AP is disappointing in this respect...

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by beachbum

Have you tried a 44 ROO with a XS strap?? Makes a huge difference fit wise.

No I haven't, I think it was more how the case back is flat vs RM being curved.
Rather than a strap issue.
But I will look into that .. thanks.

[h999r]

I don't really care much for SS watches, enjoy wearing , daily activities.
When it's time to do service, AP will make it like brand new again.
Buy the model that you like, AP will do the rest when it's time for servicing.

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by h999r

I don't really care much for SS watches, enjoy wearing , daily activities.
When it's time to do service, AP will make it like brand new again.
Buy the model that you like, AP will do the rest when it's time for servicing.

Good point, I keep hearing their service is impeccable and I live only 45 minutes away from Clearwater!

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by improviz

Enjoy your RM.

Thanks, we'll see, hopefully.

[AK797]

For 42 there is Jarno Trulli and Qatar that have ceramic/cermet bezels, also the LeBron has a titanium bezel.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by brmeyers

Hi Edo, I appreciate your feedback here.. I wear my watch on my left hand which I only use with two handed backhands..

You are probably correct about the ROOs being ok for my game, but golf is a different story because I do really shank some shots and hit the ground hard.

I wish the ROO 44s fit me better, and hopefully AP will roll out some new ceramic and carbon 42s.

in many of your posts you seem to be mixing your need for scratch resistance and your need for durability (shock resistance of the movement) like they are interchangeable when they are not. The ceramic or carbon divers are more scratch resistant, yes. Thats a cosmetic issue and not an issue dealing with the operation of the watch. But you already ruled out using a 15400 for activities such as golf due to durability, but they use the exact same movements and are thus equipped theoretically the same in terms of shock resistance. That is a durability issue of the movement related to use in high impact sports that and different to your cosmetic requirement.

The point i am making isn't SHOULD these watches be used for high impact sports vs COULD they be used for high impact sports. Its most likely possible, but probably not advisable. For example, Serena Williams played all matches at Wimbledon this year in a ROO, but who knows how well it actually functioned or will function long term, probably not great though. Some will push their watches to the max and some won't, to each their own. My point is, functionally (not cosmetically) a 15400 and a ROO diver would give you the same results in golf and tennis in terms of durability. The results would only be different in a diving situation as that is functionally where the design of the two watches is fundamentally different, not in issues of shock resistance as its the same 3120 calibre getting knocked around.

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by AK797

For 42 there is Jarno Trulli and Qatar that have ceramic/cermet bezels, also the LeBron has a titanium bezel.

Thanks Neil!
I'm going to research those tonight.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by brmeyers

Serena was wearing a 37mm ROO QUARTZ...
Sorry, that doesn't count...
But really, that is a Quartz watch, I saw her matches and looked it up during Wimbledon.

Hey: I found a photo of her wearing an AP on Google, I did not waste time researching the movement of the watch because, frankly, it seems as though your mind was already made up prior to posting the thread, which makes it rather pointless in my book. As others have mentioned, she's been seen wearing automatic APs as well while playing, but we don't have reliability analysis from either these, NOR the RM watches Nadal is wearing.

To wit: I've researched and discarded many brands/models prior to purchasing them, and never really felt the need to go into the forum of one of said brands and complain about them, but hey, whatever floats your boat and makes you feel good.

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

in many of your posts you seem to be mixing your need for scratch resistance and your need for durability (shock resistance of the movement) like they are interchangeable when they are not. The ceramic or carbon divers are more scratch resistant, yes. Thats a cosmetic issue and not an issue dealing with the operation of the watch. But you already ruled out using a 15400 for activities such as golf due to durability, but they use the exact same movements and are thus equipped theoretically the same in terms of shock resistance. That is a durability issue of the movement related to use in high impact sports that and different to your cosmetic requirement.

The point i am making isn't SHOULD these watches be used for high impact sports vs COULD they be used for high impact sports. Its most likely possible, but probably not advisable. For example, Serena Williams played all matches at Wimbledon this year in a ROO, but who knows how well it actually functioned or will function long term, probably not great though. Some will push their watches to the max and some won't, to each their own. My point is, functionally (not cosmetically) a 15400 and a ROO diver would give you the same results in golf and tennis in terms of durability. The results would only be different in a diving situation as that is functionally where the design of the two watches is fundamentally different, not in issues of shock resistance as its the same 3120 calibre getting knocked around.

Let me be clear, I want a watch that is lightweight, scratch resistant and shock absorbing (and NOT QUARTZ - Serena's ROO was a Quartz).
All three. With this criteria, ROO diver > 15400. Even though both have same movement, diver is lighter and more scratch resistant.

Actually the diver was my leading candidate for the best AP sports watch to get meeting these three criteria at 42mm or less size.

Is there an AP that scores better with these three criteria?
That is the question I would like to know...
I am going to look into Neil's suggestions.

This is all helpful, because if I DONT get an RM, I want to most durable, scratch resistant and shock absorbing AP there is. Ideally 42 or less.

The reason posts were mixed and matched was based on comments and addressing different points.

So I am asking the AP experts here, which AP is most durable at 42 or less.
If there is an extraordinary AP at 44, please state too.

Again use these three criteria equally
1) lightweight
2) shock absorbing
3) scratch resistant


But thanks for the feedback.

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by improviz

Hey: I found a photo of her wearing an AP on Google, I did not waste time researching the movement of the watch because, frankly, it seems as though your mind was already made up prior to posting the thread, which makes it rather pointless in my book. As others have mentioned, she's been seen wearing automatic APs as well while playing, but we don't have reliability analysis from either these, NOR the RM watches Nadal is wearing.

To wit: I've researched and discarded many brands/models prior to purchasing them, and never really felt the need to go into the forum of one of said brands and complain about them, but hey, whatever floats your boat and makes you feel good.

Forums are not meant for only positive praises and back patting.
We should be able to scrutinize even the best brands and talk about it.

In this case, my purpose is not to put down AP, but to find out if there IS truly an AP sports watch that is able to handle some shocks and scratches along with being lightweight.
I have been calling and searching and it has eluded me. Best I have come across so far is the now discontinued AP diver in forged carbon and ceramic.

Maybe there is and I just missed it, that is why I am coming here and asking some experts who know more about AP than I do.

p.s. And even Serena wearing a Quartz is nothing against the brand, I just think Quartz watches are not a benchmark to judge against,
as far as durability with regards to weight and shock absorption.
Perhaps she did wear an automatic on court (or could), but I have not seen proof. That white watch in most pics is a 37 ROO quartz.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by brmeyers

Forums are not meant for only positive praises and back patting.
We should be able to scrutinize even the best brands and talk about it.

In this case, my purpose is not to put down AP, but to find out if there IS truly an AP sports watch that is able to handle some shocks and scratches along with being lightweight.

Maybe there is and I just missed it, that is why I am coming here and asking some experts who know more about AP than I do.

Which, I suppose, begs the question: why did you title your thread "AP is disappointing in this respect..." rather than something like "Which AP is lightweight, and handles shocks and scratches" if your objective is to actually learn rather than criticize?

[brmeyers]

^^Because this is a forum and that is my opinion.
And it was my feeling going into this post.
As I said, we should be able to scrutinize even the best brands.
I was hoping someone could prove me wrong, because I love the AP brand and style.

Using the title you suggested was not true to my feelings, so I am just being authentic.
Keep in mind, I have been searching for a non RM sports watch for 4 years and really did my homework looking for an AP, calling headquarters, going to an AD, researching TRF, researching online, called ADs asking for advice, etc, etc.

If I hadn't done all that and if I wasn't frustrated with the answers I have gotten, perhaps I would have used a title like you suggested.

Just being real my friend. Like I said, I was hoping someone could prove me wrong and all the advice ADs and headquarters was giving me.

Also considering the partnership AP has with RM, it just seems like a golden opportunity for AP to capitalize on, providing a middle tier priced, rugged sports watch.

Again its ok if people disagree with my posts or approach, but these are genuine feelings I am venting after a lot of searching.
The truth is I WANTED to find an AP with these criteria, and will continue to look and take the advice given here.

[improviz]

To me it looks more like bagging on AP/bragging about RM. As I said: enjoy your RM.

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by improviz

To me it looks more like bagging on AP/bragging about RM. As I said: enjoy your RM.

Say what you want, but that is NOT what it is.. Actually it's trying NOT to spend the money on an RM if there was a worthy AP. Quite the opposite.

If $80,000 was easy money for me, I would have gotten an RM 4 years ago. Now I do have the money, but its still a lot and hard to justify, even though I know the watch is worth it.

[brmeyers]

Ok, truce for now...
I have received a couple PMs with some solid advice I am going to pursue
and look into.
All is good, might be a AP incoming instead of a RM. We'll see

[improviz]

Originally Posted by brmeyers

Say what you want, but that is NOT what it is.. Actually it's trying NOT to spend the money on an RM if there was a worthy AP. Quite the opposite.

If $80,000 was easy money for me, I would have gotten an RM 4 years ago. Now I do have the money, but its still a lot and hard to justify, even though I know the watch is worth it.

Well, as you put it: this is a forum for sharing opinions, that's how I feel, and I'm just being real. Basing this on your title of thread and tone since starting it. If I'm mistaken, apologies, but tone-wise your thread is very off-putting in my view.

However, supposing for the sake of argument that I'm mistaken, here's some advice. The Diver is compliant with ISO 6425 specification, which I would assume is extended to the carbon Diver as well. This specification includes a test wherein the watch is smacked with a heavy hammer, specifically as stated in the specification:
The shock is usually delivered by a hard plastic hammer mounted as a pendulum, so as to deliver a measured amount of energy, specifically, a 3 kg hammer with an impact velocity of 4.43 m/s.

This is probably the highest level of shock resistance offered in an AP watch. If it is insufficient for your needs, I would suggest looking elsewhere. Personally I think it's ill-advised and unnecessary to wear a 5-figure watch while doing high-shock activities, but that's just me expressing an opinion and being real again.

[brmeyers]

^^ Now we're talking.. That is the kind of info I am looking for (in your 2nd paragraph).

But with regards to a five figure watch, depends on model and type.
If its a sports watch, I think it should be more durable, not less, than a cheaper brand ...
And why not, I think wearing a nice watch playing golf is a plus. Same for tennis.

Again, talking automatic not quartz movements. If one spends a lot of time being active, then a high end sports watch should accommodate.
Just as we might wear a nice Patek to dinner, why can't we enjoy a high end watch being active too? Again its preference, but I am not a G-shock or quartz kind of guy.

[improviz]

Nope. No way can you build a mechanical movement to be as robust and reliable as a $20 quartz. 200 moving parts, gears, hairspring, etc. vs a few moving parts in the quartz, the mechanical loses on this front and always will..it's more fragile, and will always be more fragile, and I guarantee you that a RM would never, ever pass the kind of torture tests to which you can subject a garden-variety G-shock.

Shock-absorbing structures inside will help a great deal, but they're never gonna compete with a G-shock in that department. I don't own one, but I will definitely give them their credit where credit is due in the indestructible department.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzXt_dFFWgY

Anyway, bottom line is the Ceramic Diver is the only AP imo that will fill your bill in my view. One point is that AP's customer service is so good that even if you manage to shock it hard enough to damage the movement (which from the ISO numbers is a pretty hard shock), they'd probably take care of you in any case, at which point you could just sell it and get the RP. Food for thought...

[benlee]

Originally Posted by AK797

For 42 there is Jarno Trulli and Qatar that have ceramic/cermet bezels, also the LeBron has a titanium bezel.

+1. I think this is your answer Bryant. Take a look at the Sebastian Buemi LE which has been discontinued. It seems to fit most of your requirement. Titanium, lightweight and a Ceramic Bezel.

[lapince]

For me the ceramic diver is great, though the case cracked unexplainably, according to AP it was due to a shock, which is strange as there never was one, but they changed the case in a little under two months, but needless to say I won't be wearing either my AP nor my 2 incoming Pateks for any kind of sport or water activities, ok I would swim with the diver of course, at 20k and more it just isn't worth the risk of something going wrong IMO, they are great as dailies but they are not beaters, IMO it's better just to take off your watch when you intend to practice sports, even if the watch is made for it, why risk it...

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by improviz

Nope. No way can you build a mechanical movement to be as robust and reliable as a $20 quartz. 200 moving parts, gears, hairspring, etc. vs a few moving parts in the quartz, the mechanical loses on this front and always will..it's more fragile, and will always be more fragile, and I guarantee you that a RM would never, ever pass the kind of torture tests to which you can subject a garden-variety G-shock.

Shock-absorbing structures inside will help a great deal, but they're never gonna compete with a G-shock in that department. I don't own one, but I will definitely give them their credit where credit is due in the indestructible department.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzXt_dFFWgY

Anyway, bottom line is the Ceramic Diver is the only AP imo that will fill your bill in my view. One point is that AP's customer service is so good that even if you manage to shock it hard enough to damage the movement (which from the ISO numbers is a pretty hard shock), they'd probably take care of you in any case, at which point you could just sell it and get the RP. Food for thought...

I know that about quartz... Not disagreeing with you, simply saying I would never wear a quartz. That is why I said what I did and why I pointed out Serena was wearing a quartz for exactly the reasons you stated. Personally, I am not impressed with a quartz being durable compared to an automatic because of how it is made and it being battery operated.

Not to mention, I don't want an electrical impulse over my heart meridian.. But that is another topic for another day and a reason why I do not wear battery powered watches.

Yes, I have had others suggest the Diver, and I am also going to check out the Jarno Trulli and Qatar. All great suggestions. Thanks
p.s. perhaps you are right about naming this thread, it could have been phrased in a more positive light

[brmeyers]

Originally Posted by benlee

+1. I think this is your answer Bryant. Take a look at the Sebastian Buemi LE which has been discontinued. It seems to fit most of your requirement. Titanium, lightweight and a Ceramic Bezel.

Thanks Ben, great food for thought, going to do some more research tonight and see if any of these are in Florida to try on

[willski]

Honestly I think for your wants RM is the way to go. RM make fantastic sports watches for the reasons you mentioned and if I could get one without some heavy consolidation I think I would (although I really, really dislike the service costs).

They're also some of the most comfortable watches I've ever worn (despite their large size) due to the curvature...






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by brmeyers

I know that about quartz... Not disagreeing with you, simply saying I would never wear a quartz. That is why I said what I did and why I pointed out Serena was wearing a quartz for exactly the reasons you stated. Personally, I am not impressed with a quartz being durable compared to an automatic because of how it is made and it being battery operated.

Not to mention, I don't want an electrical impulse over my heart meridian.. But that is another topic for another day and a reason why I do not wear battery powered watches.

Yes, I have had others suggest the Diver, and I am also going to check out the Jarno Trulli and Qatar. All great suggestions. Thanks
p.s. perhaps you are right about naming this thread, it could have been phrased in a more positive light

Just because something is called a sports watch doesn't mean it is or should be able to be used for high impact sports and that is the issue here. Its more of an expectation problem based on what a sports watch is vs what you think a sports watch should be.

Sports watches and tool watches are different things. AP makes a some tool watches for specific purposes like the Diver which is designed to handle the specific requirements of depth/pressure as well as other requirements stated above and the impact requirement (shock absorption) for certification as a dive watch isn't repeated hundreds and hundreds of times like experienced in high impact sports, its a one time test as far as i know.The change rate for ISO 6425 certification +/- 60 seconds per day after the impact. Will the watch break, no, will it keep good time, also no. Its more of a case construction test than a movement test as the time variance allowed is huge, and again its the same movement as in the 15400. More robust case, yes... more robust movement, no. So for your requirements id really say i would look elsewhere than AP.

In any case I hope you find what you are looking for

[HL65]

Just saying...

[HL65]

Better yet here you go: https://www.audemarspiguet.com/en/explore/golf

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by HL65

Just saying...

Clearly its possible, but i really think its not advisable to do so. OP wanted a watch designed for these activities.

If their watches break, AP sends them another one. If yours breaks your out the cost to fix it as AP warranty states specifically "Anomalies caused by normal wear and tear, anomalies relating to a shock, abnormal use..." are not covered

They can be used this way, but they are not designed for the repeated shocks.

[eonflux]

Other than the RMs, I don't know of watch movements/cases (made to work together) specifically designed to withstand the shock and vibrations of hitting golf and tennis balls.

While many may wear mechanicals for both sports without problems with their watches, the likelihood of damage is probably higher than with the RMs. Overbanking and breaking of rotor shafts on Rolexes, for example, have been reported, and those are probably the most commonly worn luxury mechanical watches for golf and tennis.

I play tennis regularly, and would be great to wear a watch while playing (at tournaments and USTA league matches, would be good to know the time without having to get my phone out of my bag), but mechanical watches are often too heavy, and with my 2-handed backhand, I don't want to risk any issues.
For guys like Wawrinka with 1-handed backhands, wearing a watch on the non-hitting poses no problems. For 2-handed backhand players like Serena and Rafa, they surely don't have to worry about servicing costs, even if they weren't given watches by sponsors.

As for case durability in a gym, while RM ceramic may be harder than others, there is still the risk of scratches and cracks with striking weights and weight bars. But again, I can understand wanting to keep a watch on for all activities. Especially while traveling when I do not want to leave a watch in my hotel room or in a bag while working out.

[HL65]

Originally Posted by eonflux

Other than the RMs, I don't know of watch movements/cases (made to work together) specifically designed to withstand the shock and vibrations of hitting golf and tennis balls.

While many may wear mechanicals for both sports without problems with their watches, the likelihood of damage is probably higher than with the RMs. Overbanking and breaking of rotor shafts on Rolexes, for example, have been reported, and those are probably the most commonly worn luxury mechanical watches for golf and tennis.

I play tennis regularly, and would be great to wear a watch while playing (at tournaments and USTA league matches, would be good to know the time without having to get my phone out of my bag), but mechanical watches are often too heavy, and with my 2-handed backhand, I don't want to risk any issues.
For guys like Wawrinka with 1-handed backhands, wearing a watch on the non-hitting poses no problems. For 2-handed backhand players like Serena and Rafa, they surely don't have to worry about servicing costs, even if they weren't given watches by sponsors.

As for case durability in a gym, while RM ceramic may be harder than others, there is still the risk of scratches and cracks with striking weights and weight bars. But again, I can understand wanting to keep a watch on for all activities. Especially while traveling when I do not want to leave a watch in my hotel room or in a bag while working out.

I don't wear any AP to gym or playing golf either. In fact I wear no watch to gym as would only bother me while training. All I pointed out above is that there are plenty of golfers and tennis players who wear watches while they play - click the AP link. So for me nothing more nothing less just pointing out something. For the record I wouldn't wear an RM playing golf or tennis either.

[codecow]

Why would you want to wear an expensive piece while doing sports?