Hublot rose gold ferrari vs Offshore 44mm steel

[Platona1]

Originally Posted by jem7v

This is true. But Genta did design the royal oak from the navy diving helmets. It's not something some think. It's even in the AP history book that a lot of people buy.

I was just saying the rubber strap on a PM watch was first started by hublot which is true. AP only was interested in luxury steel watches at the time. After they saw the success of the rubber strap, they made the offshore line.

And yes JCB said all of this in the hodinkee interview you are referencing with the quotes.

Both of you have some solid arguments. No winner here lol
Btw I used to date Biver's daughter Delphine back in 97 when he was at Blancpain. Had I stuck with her, do you think I would be famous in the watch game by now? 😂
I know who cares right smh!

[youthagainsttt]

There's no doubt Hublot are really innovative and creative and I personally do like some of their watches, especially the unico.

I did have an offshore before but sold it - but I'm not a fan of the 44mm but I do like the 42mm in general

The Unico is a really nice piece, even in steel whereas this one is in PM - I would definitely make the trade

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by youthagainsttt

There's no doubt Hublot are really innovative and creative

I actually do agree with that quite a bit. Case design not so much, but case materials yes for sure.

Their scratch resistant gold that they have developed is pretty cool, unique, and they thought of it first. I have no issue giving Hublot credit where credit it due.

http://www.hublot.com/en/news/hublot...ant-gold-watch

[Starwalker]

I would do it in a heart beat. People just love to shit on Hublots....but I think they make some great watches. Both AP and Hublot have made a zillion limited editions of the Royal Oak Offshore and the Big Bang...and marketed the crap out of them. It's literally the pot calling the kettle black (this is not applicable to other AP product ranges). I would do it. And the best part is some one has already absorbed the depreciation on the Hublot.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Starwalker

I would do it in a heart beat. People just love to shit on Hublots....but I think they make some great watches. Both AP and Hublot have made a zillion limited editions of the Royal Oak Offshore and the Big Bang...and marketed the crap out of them. It's literally the pot calling the kettle black (this is not applicable to other AP product ranges). I would do it. And the best part is some one has already absorbed the depreciation on the Hublot.

rational or not, heritage matters in the watch world. AP has it, Hublot does not.

[P2725TMB]

Beauty in the eye of the beholder, but I think the Hublot is ugly and lacking in any sort of style. Contrarily the steel 44 is much more refined in design and stylish.

[jem7v]

Originally Posted by P2725TMB

Beauty in the eye of the beholder, but I think the Hublot is ugly and lacking in any sort of style. Contrarily the steel 44 is much more refined in design and stylish.

That's why I suggested the big bang unico king gold instead :)

[AK797]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

I actually do agree with that quite a bit. Case design not so much, but case materials yes for sure.

Their scratch resistant gold that they have developed is pretty cool, unique, and they thought of it first. I have no issue giving Hublot credit where credit it due.

http://www.hublot.com/en/news/hublot...ant-gold-watch

And in fairness the Ice Bang did look pretty cool, had the grey and black motif that is a real winner on the new Ti... so maybe Hublot did get there first.

[ChrisInCharlotte]

The 72 hour flyback chrono movement Hublot uses is nice, however for those two I would prefer the AP.

Maybe consider the Hublot Meca-10 piece that was released this year?

[gummy]

In that battle...I take the AP...every time

[Giggsy11]

AP.. not even close IMHO

[youthagainsttt]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

rational or not, heritage matters in the watch world. AP has it, Hublot does not.

Why does it matter? How about Richard Mille, FP journe to name but two. And how about chopard with its heritage and now it's pretty much a generic brand.

Hublot with its minute repeaters, tourbillons, a watch made of magnesium - which when you think about it is kinda ridiculous but they've done it.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by youthagainsttt

Why does it matter? How about Richard Mille, FP journe to name but two. And how about chopard with its heritage and now it's pretty much a generic brand.

Hublot with its minute repeaters, tourbillons, a watch made of magnesium - which when you think about it is kinda ridiculous but they've done it.

RM and FPJ are doing very very unique things so maybe not the best examples. Overall though, heritage matters. 9 times out of 10 if you ask a rolex owner what drew them to the brand, their history or brand heritage will be somewhere on the list. Is it the only factor?no but it is important to a lot of people. If it wasn't companies of all types wouldn't put the date the company was founded on their labels or in their marketing. For example, if you buy a Burberry trench coat, the label is going to say Est. 1856 on it. The date is there because it matters especially in comparison to other similar products that don't have the same history.

AP and Hublot offer similar products visually in many ways. One has the watchmaking history behind it and the other doesn't. So when comparing two similar looking watches it is a factor to a lot of people.

Hublot has some interesting high end offerings, there is no doubt about that. The reason they can do that is because of the mass market success they have had based on selling very similar designs to the RO and ROO. Now they have the brand awareness and money to go very high end with their more complex stuff.

I really like their "magic gold" for example, although they just had to kill it with the name. Magic Gold sounds like something you would buy at a carnival out of the back of a trailer before they move on to the next town. So i do think if they did have heritage they would come up with better names. Because they don't, it doesn't matter all that much as their buyers don't seem to care that much for heritage.

[youthagainsttt]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

RM and FPJ are doing very very unique things so maybe not the best examples. Overall though, heritage matters. 9 times out of 10 if you ask a rolex owner what drew them to the brand, their history or brand heritage will be somewhere on the list. Is it the only factor?no but it is important to a lot of people. If it wasn't companies of all types wouldn't put the date the company was founded on their labels or in their marketing. For example, if you buy a Burberry trench coat, the label is going to say Est. 1856 on it. The date is there because it matters especially in comparison to other similar products that don't have the same history.

AP and Hublot offer similar products visually in many ways. One has the watchmaking history behind it and the other doesn't. So when comparing two similar looking watches it is a factor to a lot of people.

Hublot has some interesting high end offerings, there is no doubt about that. The reason they can do that is because of the mass market success they have had based on selling very similar designs to the RO and ROO. Now they have the brand awareness and money to go very high end with their more complex stuff.

I really like their "magic gold" for example, although they just had to kill it with the name. Magic Gold sounds like something you would buy at a carnival out of the back of a trailer before they move on to the next town.

So making a watch out of magnesium and then making a watch with a case entirely out of sapphire isn't very very unique?

I think everyone who knows anything about magnesium knows that it is a metal that pretty much explodes when it has any moisture in it so to make a watch out of this metal is pretty unique in my book

Not to mention the minute repeater with a carbon fibre case (http://www.ablogtowatch.com/hublot-c...-carbon-watch/)

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by youthagainsttt

So making a watch out of magnesium and then making a watch with a case entirely out of sapphire isn't very very unique?

I think everyone who knows anything about magnesium knows that it is a metal that pretty much explodes when it has any moisture in it so to make a watch out of this metal is pretty unique in my book

Not to mention the minute repeater with a carbon fibre case (http://www.ablogtowatch.com/hublot-c...-carbon-watch/)

i was agreeing with you. Their high end stuff is unique. The way they got there in order to be unique in the first place is what is in question. RM and FPJ started from day one being unique and not derivative. That was my point

[youthagainsttt]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

i was agreeing with you. Their high end stuff is unique. The way they got there in order to be unique in the first place is what is in question. RM and FPJ started from day one being unique and not derivative. That was my point

I think every watch company has been derivative at some point - just look at Patek with the 5711 of the Royal Oak and then AP with the ROO and Hublot Bb

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by youthagainsttt

I think every watch company has been derivative at some point - just look at Patek with the 5711 of the Royal Oak and then AP with the ROO and Hublot Bb

that is 100% true. Patek got away with it because of their heritage so they basically get a pass from most people as the Nautilus was a direct response to the RO and clearly very similar. Hublot doesn't get that same pass from people when they release the big bang which looks a lot like a ROO because they don't have the same heritage.

Its not rational as i said before but it is what it is.

If you had an employee who showed up 2 hours late on their first day of work you would fire them but if a great employee of 10+ years showed up 2 hours late they would get a pass most likely. So maybe it is rational in that sense. History matters in how things are perceived.

[Hairdude1]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

i would not trade an AP in any metal for a PM Hublot (or any Hublot). Its a derivative brand and i prefer the original and not the copy.

This

[jem7v]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

RM and FPJ are doing very very unique things so maybe not the best examples. Overall though, heritage matters. 9 times out of 10 if you ask a rolex owner what drew them to the brand, their history or brand heritage will be somewhere on the list.

9 out of 10 it's because they want to show off/want prestige

[Submarino]

Originally Posted by jem7v

To both of you it could be said AP copied hublot. Hublot started putting PM/steel watches on a rubber strap. After AP saw how popular it was, they copied hublot.

Also pretty sure the big bang was out before the offshore, but I could be wrong. Someone will check that I'm sure.

I'd trade a unico king gold for a steel offshore. Resale that unico king gold big bang will do better than the steel offshore. Plus it looks better. But I wouldn't trade a ferrari design one. Also the king gold unico is worth more second market than the steel offshore.

Too much hating biased view against hublot here. Biver is extremely well respected in the watch community. Arguably around the same level as Genta. Also my king power hublot I had kept time more accurately than my AP did for what it's worth.

I think it's only fair to compare likewise AP to likewise Hublot. If you do it that way, AP wins hands down every time. Next someone is going to post like a tourbillon hublot vs a ladies royal oak, and everyone is going to pick the royal oak just because. I mean, come on......

AP launched the Royal Oak Offshore in 1993. Therefore, Hublot didn't copy AP as the Big Bang was released in 2005 after Mr. Biver —who had worked as European Sales Manager for Audemars Piguet—joined Hublot as CEO and shareholder in 2004. Clearly you can see where the inspiration for Hublot comes from.

Now, one thing I do need to point out, is that Hublot was indeed the first watch brand to utilize a rubber strap on their watches with the release of the MDM Genève Hublot in 1980.

[lapince]

Originally Posted by P2725TMB

Beauty in the eye of the beholder, but I think the Hublot is ugly and lacking in any sort of style. Contrarily the steel 44 is much more refined in design and stylish.

Yes, I kind of like a few Hublots, the ones without the ears and skeleton dials, some are rather nice, a friend has one in Ti, I think the classic fusion aerofusion titanium, you see it is a quality watch, but I can't stand their models which are a copy of both RO's and Nautilus watches since they took the ears of the Nautilus. In regards to this Hublot compared to the 44 in SS, no question, I find this Hublot particularly hideous, the AP is way classier...

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Submarino

Now, one thing I do need to point out, is that Hublot was indeed the first watch brand to utilize a rubber strap on their watches with the release of the MDM Genève Hublot in 1980.

Actually, Blancpain, Omega, Rolex, and other manufacturers offered "Tropic straps" on their watches in the 1960s, Hublot didn't originate this either. :)

http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...)-strap-thread

http://www.primermagazine.com/2016/s...o-watch-straps

[jem7v]

Originally Posted by improviz

Actually, Blancpain, Omega, Rolex, and other manufacturers offered "Tropic straps" on their watches in the 1960s, Hublot didn't originate this either. :)

http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...)-strap-thread

http://www.primermagazine.com/2016/s...o-watch-straps

Hublot didn't pioneer the rubber strap. But putting a rubber strap on exotic watches was started by them. Exotic meaning pm or materials like sapphire or carbon.

Essentially they took super super high end watchmaking and gave it a more casual vibe. They were the first to do that. I mean how many companies sell a 100k+ watch on a rubber strap? Definitely it wasn't AP at the time hublot was doing it. And it wasn't anyone else.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by jem7v

Hublot didn't pioneer the rubber strap. But putting a rubber strap on exotic watches was started by them. Exotic meaning pm or materials like sapphire or carbon.

You're changing your story a bit. First you wrote they were the first to put it on a watch full stop:

Originally Posted by jem7v

To both of you it could be said AP copied hublot. Hublot started putting PM/steel watches on a rubber strap. After AP saw how popular it was, they copied hublot.

And now you've changed it to "exotic". But the thing is: Rolex made PM subs and offered Tropical straps for them as well, long before Hublot existed as a company (1980).

Carbon-wise, AP had full carbon case watches out in 2007, on a rubber strap, well before Hublot brought out their first, which if I'm not mistaken was within the last few years.

And indeed, AP was no stranger to using exotic materials in their watches/cases years before the introduction of the Big Bang in late 2005, as can be seen by reading this:
https://www.watchcollectinglifestyle...on-cases-by-ap

Originally Posted by jem7v

Essentially they took super super high end watchmaking and gave it a more casual vibe. They were the first to do that. I mean how many companies sell a 100k+ watch on a rubber strap? Definitely it wasn't AP at the time hublot was doing it. And it wasn't anyone else.

Well, not sure why you seem to think their taking something that had been used in the 1960's and slapping it on a quartz-movement watch (which is, after all, what the first Hublot to wear a rubber strap was) qualifies them as a brilliant innovator in the history of watchmaking, but you won't find a lot of converts here.

I certainly don't see them as great innovators. Rado made full-ceramic cases ages ago, and they're not in the same league as AP either.

[Watch Admirer]

AP are not innovators either. Basing a watch company on a single design (Royal Oak) deployed in zillions of variations does not look to me as watch innovation.

[iLLGT2]

So many uptight snobs (for those that truly don't like the design, I respect that)... I'm saying this as a multiple precious metal AP owner, Patek, Rolex, etc

I feel like its the cool thing to do on here and instagram, look down on Hublot and other brands ...

I was never the biggest Hublot fan however bought a king power foudroyante split second in Rose Gold... Its equally as gorgeous as my 44 RG AP, finishing is great and wears well..

If you're a watch enthusiast why can't people appreciate them all for what they are?

Same goes with car guys...

I love AP but for me being a ferrari owner and that watch being a gorgeous rose gold piece, i'd keep it! thats me

[improviz]

@iLLGT2: Correcting incorrect statements is not snobbery.

@Watch Admirer: Regarding innovation: name one innovation in mechanical movements developed by Hublot. Here are all of the innovations in mechanical movements developed by Audemars Piguet (source: Wikipedia):

Innovations[edit]
Through the years, AP adopted avant-garde techniques and developed many innovations including world firsts in the fine watchmaking history. Its two world firsts were the smallest five-minute repeater caliber and the jumping second hand (i.e. the second hand jumps from second to second in quanta rather than progressively) pocket watch. Other inventions were the thinnest watch and the first skeleton watch.

In 1882, Audemars Piguet began producing complication watches.[6] The Swiss brand started to be known as the leader of the firsts in the watch making industry.[12] In 1889, Jules-Louis and Edward-Auguste exhibited some of their more complicated watches at the Universal exposition in Paris, France.[12] In 1891, they created the smallest repeater movement in the world (18mm diameter).[7] One year later, they launched the first minute repeater watch.[12]

In 1893, Audemars Piguet began making wristwatches[7] and produced the first wrist minute repeater in the world for Louis Brandt.[7] Three years later, the "Grande Complication" pocket watch was launched.[6] It was equipped with grand and small strike, minute repeater, perpetual calendar, deadbeat seconds, chronograph with jumping seconds and split-seconds hand.[6] In 1915, Audemars Piguet presented its Grande Complication collection which featured 400 pieces.[7] The same year, the company created the smallest five-minute repeater movement.[12]

In 1920, the company produced a sophisticated fob watch comprising 16 complications (tourbillon, large and small chime, equation of time indicator, perpetual calendar, sidereal time indicator, and a blue enamel dial engraved with 315 stars which reproduced the night sky above London, where the watch was delivered.[7] One year later, the first jumping-hour wristwatch emerged from the AP workshops.[6] In 1925, Audemars Piguet introduced the world's slimmest pocket watch (1.32mm).[7][13] In 1929, for the first time, sales of wristwatches outstripped sales of fob watches[7] but with the 1929 stock market crash followed by the Great Depression, consumers could no longer buy expensive watches[12] and the company was forced to lay off most of its employees.[12]

Starting in 1932, sales rebounded and Audemars Piguet continued its development.[12] In 1934, AP developed the first skeleton watch, a watch making specialty forgotten since the 18th century.[7] The skeleton watch allowed the moving parts of the caliber to be seen beneath the dial.

The two world wars were very tough times for companies. As the others, Audemars Piguet had suffered. During this period only two watchmakers were working for the company. Few timepieces were created. The Women Jewelry timepiece dated 1932 was one of them.[2]

After World War II AP was able to rebound on the market by producing a range of ultra-thin chronograph models. In 1946, Audemars Piguet created the smallest mechanical caliber in the world (1.64mm).[7] The sales of Audemars Piguet started growing in the 1950s and 1960s.[12]

In 1955 Audemars Piguet introduced world's first perpetual calendar wristwatch with leap year indicator ref. 5516.

In 1967, the company developed the world's thinnest automatic movement (2.45mm) with a gold central rotor.[7]

After the 70s, AP continued to release a number of industry firsts, such as the ultra-thin perpetual calendar wristwatch with central rotor, self-winding ultra-thin tourbillon, self-winding grand complication, wristwatch equation of time with perpetual calendar, and high frequency chronometer with double-balance AP Escapement.

In 1986, AP invented the first self-winding ultra-thin wristwatch with a second time zone.[7] The tourbillon carriage was then the smallest ever made.[6] The company also launched a rectangular wristwatch with minute repeater and jumping hour, composed of 412 pieces, and a ladies' watch with minute repeater and carillon.[7] In 2000 came the launch of "Tradition d'Excellence", a collection of crafted timepieces showcasing traditional and innovative complications.[6] In 2005, Audemars Piguet sold the Edward Piguet Moss Agate Tourbillon, the first watch made with moss agate.[6]

In 2006 the company presented the fifth timepiece of the Tradition d'Excellence collection, inspired by an 18th-century design by watchmaker Robert Robin (1742–1799).[6] This watch was made in platinum, in a limited edition of 20 watches.[6]

That year Audemars Piguet introduced AP escapement, a lubricant-free escapement that beats at 43200 bph (6 Hz). The innovative design combines the reliability of a traditional Swiss lever escapement with high efficiency of a direct impulse escapement thus ensuring the optimal energy transmission and longer power reserve. The adjustment of the escapement is assured by two hairsprings placed on top of each other but offset at 180°. This particular disposition optimizes the mechanical precision by automatically compensating for possible defects in the equilibrium of the balance. It also allows for the replacement of the terminal curve, which is very delicate to make by a single spring barrel, thus allowing for better regulation.

In 2007, Audemars Piguet crafted the first case in forged carbon.[6]

Audemars Piguet is the most frequent winner of the Grand Prix d'Horlogerie de Genève.

[iLLGT2]

Originally Posted by improviz

@iLLGT2: Correcting incorrect statements is not snobbery.

@Watch Admirer: Regarding innovation: name one innovation in mechanical movements developed by Hublot. Here are all of the innovations in mechanical movements developed by Audemars Piguet (source: Wikipedia):

Who made this solely about you?

There were many comments, not just yours.

As for innovation, name just one? Okay

"So Hublot shifted the parameters by introducing its HUB9005.H1.6 calibre endowed with the world’s highest autonomy for a wristwatch. Its 11 barrels keep it operating for a massive 50 days without being rewound. To ensure it runs as it should, this energy is regulated by a transverse tourbillon appearing on the front vertical face in accordance with a trademark Hublot construction style. Only 50 of these watches will be released."

[improviz]

Given that Hublot certainly did not develop the tourbillion, adding more barrels to increase reserve is an innovation? I guess in the same way that an 18 wheeler is an innovation over a car...not exactly the same level as the 400 piece grande complication that AP did about 90 years ago in any case, and that's just one of many.

Also: the movement in question was developed by Matthias Buttet, who headed up BNC Concept, which was a high-end movement house that Biver outsourced movement development to...after downturn, Biver bought them out and they developed this movement.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by iLLGT2

If you're a watch enthusiast why can't people appreciate them all for what they are?

We DO, that the point I have been trying to make at least. Hublot is fine for what they are, they are just not in the same league as AP or PP period (even with ignoring the derivative aspects of some of their designs).

Hublot has a habit of trying to force themselves into a league they are not in so people tend to get a little defensive as that place isn't earned or warranted. As JCB stated "i like the comparisons of Hublot to AP and PP because it puts Hublot on their level" Thats the issue.

Tudor is a fine brand as well but Tudor fans don't insist on saying they are on the same level as Rolex. They are similar but different and on a lower level.