Chopard

ThomasM
[PuristS]
14331

• Show profile
• Show other posts

A few clarifications...

Hi, Daniel,

First, to me, the AP name is no edge. As much as I love AP and am well known for having collected specifically AP for a very, very long time, when I look at a watch, I look at the watch, not the brand.

That said, my "naw" was not about you liking the Chopard Sport better (which is something that makes me happy, Chopard LUC deserves more widespread love and respect than it currently gets) or my preference for the RO, but rather my self-imposed reticence to "get into it."  I like the LUC line, and I consider Chopard and Mr. Sheufele and team friends, and thought it rude (but I couldn't resist the "inside joke" to leave a comment, with smiley.    )

It's like going to a friend's house for dinner - the meal, prepared by the wife, is wonderful. It would be bad form for me to make the comment, at their dinner table, that "Robuchon's foie gras is better, crispier, almost crunchy, on the outside, soft and flavourful, but WARM on the inside."

That said, since you ask...

The case of the Royal Oak is much, much harder to make and finish properly. Not "better" since better is critically dependent on what one defines as "better" (and I don't believe more complex =better, necessarily) but most machinists and case makers would agree.

Whether one LIKES the RO design or the LUC Sport design is a matter of personal preference or taste.

Regarding the movements, this is a more complex discussion. The cal. 3120 and LUC movement used in the Sport 2000 are both very nice movements in their own way, but as MTF hints at, the cal. 3120 is more finely finished in classical high horology criteria compared to the iteration used in the Sport 2000.  But then, except in the broadest sense of "sports/sporty watches" the two are not meant to be directly compared.

I like both, appreciate both, and those who choose one over the other because one or the other "sings to them" should be proud and happy, either choice was a "good" one.

But for the reasons noted above, there are reasons the 15300 is more expensive than the Sport 2000 besides the Royal Oak or AP name. 

Now whether those reasons are WORTH the difference in "market value" or asking price is up to the individual buyer.

Put it another way - someone recently asked me what to do, he was driving a Ferrari 612 and was considering trading it in for a Carrera 4S or Turbo.

I told him to get the Turbo, even though I personally prefer Ferraris (but not the 612, which is too soft and wallowy for me)

Is the Porsche superior, a better value? For him, yes (except for the exclusivity factor, which was a consideration for him)

Both are fine cars, there are reasons they are priced the way they are, and reasons why both are still in business and have their fans, besides the marque badge on the hood and the respective premium that implies.

ps: everything else aside, the "action" of the micro-rotor in the Sport 2000 bugs me and ultimately led me to not keep it.  Not an across the board indictment of quality or inherent design - it worked quite well in practical performance areas - but just a matter of personal preference.