Thinnest offshores?

[Rollieo]

Normally I hate thicker watches. To me, anything 13mm+ is considered thick.

With that said, I tried on an offshore recently and it definitely has an appeal. Thing looks like a beast, wears big but looks like it’s meant to wear big. I still would like it to be on the thinner side though. 13mm is acceptable.. maybe 13.5mm. 15mm is too much.

So what are the thinnest offshores AP has produced? Would love pics

[Bach609]

I think this one is one of the slimmer : 15340ST.OO.D002CA.01

12.7mm from what I found. But there is a WEMPE logo on the dial...Otherwise the proportions are very very good in my opinion.

https://www.europeanwatch.com/watch/...Wem-24963.html

[shafran]

The 26480 titanium was 42mm and 12.8 mm thick, based on the newer movement in codes and roc.

[gretch6364]

Originally Posted by Bach609

I think this one is one of the slimmer : 15340ST.OO.D002CA.01

12.7mm from what I found. But there is a WEMPE logo on the dial...Otherwise the proportions are very very good in my opinion.

https://www.europeanwatch.com/watch/...Wem-24963.html

Looks so much better (from the side) then the other 14mm divers. Wish they were all this thin.

[VogelPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Bach609

I think this one is one of the slimmer : 15340ST.OO.D002CA.01

12.7mm from what I found. But there is a WEMPE logo on the dial...Otherwise the proportions are very very good in my opinion.

https://www.europeanwatch.com/watch/...Wem-24963.html

Interesting. Didn't know that existed.

[wiswrist]

Originally Posted by shafran

The 26480 titanium was 42mm and 12.8 mm thick, based on the newer movement in codes and roc.

The 26480 has the old 2385 from the previous gen ROC (based on a F. Piguet 1185) - not the new 4401 in the current ROC and Code chronos.

[shafran]

Originally Posted by wiswrist

The 26480 has the old 2385 from the previous gen ROC (based on a F. Piguet 1185) - not the new 4401 in the current ROC and Code chronos.

I was under the false impression as to thats why it was thin

[ciceroyeah]

I believe the “Scuba” three-hand Offshores (model 15701, which the current Diver model evolved from) are thinner. The scuba models don’t have an in-house movement though: it’s a JLC ebauche.

[WatchEater666]

Originally Posted by ciceroyeah

I believe the “Scuba” three-hand Offshores (model 15701, which the current Diver model evolved from) are thinner. The scuba models don’t have an in-house movement though: it’s a JLC ebauche.

None of the movements are in-house though? Aren't they all FP?

[ciceroyeah]

Originally Posted by WatchEater666

None of the movements are in-house though? Aren't they all FP?

My understanding is that the 3120 movement in the 15703 divers is in-house, made by AP, as are the next-gen movements in the current diver lineup. As far as I am aware most other offshores all now have in-house movements as well.

[wiswrist]

Originally Posted by shafran

I was under the false impression as to thats why it was thin

The F. Piguet movement is thinner. The previous generation ROC was thinner than the current generation for that reason.

[Rollieo]

Sounds like AP went all in house on the offshores and now have thicker cases… seems backwards to me…

Interesting grey market for offshore is generally cheaper. Maybe that’s the route to go

[gretch6364]

Originally Posted by Rollieo

Sounds like AP went all in house on the offshores and now have thicker cases… seems backwards to me…

Interesting grey market for offshore is generally cheaper. Maybe that’s the route to go

It is all relative. The difference is 10ths of a millimeter

[Eastie]

Nah the in house movements really are worse - thicker and less reliable.

Take the RO chrono for example, the old 26331 was 11.0 mm thick with the FP movement. The new RO chronograph is 12.4mm thick with the AP in-house movement, which also has frequent issues requiring a service center trip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk