Audemars Piguet Royal Oak

[DC watchman]

Originally Posted by cpcc

Wow, I own both brands. I agree that Omega is definately better but has less notariaty than Rolex. Rolex is known and worshipped throughout the world. They have a much better marketing division.
In conclusion, they are both great watches and you can't go wrong with either.
Peace

The build quality in most Omegas is on par with Rolex. That is an undeniable fact. Handle a PO and a Sub side by side without taking size into consideration and tell me if I am wrong.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by DC watchman

The build quality in most Omegas is on par with Rolex. That is an undeniable fact. Handle a PO and a Sub side by side without taking size into consideration and tell me if I am wrong.

Have to agree with you on this one, pal. Although the steel quality is different, the overall finish and quality control on an OMEGA is truly amazing.

An OMEGA, straight out of box, brand spanking new, is indeed a sight to behold.

While all the OMEGA models may not have the same appeal to many of us, there are those few special models that are truly stunning in finish and quality.

JJ

[f16570]

Good to see that we can agree that both watches are of excellent quality.
Did NASA test a Sub though?

f

[DC watchman]

Originally Posted by f16570

Good to see that we can agree that both watches are of excellent quality.
Did NASA test a Sub though?

f

Think they tested a Daytona or another chronograph model.

You can not knock the Speedmaster in any way shape or form.

[abigsecret]

WOW WOW WOW Hold-on!
I did not say Omega was inferior!
I was just trying to make a comparison with mass production over more exclusiveness and higher price over a little less expensive....
I had no intention whatsoever to make Omega sound like a bad watch! Sh!t, if I compared it with Rolex, means I like it right?
I didn't want to put "Movado" or something, because that just really wouldn't have made sense!

OK gents, lets all kiss and make up! I mean, shake hands and forget about it!

Mireyna

[vukotab]

My good friend have AP Royal Oak Offshore Chronograph wit rubber bracelet.I tried it billion times on my wrist and I`m 100% certain that I would NEVER buy that watch.Not that I don`t know anything about brand(I`m well informed with it`s history and I respect it very much),but I simply don`t like it.Like I said,I`m aware of it`s quality and in-house made movement,but I would go for Rolex or even Omega instead of ot in a less than a heartbeat.

[JJ Irani]

Originally Posted by abigsecret

WOW WOW WOW Hold-on!
I did not say Omega was inferior!
I was just trying to make a comparison with mass production over more exclusiveness and higher price over a little less expensive....
I had no intention whatsoever to make Omega sound like a bad watch! Sh!t, if I compared it with Rolex, means I like it right?
I didn't want to put "Movado" or something, because that just really wouldn't have made sense!

OK gents, lets all kiss and make up! I mean, shake hands and forget about it!

Mireyna

I'm up for the kiss, Mireyna.....the rest of the guys may ONLY shake hands with you!!

[doc_colton]

Originally Posted by lardog

AP Royal Oak is a great watch line.
"That's like comparing a Rolex with an Omega" i will take an Omega over an over priced rolex any day. did rolex go to the MOON NO they did not. The sub crashed and burned.

My history may be a little hazy but didn't Jack Swigert wear a GMT Master on Apollo 13? Well, it almost made it to the moon....

Also Dave Scott from Apollo 15 said "I do not recall ever having looked at my watch after egress. In the cabin after EVA-2, I noticed that the crystal of my Omega had popped off sometime during the EVA. Therefore, on EVA-3, I used my backup Waltham watch (which was) of a similar type. It worked just fine during the even higher temperatures of EVA-3.]".

While I love Omega's they were certainly not the only watch in space, or on the moon, during the good old days......

[Spark]

Omega watches are fantastic and nobody is disputing that fact.
This topic has obviously hit some raw nerves, so also being a Heuer enthusiast I thought I'd just throw another cat amonst the pigeons.

Thanks to On the Dash the Heuer forum.



TAG-Heuer Stakes Its Claim -- The First Swiss Watch in Space!! On October 26, 2006, TAG-Heuer made the big announcement -- that Heuer was the first Swiss timepiece in space, having been worn by John Glenn on his February 1962 mission. This news was the lead story on TAG-Heuer's website and was also the subject of a global Press Release issued by TAG-Heuer. It's very exciting that OnTheDash was part of this discovery, and we are proud to have presneted TAG-Heuer with this proud chapter of its history. (10/26/06)

[doc_colton]

I wonder what Yuri Gagarin wore, or for that matter if they gave Laika the dog or Ham the chimp a watch to wear when they sent them up.........

[BigHat]

I think most of the things you need to know have been conveyed already.

I'm a very big fan of the ROO but opted to buy a VC Overseas for my "nice chrono" watch. Why?
1. While beautiful, not all that easy to read. The Themes watches like the Safari and Navy don't have lume on the hands. Other do however.

2. I wanted the chrono on a bracelet. The Overseas bracelet is a work of art and BY FAR the most comfortable watch I've worn. The AP bracelet isn't even close to being as nice. When I buy a Navy it will come with the leather strap.

3. The VC is anti-magnetic.

4. While both come from the Big Three in watch making: AP, PP and VC; there is no doubt VC has the greatest history. Familiy owned and the oldest of the greats.

Wouldn't hang here if I didn't respect Rolex, but they aren't even in the same ballpark as the great Swiss watchmakers. Sadly, you could hold a gun to the heads of 99% of Americans and they couldn't tell you what VC and AP even make. Take a look in WatchTime now and then and see the advertising spent by watchmakers. Rolex dwarfs most of the others. PP actually spending quite a bit on the "You don't own a Patek, you just hold it for the next generation" campaign but aside from that, they grandmasters don't advertise much.

A RO isn't hard to get, but the ROOs that are worth buying make a SS Daytona look like a G-shock in terms of availability. AP make beautiful limited editions in 200-1000 pieces that you can't even see let alone buy unless you are buying LOTS of very expensive watches.

By the way, only a few of the ROO models use in-house movements. Understand that's changing as time goes by though.

[DJF881]

The APs retail for more than the Rolexes, but Furman discounts them over 20%, and I would not be surprised if retailers do the same.

With the super-luxury brands like Audemars or Patek, you're paying a significant premium for exclusivity.

Fans of the brands will also say you're paying for "craftsmanship." But the larger commitment of watchmaker attention dedicated to each watch doesn't necessarily make a better timepiece, though it does necessarily limit the number of watches the company can make (hence, exclusivity).

A lot of the reason Omega is cheaper than Rolex and Rolex is cheaper than AP or Patek is that the fixed costs of a company can be distributed across more watches. This is also why it's Seiko inventing the Spring Drive, Omega inventing the coaxial escapement and Rolex inventing the Parachrom hairspring.

Patek or AP or Vacheron are better equipped to make more intricate, complicated movements, which require many more watchmaker labor, while Rolex or Omega can invest in R&D and high-tech new machinery because the cost of that is distributed over hundreds of thousands of watches a year, rather than tens of thousands.

Economies of scale also means that the service network for Rolex or Omega is going to be more efficient, and therefore less expensive.

A Rolex is substantially more expensive than an Omega, especially when you consider the street discounts from SRP that you can expect from Omega, but not from Rolex, and a Rolex is going to be substantially cheaper than a similarly appointed Patek or AP in most cases.

Any chronometer certified watch is going to be a very fine movement. Most honest comparisons between a Rolex and an equivalent model Omega generally agree that the Omega is almost always the better value for the price.

Going from a Rolex to a more exclusive brand nets you even less substantial performance improvement, considering the movements in the Daytona and the new GMT are widely held to be as accurate as a mechanical watch can be. I've seen people compare Rolex and Patek to BMW and Ferrari, but the Patek is like the Ferrari only in that it is hand assembled; the performance differential that comparison suggests does not exist.

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by BigHat

4. While both come from the Big Three in watch making: AP, PP and VC; there is no doubt VC has the greatest history. Familiy owned and the oldest of the greats.

Hate to break it to you, but Vacheron Constantin is owned by the Richemont Group, which is a luxury goods conglomerate that owns, along with VC, Lange, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Panerai, IWC, Montblanc, VanCleef & Arpels, and Chloe`.

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by lardog

Five different brands of chronographs were purchased and returned to NASA for testing. The Speedmaster passed NASA's numerous tests, which included exposure to extreme temperatures, vacuum, intense humidity, corrosion, shock, acceleration, pressure, vibration and noise [2], whereas the Rolex, Breitling, Bulova, Longines and Heuer, notably, all failed[3].

That cite is from Wikipedia, which leads to a TimeZone review of the Speedmaster Pro. This review notes that

"In 1965 NASA purchased five reputable chronographs (one of which was the Speedmaster) from several jewellery stores in Houston. NASA then proceeded to abuse the watches with tests of extreme environmental conditions. Their aim was to determine if a suitable watch was available for their Space Program. The final three contenders for the "Official" NASA chronograph were a Rolex, Longines Wittnauer and the Omega. The reasons for the Rolex's departure were that it stopped running on two occasions during the Relative Humidity Tests and subsequently failed during the High Temperature Test when the sweep hand warped and was binding against the other hands on the dial. No other tests were run with the Rolex Chronograph. As for the Longines Wittnauer: "The crystal warped and disengaged during the High Temperature Test. The same discrepancy occurred on a second Longines Wittnauer during the Decompression Test. No further tests were run...." (Japanese Speedmaster Book). "

http://www.timezone.com/library/arch...59849297633294

An article I found on the history of the Rolex Chronograph/Daytona notes:

The last major changes to the manual wind chronograph came in the late 1970's when Rolex introduced the 6263 model. This was the first model to have truly waterproof pushers. The earlier Oyster Chronographs had simple round pushers with internal gaskets as the only sealing mechanism.

http://www.secondtimeround.com/cosmo...20history.html

That certainly explains why the Rolex would fail NASA's abuse tests in the 60's. It's likely the Submariner would have passed them, given that it was 200m waterproof and the Oyster Cosmograph was not.

The whole comparison as completely irrelevant to modern watches. It's like saying that Rolexes have radioactive dials or brittle bakelite bezels.

[BigHat]

Originally Posted by DJF881

Hate to break it to you, but Vacheron Constantin is owned by the Richemont Group, which is a luxury goods conglomerate that owns, along with VC, Lange, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Panerai, IWC, Montblanc, VanCleef & Arpels, and Chloe`.

You're right. Bought in 1996.

[DJF881]

Originally Posted by BigHat

You're right. Bought in 1996.

Yeah. It doesn't change the watch or the standards or craftsmanship invested in it. Putting all those companies under one corporate umbrella allows them to pool resources on certain shared expenses, such as non-watchmaking office personnel.

Luxury holding companies are pretty savvy about what they do. They buy these companies knowing that a great deal of the value is in the reputation of the brand, and they generally don't meddle with that in a way that squanders that value (some people would dispute this with regard to Louis Vuitton, or Mercedes Benz under Chrysler ownership).

Also, Richemont can probably negotiate on behalf of all those companies for the purchase of materials like steel, gold, or diamonds, and can also negotiate collectively with distributors or dealers.

It would be interesting to know whether watchmakers are exclusive to a single subsidiary, and whether watch manufacturing facilities and equipment are shared among them, and whether they've combined aspects of their service networks.

[TARDIS]

Chuck Yeager - first past the speed of sound - Bell X-1, and subsequently to the edge of space.....he had some serious mishaps too.

BTW he wore a GMT Master. Still does I believe.

[TARDIS]

Not withstanding that AP is a superb watch...........

Please some one tell me how many sport Rolex I could buy for the price of a AP ROO?

Comparison?
It seems a few chaps here get a bit uppity about Rolex v. Omega, so I won't go there.

How about this comparison............

911 GT2 Porsche
Bugatti Veyron

I'll leave that open

Steve

[rpryan55]

Steve -

The Bugatti. What a car. Beautiful, elegant, and fast. But the GT2 is a finely tuned, impossibly engineered racing machine. There is no substitute. Give me the one from Stuttgart.

Oh, and I'll always take a Rolex - each and every time. Just a better timepiece, IMHO. Maybe not as pretty, or as delicate, but as fine a watch as was ever made.

[lardog]

Originally Posted by TARDIS

Not withstanding that AP is a superb watch...........

Please some one tell me how many sport Rolex I could buy for the price of a AP ROO?

Comparison?
It seems a few chaps here get a bit uppity about Rolex v. Omega, so I won't go there.

How about this comparison............

911 GT2 Porsche
Bugatti Veyron

I'll leave that open

Steve

The Porsche 997 GT2 is a Great car for $200,000.00

Is a Bugatti Veyron worth $1,000,000.00?

[TARDIS]

Is a Bugatti Veyron worth $1,000,000.00?

It is to some people.

[haakon59]

Originally Posted by doc_colton

I wonder what Yuri Gagarin wore, or for that matter if they gave Laika the dog or Ham the chimp a watch to wear when they sent them up.........

He wore a Fortis model. I can't remember specifically if he wore their "Cosmonaut" model or not. I have also heard rumors of them wearing Omega but I can't confirm or even remember where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt. Fortis is the "official" watch brand of their space program however.

[capncrunch]

I own both - no question your paying something for the goodwill and branding of Rolex but your paying some of that that with Omega too - if I had a gun to my head, I would say Seiko is the best value of mechanical watch by ALOT. Lets face it, Omega will always be red headed step son to Rolex kinda like BMW is to Mercedes - sorry I had to drag it to cars but I sense there might be a bit love lost on this thead?

I LOVE my Rolex's but maybe becuase I can't afford Patek

Lets not forget they are all about $0.30 a pound to the scrap man...

[Jedi]

I have been looking outside of the Rolex stable recently, and AP RO and ROO have been on the list of possibilities, as well as Vacheron, and Patek.

Starting with the RO and ROO, I quickly ruled out the ROO due to the fact that they are mainly chrono's and furthermore, they don't seem to quite live up to the image that the names conjure. They are supposed to be sports models right? Meaning tough right? Meaning at the very least, waterproof right? And what's with calling a watch 'Offshore' if you can't take it down very deep with you? Yes yes yes, I know about the sailing connotations but you don't need a watch that looks like a tank to go sailing... Great design, but for me, let down by function. Also, some snooping here and there reveals that the movements may, and I stress here, MAY, not be as precise as what I'm currently used to.

VC Overseas, and I agree with Big Hat on many of the qualities he's already discussed. After all, they are resistant to at least 100m of water, and their Chrono models are designed to work to that depth too using similar screw down pushers to the Daytona.

But to me, the one singing and smiling the most, has to be the Patek Phillipe Nautilus. Water resistant, unique design of the case, and a kick-ass movement.

The DNA that runs through these watches though, has to be that the pen/mind of one designer had an influence at some point in time, starting with the RO then Nautilus... Gerald Genta.

[TARDIS]

AP make quartz models.

[teton]

Originally Posted by GoldenBear

Nobody here is going to the moon, so you don't have to defend your Omega or your inferiority complex.

Thanks for the laugh. This is the funniest I've read this week so far.

-Teton

[Thurnau]

Audemars Piguet Royal Oak

Is anyone gunna post a pic of one?

[TheDude]

Here you go... Funny thing, I was watching "The Biggest Loser" last night on NBC, and the male trailer had one that was rose gold with black bezel on... Must be paying him too much. ;)

Could have been this one...




Lots more really cool looking shots of Royal Oaks here:

http://www.tp178.com/SJX/Basel_SIHH/...2007/ap/ap.htm

[Stratton]

Originally Posted by lardog

(but I can assure you they are not built to Rolex standards) HAHA like i said and NASA said OMEGA went to the MOON rolex did not cut it. SO much for ROLEX standards.

Five different brands of chronographs were purchased and returned to NASA for testing. The Speedmaster passed NASA's numerous tests, which included exposure to extreme temperatures, vacuum, intense humidity, corrosion, shock, acceleration, pressure, vibration and noise , whereas the Rolex, Breitling, Bulova, Longines and Heuer, notably, all failed.

The manufacturers of this historic chronograph give meaning to the words quality, craftsmanship and teamwork. It withstood vigorous and repeated testing and surely must be one of the most thoroughly tested watches in history. It was the only watch "Flight Qualified by NASA for all Manned Space Missions" and was used during Projects Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, and the Space Shuttle. As the only piece of space equipment available for wear to the public, the Speedmaster Professional provides the opportunity to own a small piece of history. But perhaps the greatest legacy of the Speedmaster Professional is that it has withstood the test of time. For even now, some 30 years after it was first introduced, it is still the only watch flight-qualified by NASA for extravehicular space activity.

If only the Speedmaster was built now like it was back then and had a service network to look after them. If watches from the 5 manufacturers were given the same test today the outcome would be very different. I love Speedmasters and have had every inacarnation of it bar a 2915 but I am sorry to say that if I was an astronaut the watch on my wrist would not be an Omega. It would not be an AP either but a Rolex. I've had them all and I would say that a Rolex is the most dependable watch in the world. I have found out from members on this forum that Rolex use higher grade stainless steel than all the other manufacturers including PP, AP and VC. Enough said.

[thedips]

AUDEMARS ROYAL OAK IS DEAD SEXY... and DEAD HEAVY.... i love it....