Better movement - Audemars Piguet ROO or Rolex?

[VICI]

I have read a couple of reviews on both watches - and while there will always be fanatics for both brands, I am curious of your thoughts:

Which watch company has a better movement - Audemars Piguet or Rolex?

So specifically I am comparing a Royal Oak Offshore to a Daytona.

Based on jewels, rotations per hour, accuracy, certification, etc.

The other thing to sort of makes me question AP - what do you guys think of the fact that the chronograph pushers are not alighted with the crown?

Just something that would cause my OCD to act up :)

[gwalker]

Rolex makes pretty uncomplicated, not so pretty, workhorse movements. AP makes a better finished movements and some that are many times more complicated than Rolex. What's better is another question. It's like comparing my truck to my SL550. Both are good in their own ways but totally different.

[TSW]

Originally Posted by gwalker

Rolex makes pretty uncomplicated, not so pretty, workhorse movements. AP makes a better finished movements and some that are many times more complicated than Rolex. What's better is another question. It's like comparing my truck to my SL550. Both are good in their own ways but totally different.

[Check]

I agree with Gunter. Based on what I know, the comparison is apples to oranges.

Merely because the finish is better and has more complications doesn't mean that it will necessarily be as robust and durable. Based on my lifestyle (based solely on what I've read on this and other watch forums), I would go with the Rolex sports watches because they are rugged workhorses that can and do work very well in adverse conditions for prolonged periods of time. In other words, Rolex has a quality movement that has stood the test of time.

To my way of thinking, less complications are better since there are fewer things that can break and go wrong.

As far as the specs go, I can't help you there since I don't know much about AP

[buddy13]

Both will serve you very well for many, many years.

Also what matters, is that with both companies you are backed with outstanding servicing.

[kilyung]

Originally Posted by Toplaw

The other thing to sort of makes me question AP - what do you guys think of the fact that the chronograph pushers are not alighted with the crown?

The newer 3126 movements align with the crown. While the 2X26 movements didn't align, they were based on the JLC 889 movement and have over 30yrs of field use. Nothing wrong with either movement.

[Adam K.]

Decoratively, AP will win every time next to Big Green. However, functional quality would be a more arguable thing.


Regarding the two movements you've suggested, I'd voice my own preference for the Daytona's 4130, simply because it sings to my bias for fully integrated chronograph calibers that utilize a column-wheel. The AP's is modular and has slideway switching--of course, this is no way makes it a bad movement.

I think a better comparison would be the movement in the ROC, which is Frederic Piguet based and, like the Rolex 4130, is integrated and column-wheel governed (both have a vertical clutch, too). Tough contest there, as the FP 1185 is pretty damn awesome---and a slender beauty, as well.

[Evil bendy]

Well of the options I'd go with AP over Rolex, unless we're talking a zenith daytona

But what is it you want out of your watch - do you prefer a proven workhorse which is nothing special to look at, or a movement that is nicely decorated and finished do you can appreciate the movement on an aesthetic level in addition to a purely functional level. Are you talking art or function? Are you the sort of guy who wants to wear your watch backwards on your wrist (if so maybe neither of these brands is for you). If its indestructability, hardiness and the ability to go where no man has gone before then maybe the omega speedmaster beats Daytona for you...

I do think there are some nicer finished movements then either of the options (rolex Daytona, ap roo) listed here when it comes to chronos ;)

but then again I own both (and neither have a crystal back for the movement) so who am
I to talk...

[Evil bendy]

Also I remember coming across this well written piece...in case anyone finds it helpful...cheers

http://timetapestry.blogspot.ca/2007/02/like-ferrari-with-4-cylinder-engine.html

[Sam Philip]

Ap

[rollieguy]

As much as i like the Daytona,and have one, my vote goes to the ROO.

[Submarino]

AP is part of the Holy Trinity of Watchmaking (AP, VC, PP) and Rolex is not. AP is 'Haute Horlogerie' while Rolex is a luxury watch brand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Watches are the new currency!

[craniotes]

The 4130 in the Daytona gets points by virtue of being a fully integrated column wheel chronograph; the 3126 in the ROO (and the JLC-based movements that preceeded it) is modular, with the chrono complication built on top of the movement by Dubois Depraz. In the eyes of purists, a ground-up integrated chrono wins every time. The difference here, however, lies in the hand-finishing, which is an area that AP excels in. Rolex? Not so much. In fact, 35% of the not inconsiderable cost of every AP sold goes into the finishing, so if that sort of thing means something to you, then the AP takes the cake.

For my part, I have no problem with the modular chrono movements used in the ROOs, since, by every reasonable yardstick they perform as well as the best integrated chrono movements. Unlike say, a 7750, the pushers actuate smoothly with a gentle push and the second hand starts immediately -- exactly like a column wheel design. Indeed, I would compare the use and feel of an ROO to that of my dearly departed JLC MCDC, which housed JLC's vaunted c.751 (one of the best contemporary automatic integrated chronograph movements on the market today).

Oh yeah, and the ROO has a date.

Still, a Rolex is a Rolex is a Rolex, and their reputation for reliability and accuracy under adverse conditions and indifferent maintenance is well deserved. If you intend to wear your watch in anger so to speak, then a Daytona is hard to beat.

Regards,
Adam

[Kevin.S]

Originally Posted by craniotes

The 4130 in the Daytona gets points by virtue of being a fully integrated column wheel chronograph; the 3126 in the ROO (and the JLC-based movements that preceeded it) is modular, with the chrono complication built on top of the movement by Dubois Depraz. In the eyes of purists, a ground-up integrated chrono wins every time. The difference here, however, lies in the hand-finishing, which is an area that AP excels in. Rolex? Not so much. In fact, 35% of the not inconsiderable cost of every AP sold goes into the finishing, so if that sort of thing means something to you, then the AP takes the cake.

For my part, I have no problem with the modular chrono movements used in the ROOs, since, by every reasonable yardstick they perform as well as the best integrated chrono movements. Unlike say, a 7750, the pushers actuate smoothly with a gentle push and the second hand starts immediately -- exactly like a column wheel design. Indeed, I would compare the use and feel of an ROO to that of my dearly departed JLC MCDC, which housed JLC's vaunted c.751 (one of the best contemporary automatic integrated chronograph movements on the market today).

Oh yeah, and the ROO has a date.

Still, a Rolex is a Rolex is a Rolex, and their reputation for reliability and accuracy under adverse conditions and indifferent maintenance is well deserved. If you intend to wear your watch in anger so to speak, then a Daytona is hard to beat.

Regards,
Adam

Very well stated Adam

[maeisenberg]

Both companies have great movements. The Rolex is a workhorse, cann handle amost anything. The AP is great, my only objection is the jumping of the hands when setting. You can't go wrong with either one.