Horological Meandering

Jos.
158

• Show profile
• Show other posts

Wow! Thomas, these are strong feelings...

... and if I stepped right into them, my apologies. I always like to opinionate a bit, it's the best way to stimulate a discussion

That said, I do agree with you on the achievement that Cal. 2126/2840 represented 30 years ago. Or even 20 years ago, for that matter. But I might point out that we now live in 2010, and stuff has happened in horology since. Even by 1990 AP had made enough money on the ROO alone to justify starting a bit of R&D in order to take the next step and develop a proper successor to the compromises of the past.

The deeply set date might not be too much of an advantage for those who have sharp eyes or others who don't need to see the date or whatever, but it IS a disadvantage. And I can't believe what you say about not aligning the pushers. It's right up there with not aligning the screws on the bezel, or not beveling your edges. Remember, we're talking about $20-60,000 watches here! It's one of the (many) reasons why I don't like Hublot BBs. They ask you to pay the price of a mid-sized car and can't even align the screws for you... (I hope I haven't offended anybody else here.) At least AP gets that bit right.

I see these as objective facts not judgment calls. And I do agree with you on all the other fine aspects you mention in your passionate plea for the merits of AP ROOs. In fact, part of what I wrote is caused by resentment - several times I've wanted to buy one of the base versions (let's not get started on the subject of LEs and milking colour schemes, shall we?), and every time I was put off by these issues that in effect kept standing in between me and an otherwise most desirable piece of horology

And your plea magnificently illustrates another rule of horology: as important as execution is for manufacturers, passion is for its consumers.

All the best,
Jos.