People confusing my watch for a Hublot!!

[improviz]

@speedfighter

So, if I understand correctly, one post ago you were saying that AP using a rubber strap, which we've established was NOT an original innovation of Hublot, was in your words a case where "AP has copied the rubber and gold 'fusion' look of Hublot", while now, you're saying that Hublot blatantly copying numerous design ideas from AP including case style, screws in bezel, ceramics, font style, etc. etc. etc. is, well, not really copying because others do it too, but that on the other hand Hublot using a rubber strap on a *gold* watch was something revolutionary, because, well, it's different metal than what everyone else had been using it with previously...

OK, I think I've got other, more important things to do, like watch the grass grow.

[prwdmd]

Yeah I've always been very nice any time anyone comments on my watch whether they get the brand right or wrong. I just politely correct them if they call it a Hublot. I guess it's just internally somewhat annoying since I really dislike anything Hublot puts out... lol. However I realize people don't mean anything by it...

[speedfighter]

Originally Posted by improviz

@speedfighter

So, if I understand correctly, one post ago you were saying that AP using a rubber strap, which we've established was NOT an original innovation of Hublot, was in your words a case where "AP has copied the rubber and gold 'fusion' look of Hublot", while now, you're saying that Hublot blatantly copying numerous design ideas from AP including case style, screws in bezel, ceramics, font style, etc. etc. etc. is, well, not really copying because others do it too, but that on the other hand Hublot using a rubber strap on a *gold* watch was something revolutionary, because, well, it's different metal than what everyone else had been using it with previously...

OK, I think I've got other, more important things to do, like watch the grass
grow.

I'm glad you need to watch some grass grow as you seem eminently qualified for the role :)

You're twisting words to fit your narrative. Where in my post did I say 'Hublot copying AP?'-never once did I mention that. Anyway take care and make sure you wear some sunscreen global warming and stuff. Cheers!!

[improviz]

You too, enjoy your overpriced AP knockoff!!

[mickyd329]

I just never understood why people get so heated up about who copied who in the watch world. There are only so many ways you can shape a wrist watch right? I guess ALS and GO copied each other or visa versa? Patek and VC copied each other on their dress pieces? Rolex and Omega copied each other? Did RM copy Frank Muller or the other way around? In that sense, I guess indapendants like MB&F, Urwerk, and HYT are the only real original thinkers?

I think all watches excluding fakes of course all have a place in the watch world. Do I have a preference on brands over others? Sure I do. I also do think that all brands have their own unique philosophy and sense of pride in what they do and we should respect that as watch enthusiasts. That's just my humble opinion on the matter. I might be in the minority here, but everyone is entitled to their opinions right?

To the OP, I usually take any compliments and thank them. I'm sure many people think my 44FC is a Gshock or MK, but that never bothered me. In the crazy world we live in today, anyone who goes out of their way to compliment someone deserves a thank you.

[speedfighter]

Originally Posted by improviz

You too, enjoy your overpriced AP knockoff!!

I thought you had important things to do like watch grass grow rather than reply back-I do hope you are not this indecisive in the real world. Yes I am enjoying my overpriced AP knockoffs as you so eloquently put it. I do indeed love my Hublot timepieces. However your tone is no doubt aggressive and very condescending. I apologize if I hurt your feelings before in my post to you previously and meant no harm.

We all have different opinions about watches but your most recent response aimed at me comes across as very mean spirited and diametrically opposes the intent of this forum. Have a nice day.

[speedfighter]

[QUOTE=mickyd329;6719053]I just never understood why people get so heated up about who copied who in the watch world. There are only so many ways you can shape a wrist watch right? I guess ALS and GO copied each other or visa versa? Patek and VC copied each other on their dress pieces? Rolex and Omega copied each other? Did RM copy Frank Muller or the other way around? In that sense, I guess indapendants like MB&F, Urwerk, and HYT are the only real original thinkers?

My sentiments exactly. Who hasn't in one manner shape or form copied from others?

[AK797]

[QUOTE=speedfighter;6719120]

Originally Posted by mickyd329

I just never understood why people get so heated up about who copied who in the watch world. There are only so many ways you can shape a wrist watch right? I guess ALS and GO copied each other or visa versa? Patek and VC copied each other on their dress pieces? Rolex and Omega copied each other? Did RM copy Frank Muller or the other way around? In that sense, I guess indapendants like MB&F, Urwerk, and HYT are the only real original thinkers?

My sentiments exactly. Who hasn't in one manner shape or form copied from others?

It's not only copying the design of the ROO, but then they put an ETA in it and charged a sky high price, trying to force or even fake their way into the high luxury sports market, instead of earning a place there, and so to all intents and purposes they were taking the piss out of many unsuspecting people.

[mickyd329]

[QUOTE=AK797;6719381]

Originally Posted by speedfighter

It's not only copying the design of the ROO, but then they put an ETA in it and charged a sky high price, trying to force or even fake their way into the high luxury sports market, instead of earning a place there, and so to all intents and purposes they were taking the piss out of many unsuspecting people.

That's an interesting observation. Hublot is not the only manufacturer to use ETA movements in high end watches. What anybody charges is a matter of what people are willing to pay for them. They have found a very big following of people willing to part with their money for them. I don't understand why that is such a bad thing. It's still a business

ETA, JLC, ZENITH, & ETC.. have all provided movements for other brands? Are the brands that used these other movements considered thieves like Hublot because they charged exhorbitant prices for those pieces? Maybe I'm missing something. Is ETA considered a cheap crappy movement manufacturer?

To reference your comment about how they forced their way into the high end sports watch market instead of earning it, how do you earn it? What are your thoughts on RM. Another very young company that didn't have their Own movements and they charge super high prices. How did they earn their place? Just curious what the logic would be regarding them? Again, not trying to get in a pissing match with anyone here. Just want to try and understand the thought process and how it relates to all the other brands as well.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by speedfighter

I thought you had important things to do like watch grass grow rather than reply back-I do hope you are not this indecisive in the real world. Yes I am enjoying my overpriced AP knockoffs as you so eloquently put it. I do indeed love my Hublot timepieces. However your tone is no doubt aggressive and very condescending. I apologize if I hurt your feelings before in my post to you previously and meant no harm.

We all have different opinions about watches but your most recent response aimed at me comes across as very mean spirited and diametrically opposes the intent of this forum. Have a nice day.

I'm not indecisive. I decided that the grass is doing just fine, and that you need a bit more historical context, so consider this a public service.

Offended? Yes. I think your coming in here and saying that AP stole from Hublot when Hublot so blatantly ripped off designs and styles from AP is patently ridiculous and insulting. Putting a rubber strap on a watch was neither new nor revolutionary, the Royal Oak was revolutionary.

For further insight in to where the styling of the Hublot came from, perhaps you should watch the video featuring Jean-Claude Biver (who happens to be the CEO of Hublot), wherein he admitted the influence and that they look alike. Here is a helpful transcript of the relevant portion:

Interviewer:"Many people say the Big Bang looks just like the Royal Oak Offshore."

JCB: "100%! Looks like it. So what? Not *my* fault. (smiles)"

Interviewer:"Whose fault is it? (smiles)"

JCB (laughs) "It (the original RO) was based on the idea to take the porthole as the inspiration for the watch case...It was delivered, and was only available with the bracelet."

Interviewer:"Mmm hmm"

JCB: "From 1972 to 2000. And it was mechanical. Automatic. Fantastic Jaegar Le Coultre movement. Now in 1980, Hublot comes and designs a watch that is inspired by the porthole.

Porthole in French means Hublot. But how could he design a watch inspired by the porthole that would not look like the Royal Oak? So he said "But in Royal Oak, is eight angles. But the porthole of a boat is round. So if I design the porthole round, am I in the same design?"

There is more. Biver tries to rationalize it as best he can, but one thing is clear: the RO and ROO came first.
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/ta...n-claude-biver

[speedfighter]

I never said AP stole from Hublot for the last time-read my posts!!! I'm talking about fusion-rubber with gold and the notion of mixing untraditional watch elements together. If you don't like the idea that Hublot either came up with that or was a very early adopter that stuck with it while others derided them for it then that's too bad. Perhaps you should get off your high horse and funny you should mention JLC movements. Aren't some of those either whole or in part in some of the AP watches?

Anyway mickyd329 you have my respect for keeping perspective in the matter pertaining to who stole what from whom. As I opined previously whoever came up with the first round case is the innovator and everyone else who followed with a circular design copied it for all intents and purposes. Perhaps this is unpalatable for others to digest but it is true. You can only have so much innovation with style and shape before some aspect becomes derivative in nature.

[SamGMT]

I don't have this problem on people confusing my AP to Hublot. However, I do receive compliment on my wrist wear "Wow! Beautiful AP!" even though I'm not wearing my AP. LOL!

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by SamGMT

I don't have this problem on people confusing my AP to Hublot. However, I do receive compliment on my wrist wear "Wow! Beautiful AP!" even though I'm not wearing my AP. LOL!

lol. That's what a watch would like if an AP ROO and a Hublot BB had a baby! Love it!

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by speedfighter

Anyway mickyd329 you have my respect for keeping perspective in the matter pertaining to who stole what from whom. As I opined previously whoever came up with the first round case is the innovator and everyone else who followed with a circular design copied it for all intents and purposes. Perhaps this is unpalatable for others to digest but it is true. You can only have so much innovation with style and shape before some aspect becomes derivative in nature.

I just believe that all watch brands have a place in the watch world. Where each brand sits in the different tiers of horology is all subjective. I just love watches period. I don't see a need to bash anyone particular brand. That too me borders on snobbery. It's like a Ferrari guy saying that Lambo's are POS because it doesn't have the racing heritage or a Porsche is just an evolved VW bug with more power. There are way too many folks on TRF that have WAY more knowledge than I do about timepieces, but this is just my humble opinion on the subject matter.

[AK797]

[QUOTE=mickyd329;6719456]

Originally Posted by AK797

That's an interesting observation. Hublot is not the only manufacturer to use ETA movements in high end watches. What anybody charges is a matter of what people are willing to pay for them. They have found a very big following of people willing to part with their money for them. I don't understand why that is such a bad thing. It's still a business

ETA, JLC, ZENITH, & ETC.. have all provided movements for other brands? Are the brands that used these other movements considered thieves like Hublot because they charged exhorbitant prices for those pieces? Maybe I'm missing something. Is ETA considered a cheap crappy movement manufacturer?

To reference your comment about how they forced their way into the high end sports watch market instead of earning it, how do you earn it? What are your thoughts on RM. Another very young company that didn't have their Own movements and they charge super high prices. How did they earn their place? Just curious what the logic would be regarding them? Again, not trying to get in a pissing match with anyone here. Just want to try and understand the thought process and how it relates to all the other brands as well.

This thread isn't about the merits of Hublot so I'm not going to get any more into this, believe me we've been thru this many times here it should be a sticky , and I actually don't have a major problem with them as I do subscribe to the buyer beware theory. I am just pointing out why many here have a problem with Hublot, and it is really the only brand that evokes this feeling and there are reasons for it.

[masterserg]

You guys take this way too seriously

[77T]

Glad he didn't confuse it with an Arnold...

[Royalex]

I know the guy who doesn't know AP, and he said he knew Hublot very well because of its famous and reputation to football but he called the brand "hub-lot".

[77T]

Originally Posted by Royalex

I know the guy who doesn't know AP, and he said he knew Hublot very well because of its famous and reputation to football but he called the brand "hub-lot".

That's choice!
Did you tell him that the brand was really started by Hugh Blow but that was too hard to spell out in the adverts. So they just shortened it to Hublot.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by speedfighter

I never said AP stole from Hublot for the last time-read my posts!!!

I have read the pertinent post. Here it is again:

Originally Posted by speedfighter

The way that AP has copied the rubber and gold 'fusion' look of Hublot you're not far from the truth

Stealing an idea and copying an idea have the same meaning in this context. If in doubt, see Google.

Originally Posted by speedfighter

I'm talking about fusion-rubber with gold and the notion of mixing untraditional watch elements together. If you don't like the idea that Hublot either came up with that or was a very early adopter that stuck with it while others derided them for it then that's too bad.

Again, as pointed out to you before, Rolex, Blancpain beat them to the punch by decades. Tropic straps were commercially available in the 1960s, a full 20 years prior to Hublot's debut selling quartz watches. Even if it were true that they were the first watch company to stick a rubber strap on a gold watch with a quartz movement, this would hardly qualify as a major development in the history of horology nor a quantum leap beyond putting rubber straps on steel watches a few decades earlier. If that's all you've got, I would submit that perhaps you should consider quitting while you're very very far behind.

Untraditional watch elements together? Like what? Ceramic? See Rado. Rubber? See Tropic straps, or see the 1993 Royal Oak Offshore, which had rubber pushers a full 12 years prior to the 2005 Hublot Big Blow (oops, Big Bang, my bad...) Carbon fiber? AP got there first, Hublot copied. Screws in brushed bezel? AP. Etc etc etc...

Originally Posted by speedfighter

Perhaps you should get off your high horse and funny you should mention JLC movements. Aren't some of those either whole or in part in some of the AP watches?

The JLC in the RO is, shall we say charitably, a bit more highly regarded in the world of haute horlogerie than is a quartz movement, or a garden variety ETA... Further, the design of this movement was funded by not only Audemars Piguet but also Patek Phillipe and Vacheron Constantin, and received technical contributions from AP as well.

[speedfighter]

Originally Posted by improviz

I have read the pertinent post. Here it is again:


Stealing an idea and copying an idea have the same meaning in this context. If in doubt, see Google.



Again, as pointed out to you before, Rolex, Blancpain beat them to the punch by decades. Tropic straps were commercially available in the 1960s, a full 20 years prior to Hublot's debut selling quartz watches. Even if it were true that they were the first watch company to stick a rubber strap on a gold watch with a quartz movement, this would hardly qualify as a major development in the history of horology nor a quantum leap beyond putting rubber straps on steel watches a few decades earlier. If that's all you've got, I would submit that perhaps you should consider quitting while you're very very far behind.

Untraditional watch elements together? Like what? Ceramic? See Rado. Rubber? See Tropic straps, or see the 1993 Royal Oak Offshore, which had rubber pushers a full 12 years prior to the 2005 Hublot Big Blow (oops, Big Bang, my bad...) Carbon fiber? AP got there first, Hublot copied. Screws in brushed bezel? AP. Etc etc etc...



The JLC in the RO is, shall we say charitably, a bit more highly regarded in the world of haute horology than is a quartz movement, or a garden variety ETA... Further, the design of this movement was funded by not only Audemars Piguet but also Patek Phillipe and Vacheron Constantin, and received technical contributions from AP as well.

Let's cut to the chase-you know you really come across as a condescending snot. You can call it Big blows or whatever but your narrow parochial mind doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that Hublot again one last time might not have been the 1st but stuck with it and even after much derision continued with it until AP said 'hey maybe that's a cool idea.'

The fact that you know that I own Hublot watches and continue to make fun of them in such a manner truly with puerile snide remarks speaks volumes about your character. You may not like them or my choices but the lack of respect and the manner to which you speak is rather 'disappointing' to say the least. Regardless of how many APs you may or may not own you sure lack tact and class and it truly shows.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by speedfighter

You know you really come across as a condescending snot. You can call it Big blows or whatever but your narrow parochial mind doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that Hublot again one last time might not have been the 1st but stuck with it and even after much derision continued with it until your God AP said 'hey maybe that's a cool idea.'

The fact that you know that I own Hublot watches and continue to make fun of them in such a manner truly with puerile snide remarks speaks volumes about your character. Regardless of many APs you may or may not own you sure lack class.

Apologies for not exhibiting your sort of "class", for example calling me a "condescending snot" who has a "narrow parochial mind", (presumably for pointing out inconvenient facts that poke holes in your argument), or as you demonstrated in this example:

Originally Posted by speedfighter

I'm glad you need to watch some grass grow as you seem eminently qualified for the role :)

So if I, who called you no names over the course of this debate (which, I might add, you started by accusing AP of stealing Hublot's (supposed) idea), am low class for pointing out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your argument, what does that make you?

[speedfighter]

Originally Posted by improviz

Apologies for not exhibiting your sort of "class", for example calling me a "condescending snot" who has a "narrow parochial mind", (presumably for pointing out inconvenient facts that poke holes in your argument), or as you demonstrated in this example:


So if I, who called you no names over the course of this debate (which, I might add, you started by accusing AP of stealing Hublot's (supposed) idea), am low class for pointing out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your argument, what does that make you?

Saying AP liked an idea that another company made popular is not construed as A) Calling names B) Stealing. If B) then every single manufacturer steals from each other-again how many round cases have come out after the initial innovator?

Poking holes-no you're not understanding anything that I'm saying and the truth is you have gone out of your way to demean Hublot and again you may not like the brand and hate it with a passion-that's your prerogative. However the way you publicly go on about its shortcomings is rather offensive and classless.

[Epwerkz]

Originally Posted by prwdmd

Anyone else have this happen to them... I've been wearing my new 44mm rose gold Royal Oak Offshore out a lot. I get lots of compliments but people keep confusing it for a Hublot!!! It's so annoying because I hate Hublot and their copycat watches!

If Someone is telling me that. I would say to him/her " Excuse me... " hahah

[improviz]

Originally Posted by speedfighter

Saying AP liked an idea that another company made popular is not construed as A) Calling names B) Stealing. If B) then every single manufacturer steals from each other-again how many round cases have come out after the initial innovator?

I quoted your previous post, and it most certainly did not state "AP liked an idea that another company made popular", it stated "AP has copied the rubber and gold 'fusion' look of Hublot". Your words, not mine. As to your name-calling, please: I quoted it already, and it's in your posts in plain English.

Originally Posted by speedfighter

Poking holes-no you're not understanding anything that I'm saying and the truth is you have gone out of your way to demean Hublot and again you may not like the brand and hate it with a passion-that's your prerogative. However the way you publicly go on about its shortcomings is rather offensive and classless.

I understand you perfectly well, but as evidenced by your remarks the reverse clearly is not true. I don't hate Hublot, but I do believe they are not innovators, and that their watches' styling is too derivative of APs. But mainly, I think it's patently ridiculous to accuse AP of copying anything from Hublot, when it's been amply documented that in every sense it's the other way around.

Doesn't mean I begrudge people who purchase and enjoy them, but I do take exception to pot/kettle characterizations of AP being influenced by Hublot.

[Hairdude1]

Originally Posted by texex91

followers not leaders.

x2

[speedfighter]

Originally Posted by improviz

I quoted your previous post, and it most certainly did not state "AP liked an idea that another company made popular", it stated "AP has copied the rubber and gold 'fusion' look of Hublot". Your words, not mine. As to your name-calling, please: I quoted it already, and it's in your posts in plain English.



I understand you perfectly well, but as evidenced by your remarks the reverse clearly is not true. I don't hate Hublot, but I do believe they are not innovators, and that their watches' styling is too derivative of APs. But mainly, I think it's patently ridiculous to accuse AP of copying anything from Hublot, when it's been amply documented that in every sense it's the other way around.

Doesn't mean I begrudge people who purchase and enjoy them, but I do take exception to pot/kettle characterizations of AP being influenced by Hublot.

I think this has been beaten to death. Everyone has an opinion and that's that. A couple of things not in any particular order but

1) You mention ETA and quartz movement-well as I recall ETA while pedestrian is a reliable and fine workhorse movement no shame in that. It's really up to the buyer to determine value, perceived value and in my case I didn't mind a rugged and robust movement ETA or otherwise. I mean to a non WIS/Watch aficionado anyone who spends thousands or the tens of thousands to make it worse on a watch with or without an in-house movement would be considered absolutely stir fried bonkers. To these individuals a Timex or Casio does the exact same thing but with greater accuracy and robustness minus a couple of zeros.

Besides Hublot has for for several years now started using its own Unico 'engine'. Now it may not be greatest or prettiest (this I guess is subjective) but they are certainly moving in the right direction. Remember it's only a 36 year old company (many forum members here were born before 1980) and only about 20 years since the JC Biver era. Now people bring up the term 'rich history' and 'tradition'. Well through no fault of their own Hublot is only 36 years old and can't do anything about it's age. Nevertheless it has made massive strides in this time frame which cannot be denied.

In terms of quartz-didn't AP ever use that in its watches? If I'm not mistaken they are also currently used in some smaller or ladies watches or does that not count?

2) I think you're hung up on the lingua franca of this certain point that I'm trying to make regarding the rubber strap with the gold case in this instance so let me be perfectly clear. I never really meant "AP stole the fusion rubber-gold idea from Hublot". Now if you are referring to one of my initial posts that had two Happy faces chugging beer I would have thought that this was an evident tongue in cheek comment as demonstrated by the use of a smiley. After all I used one just above ROFL, and three above Bart Simpson stripping to show his bare butt for goodness sake. Still if this wasn't properly understood or misconstrued or if I used the wrong one then I apologize.

The funny thing is though even if AP did copy that idea (which I'm not saying) 'who cares?' Do you honestly believe that manufacturers don't look at other watch makers and say 'that's a great idea how do we somehow incorporate that into our product'-please. Decisions are not made in a vacuum. Watch companies are always cognizant of what their competitors are doing and how to maintain an edge-that's called business sense in our competitive world.

I'm not saying making an exact or almost exact Chinese replica but ideas always filter within the industry-any industry. Just look at this one example of high end manufacturers that use either gold, titanium or carbon fibre concurrently. They didn't all independently think of using these materials all at once at exactly the same time. Initially one had an idea and others adopted.

So what if Heaven forbid AP in the past, present or future ever incorporated a Hublot or any other manufacturer feature and/or idea for that matter? Maybe I think differently but this doesn't reflect poorly on AP. You can get great ideas from basically everyone within the industry across the spectrum-in fact you would be foolish not to use something of value because it wasn't initially your idea. Furthermore just because you're considered one of the top brands doesn't mean you're the only one that can bring a good idea to the table. All brands have also made mistakes and questionable calls along the way and AP is no different regardless of horological pecking order.

Anyway it's irrelevant in terms of 'when or who' came up with this 1st idea initially, in some secret watch lab as an ephemeral experiment the bottom line is this. Hublot started doing this years ago and STUCK with it. When the watch industry and customers saw this Hublot was met with much disdain. Regardless of all the laughter, the jokes, the put downs and shock-"what gall to have rubber and gold on the same watch", years later so called Haute Horologie manufacturers including AP and RM are doing the same. Where did these critics go? All of a sudden not only is this accepted but praised by many who enjoy this look and characteristic.

I give Hublot a hell of a lot of credit by sticking to their guns. Some if not many of their previous decisions and styles can be construed as 'head scratchers what the heck were they thinking moments?" but not in this particular case or the next. At least they're trying full marks for that.

3) Talking about innovation. I find that to be one of those all encompassing terms that says everything and nothing. Every corporation likes to say MBA buzzwords such as 'culture, values, innovation, etc'. If we want to be pedantic the true horological innovators were the first ones who brought the 1st of its kind. What do I mean? Simple-innovators the manufacturer who made the first round case, or created the first chronograph, or the first to make it water resistant-only the 1st to do so of something can be called true innovators. Of course progression in terms of features and style takes place over time but that's not what we're talking about.

I'll give a real world example (only because I'm familiar with it) of something that I find pretty cool and practical whether you find it 'innovative in nature' is for you to decide. I own a few Hublot Oceanographic dive watches which all have a quick strap change system. Not only is it very secure, but it is unobtrusive with no portrusions, no levers or tabs, simple and quick to use- changes in seconds, no tools or craft knowledge required. Without fiddling with pins or using Bergeon tools I flip my straps from rubber to leather in about 10 seconds. No hassle no fuss no pain no scratches no problem.

Again some brand in the past somewhere (who knows) in Switzerland may have created an experiment or short lived line or one off that did the exact same thing but I don't see that from many manufacturers (if any) at the present. In fact not only is it on the divers but has expanded to the Unico Big Bang line as well. If another company was to adopt this system I would say 'good for them'. They recognize a good idea and want to make their offerings better by using it in some shape or form.

An aside-By the way the lume on the titanium divers are fantastic and absolutely burns. I just found out that Hublot either double/triple coats the markers or lumes the underneath area can't remember which-not sure if at's an industry standard but good idea neverthless. I digress.

3) Improviz, I said you came across as a condescending snot which is a lot different than saying that you are one. I'm stating this within a certain limited time frame (basically our 'conversations' within this specific post). I don't know you from Adam so for me to unequivocally say that you are inherently classless or condescending generally or most of the time would be erroneous. You might be the greatest guy. Who knows?

Now I'm not the one that said 'Hu Blows or I hope you enjoy your overpriced AP knockoff'. Now we (and everyone reading) realize that this was not a compliment and was made to elicit a negative response from me. If classless is too strong a word than how about the terms tact or common decency?

NEVER once have I said anything about your timepieces negative or otherwise and would never do so in a vindictive manner. I would not make fun of your choices or make derogatory remarks about your watches whether I like them or thought them to be junk. I mean Hu Blows is not the only funny name that can twisted around.

I can easily make the comeback "How's Audemars' PIG EH? I hope that Audemar's pig doesn't have any Porcine Sarcoptic Mange or Bush Foot and/or Foot Rot." Why would I want to do this? It could have been any watch brand either loved or reviled it matters not. Again this is just an illustration of a retort-this is NOT my sentiment and is just an example of what I could have said. For the record I generally think APs are really good handsome watches so no hate from this end.

Oh another aside-No offense to be taken but I really like the new colours on the divers especially the Boutique Lime Green. Now I know that this is not the sentiment of the majority on this board but it is nice to see some vibrant colours quite reminiscent of Alain Silberstein and the like.

I think that's about it. Hope there's no grammatical errors.

[Rachaphon]

Wow! That's a really long post! Just wanna say that I agree with what you said. Owned several pieces from both brands. Although AP has superior built quality and finish, Hublot pieces are no trash. In their own right, the Unico movement is very beautiful. At least it is to me. For a time, I daily my Bigbang Unico and receive a lot of compliments.

[speedfighter]

Originally Posted by Rachaphon

Wow! That's a really long post! Just wanna say that I agree with what you said. Owned several pieces from both brands. Although AP has superior built quality and finish, Hublot pieces are no trash. In their own right, the Unico movement is very beautiful. At least it is to me. For a time, I daily my Bigbang Unico and receive a lot of compliments.

Hi Ben Rachaphon,


Thanks for the nice response-greatly appreciated. Yeah kind of long winded but hopefully that's it-tired hands:) I'm going to have to look at AP timepieces more closely because I already think Hublot's build quality and finish is really good (well at least my experience with the Oceanographic divers). If you say that AP is better on these points then I'm really going to have to take a closer look though I don't think I'll ever see a T3 or Legacy in my part of the woods-ever.

Did I understand you correctly saying that you will be going back home to S'Pore? I love it there (well not the heat part) and absolutely drooling in terms of its spectacular food. Oh man that brings back great memories. Take care and if indeed you are going back please eat some Hainan chicken rice for me perhaps at Tian Tian!!!

[VICI]

Originally Posted by prwdmd

Anyone else have this happen to them... I've been wearing my new 44mm rose gold Royal Oak Offshore out a lot. I get lots of compliments but people keep confusing it for a Hublot!!! It's so annoying because I hate Hublot and their copycat watches!

More people know Hublot than AP.

Truth is that in the informed horogical circles, your watch is appreciated. To the normal person, it just looks like a big watch.

I could wear my 44 RG in the NYC subway and most wouldn't have the slightest clue.

Don't get too annoyed. That's what I like about it.