence is somewhat debatable: http://www.oysterquartz.net/style_and_substance.htm


I've owned an OQ for over 25 years and really like the style. I could see a RO in my collection some day.

Fantastic quartet!

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by Grumpy Badger

The actual screws are on the case back so the ones on the front are more like locking nuts.

Are they even functional or is it just some sort or design choice? They look silly in my opinion. A screw can't be hexagonal. And there are many more elegant ways to secure the bezel to the case. They don't even coincide with the hour markers - which would have made a bit more sense.

As for comparison of fit and finish, no one seems to be able to point to objective evidence of the AP RO or Daytona being any better. Chamfering in the AP is simply a design choice - not an indication of quality.

Both watches have legendary movements and are of superior quality. Design and history are really the only significant differences between the two watches.

Like others here, I feel that the AP RO is ugly in photos and in-the-metal. But that's just my subjective opinion which really shouldn't matter to someone who finds they happen to like the AP design. There's no arguing that the AP RO is obviously a an outstanding timepiece in terms of craftsmanship - just like the Daytona.

Bottom line: wear what you dig!

[Klokke]

Originally Posted by boa2

I'm not sure it is debatable, certainly not chronologically. Gerald Genta designed the Royal Oak, and then the Nautilus. As well as the IWC Ingenieur, etc. And then the Oysterquartz was released. I really like the OQ as well...pretty great watch!

Did you even look at the link? The older Rolex Viceroy and Imperial Oyster cases clearly must have inspired Genta's later RO.

The Oysterquartz seems only to have "copied" older Rolexes.

[bart]

i think the daytona lost some of its "exclusivity" by being not as rare on the market as it was a couple years ago

on the other hand, I dont like to see AP doing numerous limited editions, just like hublot does. to me a truly traditional brand should not do this (rolex doesnt do that).

[boa2]

Originally Posted by Klokke

Are they even functional or is it just some sort or design choice? They look silly in my opinion. A screw can't be hexagonal. And there are many more elegant ways to secure the bezel to the case. They don't even coincide with the hour markers - which would have made a bit more sense.

As for comparison of fit and finish, no one seems to be able to point to objective evidence of the AP RO or Daytona being any better. Chamfering in the AP is simply a design choice - not an indication of quality.

Both watches have legendary movements and are of superior quality. Design and history are really the only significant differences between the two watches.

Like others here, I feel that the AP RO is ugly in photos and in-the-metal. But that's just my subjective opinion which really shouldn't matter to someone who finds they happen to like the AP design. There's no arguing that the AP RO is obviously a an outstanding timepiece in terms of craftsmanship - just like the Daytona.

Bottom line: wear what you dig!

Yes, the screws are functional. And they are perpendicular to the bezel corners. Mating them with the hour markers wouldn't make sense. The design is 40 years old, and seems to have worked pretty well, enough to inspire an entirely new genre of watches, as well as numerous models. It long ago reached iconic status, alongside the Submariner, Speedmaster, Reverso, Calatrava, and a mere handful of others.

Regarding finishing, the two are not comparable...nor are the two brands playing the same game. Intentionally so.

Agreed...two very fine watches of superb quality.

[boa2]

Originally Posted by Klokke

Did you even look at the link? The older Rolex Viceroy and Imperial Oyster cases clearly must have inspired Genta's later RO.

The Oysterquartz seems only to have "copied" older Rolexes.

Yes, I did. I'm not sure you can "clearly" draw that conclusion. In any event, only one is the icon.

[Grumpy Badger]

If you do a google image search you will see the actual screw heads on the case back. Like I said, the hexagonal 'screws' on the bezel act more like nuts.

[Le Chef]

Take a look at the movements from the point of view of finishing and there's no comparison. The RO movement has "Cote de Geneve", anglage, a gold skeletonized rotor, and polished screws. There's a reason why Rolex don't offer display backs - there's really no work done on the movement to make it look more attractive.

The RO has finer brushing on the stainless steel of the case and bracelet. That finer brushing alternates with highly polished sections. Even the edges of the links are polished to offer a contrast. You can feel the difference the minute you pick up both watches. In the end you get what you pay for. If finer finishing is not your thing then there's no point in paying more for it.

[psv]

A lot of good opinions here, especially the latter one from Chef and of course the benefits of Howard's insights.

@Howard, my friend, a said a "a bit sour" - not completely turned off! :-) I'd LOVE to own an AP perpetual some day, I doubt it will be this lifetime though! ;-) I'm sure I'll be back to adding an RO/ROC to the collection soon enough, perhaps little time down the road when every 2nd striptease on TZ is about someone's new AP (yes, I have an affinity for hyperbole and exaggeration ;-), just as there isn't really a limited edition AP or Hublot coming out every 2nd week, but sometimes it feels like it. IWC seem to be going down that road as well, albeit in a different division. Don't get me started on Panerai...)

Truly, the right answer between Daytona and AP RO is simple: get both! :-)

[HL65]

Is this thread still going on....Wow----Daytona again!

[moviefreak]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan1965

Is this thread still going on....Wow----Daytona again!

A True Rolex Man...

[psv]

Originally Posted by boa2

[Geronomo12]

It's true about the 'holy grail thing'. I circled around the Daytona for years and bought many watches but in the end I gave in and bought a white SS one. I am not sorry.

[WatchTimes]

I do not care for either....
Just bought yet another Daytona to realize it does nothing for me
but seems it made my wife smile so it might be hers.
I think it is a nice looking watch but its a pain to unscrew the pushers
when I want to use the chrono and I think it looks better when the pushers
are screwed down so Im outta luck both ways
As for the ROO, I think its very overrated and overdone with limited editions.
I think its a let down that its a piggy back module instead of an integrated chrono
when its a company of that level and that price range. This also causes the case
to be thicker and the bezels are ding magnets!

[Tony-GB]

I just wish the 15300 had crown guards & the Diver had the smaller waffle dial like the 15300.

I'm hoping the Diver will be released with dial options. Blue & silver.


.