Rolex quality vs AP quality

[ivanos]

Originally Posted by improviz

Are you arguing that hand finishing a timepiece is neither artistic nor a part of making said timepiece?

No I was not arguing that. I was arguing whether horology shall be that narrowed to only hand finishing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ivanos]

Originally Posted by AK797

With high or haute horology fine finishing is de rigeur. Rolex, as you agree, cater to a different demographic, and don't even bother to display their movements.

How do we pronounce "question begging" in French?

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by ivanos

Common trait? Not exactly. By the way, if that is 'common' then how come horology is "by nature subjective"?

Nevermind.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by ivanos

No I was not arguing that. I was arguing whether horology shall be that narrowed to only hand finishing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nobody in this thread said that horology should be that narrowed to only hand finishing.

[ivanos]

Originally Posted by improviz

Nobody in this thread said that horology should be that narrowed to only hand finishing.

Ok. Let me clarify. There is no denying that 'somebody' in this thread said hand finishing is a necessary element of "haute horlogerie". I argue whether that is so.

[jem7v]

Originally Posted by ivanos

Ok. Let me clarify. There is no denying that 'somebody' in this thread said hand finishing is a necessary element of "haute horlogerie". I argue whether that is so.

It's everything. Haute horlogerie touches everything. Complexity of the movement, innovation in materials, hand work, level of detail, finishing.

Rolex has jack sh** compared to AP or even hublot in this regard. Rolex does the same thing year after year after year. Which is fine, that is their business model. They want to make a high end watch IMO mid tier watch. Something that looks good, and you can bang around without much though.

The top tier which is AP, hublot, RM etc..... is going further down the rabbit hole of horlogerie. The reason for this is, they constantly are pushing boundaries of what you can do with a watch.

Rolex doesn't even have complications passed chronographs. You can't even put them in the same league. And, their chronograph is not even in house. Though I believe they finally put a moon phase or something like that on something.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by jem7v

It's everything. Haute horlogerie touches everything. Complexity of the movement, innovation in materials, hand work, level of detail, finishing.

Rolex has jack sh** compared to AP or even hublot in this regard. Rolex does the same thing year after year after year. Which is fine, that is their business model. They want to make a high end watch IMO mid tier watch. Something that looks good, and you can bang around without much though.

The top tier which is AP, hublot, RM etc..... is going further down the rabbit hole of horlogerie. The reason for this is, they constantly are pushing boundaries of what you can do with a watch.

Rolex doesn't even have complications passed chronographs. You can't even put them in the same league. And, their chronograph is not even in house. Though I believe they finally put a moon phase or something like that on something.

Ah, well done, methinks you have spotted a Hublot infiltrator in our midst, now all makes sense...

[FlyinM3]

Originally Posted by AK797

Ah, well done, methinks you have spotted a Hublot infiltrator in our midst, now all makes sense...

Yep

[SC11]

Originally Posted by jem7v

Rolex doesn't even have complications passed chronographs. You can't even put them in the same league. And, their chronograph is not even in house. Though I believe they finally put a moon phase or something like that on something.

You might want to double check that last bit!

But yes they do stick to the same old but that's them they progress in small steps tweaking rather then reinventing and it works business wise.

I'm still to take delivery of my first AP but from handling them there is something special about the finish which is a level above Rolex.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by ivanos

Ok. Let me clarify. There is no denying that 'somebody' in this thread said hand finishing is a necessary element of "haute horlogerie". I argue whether that is so.

Clarifying is not the same as changing the argument. You stated clearly that horology should not be limited to hand finishing, and now you're saying something else entirely, and I really have better things to do than to engage in a debate whose central theme seems to shift with every response. Perhaps you should spend less time arguing and more time researching. And if, over the course of your research, you come across a watch considered to be an example of haute horlogerie which doesn't have any hand finishing, please feel free to post it. Every such watch I've seen has extensive hand finishing.

[ivanos]

Originally Posted by improviz

Clarifying is not the same as changing the argument. You stated clearly that horology should not be limited to hand finishing, and now you're saying something else entirely, and I really have better things to do than to engage in a debate whose central theme seems to shift with every response. Perhaps you should spend less time arguing and more time researching. And if, over the course of your research, you come across a watch considered to be an example of haute horlogerie which doesn't have any hand finishing, please feel free to post it. Every such watch I've seen has extensive hand finishing.

I clarify the meaning of some words in my argument not changing the argument. Research? What research? Rolex watch is an example of haute horlogerie that doesn't have extensive "hand finishing".



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ivanos]

Originally Posted by jem7v

It's everything. Haute horlogerie touches everything. Complexity of the movement, innovation in materials, hand work, level of detail, finishing.



Rolex has jack sh** compared to AP or even hublot in this regard. Rolex does the same thing year after year after year. Which is fine, that is their business model. They want to make a high end watch IMO mid tier watch. Something that looks good, and you can bang around without much though.



The top tier which is AP, hublot, RM etc..... is going further down the rabbit hole of horlogerie. The reason for this is, they constantly are pushing boundaries of what you can do with a watch.



Rolex doesn't even have complications passed chronographs. You can't even put them in the same league. And, their chronograph is not even in house. Though I believe they finally put a moon phase or something like that on something.

Which tier is higher: apples or oranges?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GB-man]

[improviz]

Originally Posted by GB-man

[mickyd329]

Originally Posted by AK797

Ah, well done, methinks you have spotted a Hublot infiltrator in our midst, now all makes sense...

[nakedtoes]

Finishing yes AP is few notches above Rolex.... but reliability is the opposite..

[jem7v]

Originally Posted by ivanos

Which tier is higher: apples or oranges?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You mean in my hublot, AP, RM example? Or rolex? I don't think rolex and AP are apples and oranges. They are all watches. AP is just better. And RM above them.

If you want me to rank the 3 I mentioned. I'd say RM, AP, hublot from best to worst.

And of course there will be tons of other contemporary brands that I'd say fit between AP and hublot.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by nakedtoes

Finishing yes AP is few notches above Rolex.... but reliability is the opposite..

Not in my experience. Two of the Rolexes I own failed totally within a few years of purchase, new, and had to be repaired by RSC (to their credit, both were free of charge), and I totally baby my timepieces. To date zero problems with either of APs. or with any other brands I own for that matter.

Additionally, there was a survey done in the main Rolex forum some time back, in which around 30% of respondents reported having had issues with their Rolexes which required service.

How many APs do you own?

[Xerxes77]

Originally Posted by Hanz079

I have owned 2 APs and a few Rolexes...
My take is... there comes a time where you just want a nice, robust, reliable well constructed watch that can be worn hassle and worry free.
And by my own experience, AP (as beautiful as they are) isn't what I would call robust and reliable.
Life has enough problems as is... I don't need my watch to be one of them...
And of course, regarding service fees? Servicing the movement is one price and polishing is another. Added together, they can cost quite alot.
Well... you gotta pay to play...

agree

[nakedtoes]

Originally Posted by improviz

Not in my experience. Two of the Rolexes I own failed totally within a few years of purchase, new, and had to be repaired by RSC (to their credit, both were free of charge), and I totally baby my timepieces. To date zero problems with either of APs. or with any other brands I own for that matter.

Additionally, there was a survey done in the main Rolex forum some time back, in which around 30% of respondents reported having had issues with their Rolexes which required service.

How many APs do you own?

i owned 2 rolexes since 2005 both no service before and still running good time... few years back my first AP stop on me twice in the winder and only 8 mths old... sold it away to get ride of it... chatted with at least 3 watch collectors who got AP also having problems with their watches... one his AP ROC run faster 30 sec a day..another his chrono pusher just drop off... another the white gold screw broken off (this
is the guy i met at the service center when i send my watch in) comon the white gold screw can broke inside... OMG .. Chat with few watch technicians and watches dealers all mention AP is simply less reliable then Rolex. Dun gt me wrong i still loves that brand especially the metal bracelet.. but i still cant decide which one should i get... the only model is 15300ST.. 15202ST to me is too fragile.

[RolexAviator]

I've owned numerous Rolex models, a 5711 Nautilus and a 26300 ROC at the same time. There is no question that the quality of an AP (finishing in particular) is above Rolex and in my personal opinion, I believe the AP's are finished better than the PP Nautilus (especially the 15202). You pay for it though so it's not really fair to compare AP to Rolex...

[GB-man]

Originally Posted by RolexAviator

I believe the AP's are finished better than the PP Nautilus (especially the 15202).

Agree there even if it's only due to the design of the royal oak. I also find the 5711 a bit more carefree to wear due to the bracelet finishing details (rounded vs angular design and finishing).

[improviz]

Originally Posted by nakedtoes

i owned 2 rolexes since 2005 both no service before and still running good time... few years back my first AP stop on me twice in the winder and only 8 mths old... sold it away to get ride of it... chatted with at least 3 watch collectors who got AP also having problems with their watches... one his AP ROC run faster 30 sec a day..another his chrono pusher just drop off... another the white gold screw broken off (this
is the guy i met at the service center when i send my watch in) comon the white gold screw can broke inside... OMG .. Chat with few watch technicians and watches dealers all mention AP is simply less reliable then Rolex. Dun gt me wrong i still loves that brand especially the metal bracelet.. but i still cant decide which one should i get... the only model is 15300ST.. 15202ST to me is too fragile.

Well, OK, then I guess in terms of Rolex failures vs AP failures, you and I are equal, which doesn't discount my Rolex failures.

My point was that while Rolexes are great watches (look at my sig, I'm obviously a fan and not exactly biased against them), they have a reputation for reliability which is, imo, overstated, based not only on my ownership experience but also in threads on this site and others, and particularly on the user survey awhile back which was around a 30% issue rate in the warranty period.

I've got lots of experience in design, and believe me: that's a pretty abysmal problem rate, and hardly qualifies as "bulletproof", and if I had a team design something with a 30% return rate, heads would roll.

The issue I had with my GMT IIc is a known issue and had been around for some time, indicating that they hardly broke a land speed issue in rectifying it in production...but I still have it, because I understand that mechanical watches are simply more trouble-prone than most contemporary things, and it kind of goes with the territory, so either you live with the risk and occasional hassles or buy a Casio and enjoy years of trouble-free watch ownership.

15300 is great, are you going to get one?

[paneristi000]

I wore my AP (15400) at a Rolex event. I met a fellow risti from the forum at the Rolex event and he fell in love with the AP. As I was talking to the risti, the watch buyer for the AD was salivating over the AP. He came up to me and asked if he can look at the watch. When I gave him the AP to look at, the guy was staring at the AP and the movement while he had three customers waiting on line to look at Rolexes. You can't make this stuff up. The customers started to wonder what the deal was.

It was so bad that the Rolex representative came up and asked if he can help me decide between the Daytona and the Batman so I can take off the AP. Needless to say, Rolex came into put on a show, which was unintionally (cough cough) stolen by my Royal Oak. Love it.

[Xerxes77]

Originally Posted by AK797

Ah, well done, methinks you have spotted a Hublot infiltrator in our midst, now all makes sense...

Agree
Hublot don't have place in this.....

[sechsgang]

It's funny because I view rolex as much more knock around tool watch thats incredibly robust while still aesthetically pleasing so to speak and AP as a much more special, artful and rich looking piece. Id even say that about a PM sub vs a stainless diver (just to make the price points mesh...even though the realistic buying points put the diver at 14000-14500 and the sub is closer to 21k). I wear my diver more than anything else I have, including rolex, PP, panerai, Jaeger etc etc because it meshes both the worlds of robust and art so well.

[speedmaster73]

Grand Seiko is closer to AP than Rolex

its time for everyone to be honest

[tmw84]

This thread is getting amusing... everyone has different definitions of what quality means to them, and that's fine, but the only way this is played out amongst the different brands is their "brand power" and consequently how much they are able to charge.

AP is able to charge higher prices because they have convinced customers that it is worth paying for man hours spent on "finishing", just like Ferrari can charge higher prices for hand stitching on leather seats. Rolex charges based on the instant recognizability.

It's all about their selling points and what it is worth to customers.

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by tmw84

This thread is getting amusing... everyone has different definitions of what quality means to them, and that's fine, but the only way this is played out amongst the different brands is their "brand power" and consequently how much they are able to charge.

AP is able to charge higher prices because they have convinced customers that it is worth paying for man hours spent on "finishing", just like Ferrari can charge higher prices for hand stitching on leather seats. Rolex charges based on the instant recognizability.

It's all about their selling points and what it is worth to customers.

Very, VERY true.