Hublot = too much cash, too little taste IMHO.
Hi,
Spotted a guy in my pub wearing a hublot big bang chrono and must admit it looked really smart.
Was never a huge fan of hublots with their footballer playboy image and thought they were bit royal oak wannabes.
Any opinions, both from a movement perspective, quality and image?
Cheers,
Grant
Hublot = too much cash, too little taste IMHO.
Not fussed about the image and what others think, I love mine and that's all that matters to me as I don't buy to impress others. Mine's a steel ceramic...
It dresses both up and down (I wear with a suit and down the gym) and is a bit different to the normal fare.
In many ways similar to an AP ROO, but a bit 'fresher' in the design IMO and the leaders in using new materials (I feel AP are the chasing wannabe's there). I'd still like a ROO though, but probably a non chrono as I think Hublot does them better (aesthetically at least). YMMV.
One of my customers has one and likewise, I must say they look really good on the wrist.
I think they look pretty damn nice but I could NEVER see myself paying so much for one.
Love them, have a WTB for one. Think they're stunning watches usi very cutting edges terminals (at least in relation to watches). Sure the footballers wear the blingierbones but as Darrenw has shown above they can be very subtle and understated in some guises.
I just remind me of some sort of poor relation of the AP ROO. Would have the 15202 over a Hublot everyday of the week..
Very innovative in use of ceramic and the design. Now using in house movement. Not to everybody taste and very expensive.
A bit too chunky for me but still very cool.
I quite like the design and novel materials. They look and wear very nice (though my choice is on a bracelet - I'm just not into rubber). I don't really see a strong similarity with the roo, and big bangs wear more comfortable on the wrist IMO (more balanced).
I have met somebody wearing one once, sat next to him on a plane, it was stunning in the flesh, total quality.