... lol.... Btw, didn't JLC sell movements to AP in the early century? I think that the 1st models had a genta movement... not sure though.
... lol... then again, he's my father, so he'll always think that he knows better 
over 30 years eventually forces a little bit of knowledge on the collector.
"Father is always right" - even when he's not.
Cheers, K
TM


I'd be curious to know how much of the history was "travelling" with the watch.
The heavy handed case polishing (shoulders of the case, edges, transitions at the octagonal points, as Alec points out) would make me worry about the service history of the movement. The fairly heavy corrosion / deterioration of the hands and markers (some corrosion is common among early RO's) would also concern me, vis a vis the movement - did moisture get into the movement area? If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you have the movement checked out. Hopefully the movement is in very good shape.
A great catch nonetheless, any early jumbo that is still running reliably is always a special find. Congrats!
TM
Hi, Nicolas,
Just be aware that the bracelet on early RO jumbos are NOT inter-changeable with later Jumbo's; nor are the links so do NOT lose any links you might have taken out!
Enjoy it!
Cheers,
TM

even from Le Brassus that would be a minor miracle. Even links are well nigh impossible ... believe me, I speak from experience...
I'm looking forward to seeing the piece in person, be sure to hold on to it until at least we next meet.
We might even be able to have a family reunion of sorts...
;-)
TM

What is a "hanging mainspring barrel"?
Other than the finshes and skeleton rotor, are there any variations/differences between the 2121 used in the original 1972/73 Royal Oaks and the ones used today in the 15202?
Pat
Is a barrel that is not supported on both ends, so only supported by the barrel bridge and not by the main plate (so it is cantilevered from one end).
Cheers, Al
Thanks a lot Al for the reply.
What is the advantage of such arrangement? More compact (need less space) or easier removal of the mainspring barrel?
Pat
Hi, Pat,
Been limited to PDA access, thanks to Al for giving a very good answer.
The downside is that it is more difficult to service, requiring a special spacing tool to service properly. It is possible to service without the tool, but to do it right, the watchmaker would need very special skills or really, really know what he / she is doing.
I personally would never let someone who is not experienced with this specific caliber work on this movement, in whatever case.
Cheers,
TM
Looks like the two-hand-date-watch-movement is not as simple as it looks.
variants with variable inertia balances and traditional screwed balances.
Cheers,
TM
Seems that the variants on 2121 are not much significant over the last 30 years. Pretty much a 1973 movement for the current in production 15202..
Probably AP should improvise/update the already legendary (best automatic) movement with silicon escapement, ceramic ball bearings, etc. What do you think?
Pat
Those, to me, are not improvements!
Sacrilege! Put that crap on new, unproven movements that haven't withstood the test of time; or to make right what wasn't right to begin with...
I would not put fuel injection in a vintage Bugatti, or even a 1960's/1970's Lamborghini; I would have no interest in seeing ceramic ball bearings or silicon anything in a cal. 2121...
imho, of course...
TM
Guess I have pressed the wrong buttons.
I agree with you vintage legendary historical pieces should not be meddled at all. I am not suggesting that we take a 1973 Royal Oak 2121 and replace the parts (if that could be done). To do that would kill the history of the significant watch.
Ya, it was a great technological achivement in 1973 to produce a 3.05mm auto movement, thus all the cal.2121 in the 70s are historically significant as Vintage pieces. But that history was made 30 years ago.
What I am referring to is the 2121 produced say in 2008. It is a NEW watch. Made in the 21st century. If there are alternative better materials to improvise the watch (maybe ceramic and silicon are not qualified-not tested like you said), why not? So that the 2121 can continue to create NEW history. Something like what Patek is doing for the 315?
It all boils down to whether a new movement manufactured today based on a 1973 specs would make this particularly piece in question instantly historical?
Really appreciate your patience on ignorant me.
Pat
Hi, Patrick,
My original point was that silicium, silicon, ceramic bearings, etc - if the original classically designed movement was well designed, well produced, the benefits of the high tech components are minimal, at best, and loses much of the "old school touch" of using naturally occuring materials, produceable with "hand tools"
But certainly ceramic bearings and silicium wheels can "cover up" lots of sloppy design or sloppy production.
I'm sure there are lots of "gear heads" (used with utmost respect and affection) who will argue with me to death about these points, but for me, I feel the same as I feel about machine finished finishing on movements vs hand finishing a la Dufour and Voutilainen, even if there are no functional improvements with the hand finishing.
So to be clear, no, I would have no interest in a modern day 2120/2121 with ceramic bearings or silicium wheels.
Of course, Mr. Karl Friederich Scheufele had a very witty reply to my point when I brought it up to him in a recent conversation...
Cheers,
TM