I had one and very nice it was too, and only sold it because deep down I wanted a Nautilus. Now I have a Nautilus, naturally I want a Royal Oak again... And so the cycle continues.
The earliest watches from the late 90s couldn't have the associations with the bling culture and although the 42mm case must have seemed enormous back then, they actually wear very nicely now and are not even 'fashionably large - the most modern ones and many LEs are of course huge, but the early versions with their fine instead of 'mega' tapisserie dials really do seem to ooze a certain class. Apparently Genta was furious about what AP had done to 'his' design so that does somewhat dent the Genta credentials.
Movement wise; there's never anything wrong with a JLC base calibre, the Lemania-designed Depraz Dubois chronograph module was used simply because there was nothing else to go in there - bear in mind Rolex were not even making their own in-house chronograph calibre at that time and nor were Patek.
So why does it get such a bad press? I'm rather fond of it and find it wears very nicely, I wore mine througfhout my honeymoon on white water rafting, elephant riding, pool and smart for dinner every day. The standard ROC is more a more refined watch due to being much slimmer but the WR is laughable for a 'sports watch' with screwed down pushers and it just seems a bit too... elegant for what I'd be wearing one for, but does have the lovely slim FP 1185 chrono movement. But compare the two and the RO/ROC wears as a dress watch in steel on a bracelet and that's not what I wear, if i did then the Nautilus is closer in comcept. The ROO actually seems to fit the description of a 'sports watch'.
Basically I'm looking for a daily steel watch to go with the Nautilus and I missed out on the Hulk on SC which I was gutted about. This would fulfill the same role as a steel Rolex Sub/Daytona/Explorer or an Omega Speedy/SM etc, a well made sturdy steel watch. So why not have an AP for not much more!
I'd like to hear opinions on the Royal Oak Offshore; not the bling versions, but the early 42mm ones with a steel bezel...
That's the problem there....Originally Posted by DB9yeti
Unfortunately those with a vague knowledge of watches associate APs with bling or bad LEs (ROO being the worst offender) thus all are guilty by association.
Had a work collegue ask me if i it bothered me that my Diver is a bit of "a thugged out rapper watch" so you know i had to bust a cap in his ass.....
more seriously, they're nice when tasteful and i've always prefered the base RO over the Nautlius
I always though that were very similar designs, but when seen side by side, they really do look nothing like each other - they are more different then say a Sub and Seamaster IMHO.
I always thought it'd be a case of one of the other but actually I think there is room for both...
The WR on the non-Offshore chrono is more than enough for anything short of technical diving. I wouldn't let it put me off one; the pressure rating doesn't matter for normal use. It only comes into play if you're actually encountering pressures where the structural integrity is going to be a limitation. Even then, the pressure ratings of good watch companies tend to rather conservative.
ROOCs? I'm not a fan of the modular movement construction, the endless meaningless limited editions, or the bulk. To me, it looks like a caricature of the Royal Oak. (Others may feel differently.)
There are worse watches to be sure, but I personally tend to look elsewhere in that price bracket.
I would recommend the Offshore Safari or the AP diver
Diver is cool and still modern. The 42mm is very passe now imho with the 44mm being too big for many but a terrific design in carbon guise.
Perhaps you could post a picture of what you consider to be the most attractive version?
The 'problem' is I think the inevitable comparison with the very elegant Royal Oak. It's like comparing Sean Connery with Arnold Schwarzenegger - the steroid soaked version inevitably suffers.
I did see a Russian guy wearing one in a hotel bar recently - he had the heavy set, solemn look of an ex-KGB guy who had done well under Putin, and the over the top 'glamorous' wife to match, plastered in makeup. I have to say the watch suited him rather well. Perhaps you need the bulk and wrist size to pull it off - personally I identiy much more with one of the more sensibly sized ROs.
One like this. The 42mm is hardly huge by today's standards and wears far smaller than a Panerai for example. I'm sure they looked gigantic in the 90s but we're used to bigger watches nowadays. It doesn't make me think 'ex-KGB' or whatever TBH, it's just not a 'pumped up' watch anymore.
It's quoted as 50m; the same as a Speedmaster Professional. You don't see many people getting them wet... what you do hear is people complaining that the water resistance is too low. But not in this case?
Come to think of it, one issue is that they are so often seen on a strap rather than a bracelet as in your picture. Genta's concept was absolutely an integrated bracelet watch, which helps to make RO fans see rubber strap versions as Genta's elegant and sophisticated concept ruined, rather than seeing it in its own right with fresh eyes. The version you posted is certainly one of the better ones I've seen. Way too big for the likes of me but if it suits you, why not?
I had one briefly, one of those where I either adored it or was just totally unsure of it.
Still not sure what it is about them but I keep looking at them again.
Even Omega says it's fine for swimming/snorkeling right in their own user guide. Just because some people think something is an issue doesn't mean it's an actual issue. I bet they also think that the harder you screw down a crown, the more watertight the watch becomes.
Despite others' phobias, I've worn a Speedy in the sea without any issues. Just check the seals once in a while and you're fine. Most watch forumites have an extremely limited understanding of how stuff works, anyway.
Fair enough! I certainly wouldn't wear my Reverso in the sea even though it's water resistant to 30m and so on.
Let's just say that the 150m quoted on the ROO gives me a safety margin I am happy with even though it'd realistcially never do more than go for a dip in a pool on holiday or jump off the side of a boat. It is probably paranoia more than a lack of understanding however, tghat and often being unsure of the seal integrity of a second hand watch especially a chrono with pushers.
100% agree that it's a bracelet watch, as should be the Nautilus; it's the raison d'etre of the watch and almost worth the asking price alone (OK, obviously not but it's pretty amazing).
I guess it gets the same press as the DSSD; not actually that big in relative terms and perfectly wearable (an Omega 9300 Seamaster is bigger than both) but bigger than its stablemates.
https://www.chrono24.com/en/audemars...-id3048174.htm
Add on Ł1340 for the bracelet (although no stock until February), and you've still plenty of spare change to pay for the service and/or polishing.
Of course, you could just save a bundle by opting for a.......
https://www.chrono24.com/en/glashuet...-id2113041.htm
I would love one of these, but sadly all RO and ROC models are too long for my small round wrists....grrr
Total heresy I suppose, but I just don't think Genta's design has aged well. Sorry but the case shape grates on my eyes and those recessed hex screw heads annoy the snot out of my inner engineer.
I always feel fraudulent commenting on watches out of my Łcomfort spheres, certainly when I'm offering nothing to the actual question asked!
But hey-ho! IMO the aesthetics of the watch are just wrong, it's all sharp lines and block shapes, like bad 60s architecture.
That said, if you like the watch, and perceive the variant you desire to be in keeping with the original integrity of the designer, then I wouldn't let the apparent blinginess of the later models discourage you.
RE WR and chrono movements, both will be more than adequate for the real world.
Also, FWIW, I didn't used to feel much warmth to the waffle (or whatever its called) dial, then I saw one irl and it left a very positive impression!
Tapisserie. One of the things that appeal with the variant I posted above (which is actually Ti, ignore that) is the finer tapisserie as seen on the standard RO and later on the ROC. The 'modern' ROO has the 'mega tapisserie' which doesn't quite have the same fineness, the biug squares work less well for me. This makes the watch appear like a larger ROC rather than a totally different model to my eyes.
I personally find the ROO a bit too big, but I do like the regular chrono... Here next to my Sub.
The Diver is still one of the few watches I want to own. I like the Panda and Safari models too.
I just think their 'over size' does do the model any favours. I would much prefer the three models above 2mm smaller and thinner too.
Too big and too fugly, perfect for an over weight Italian shipping magnate, or the son of the son of a Saudi prince, about as discreet as a brick wall across a motorway,,,,,,I think I've become one of those that believes subtle is the way forward, sorry guys don't shoot me its just my inner monologue escaping.
I just think they look wrong, the case too big for the dial, many looking cheap IMO.
I love the regular RO, but really dislike the OS
With respect, you do seem to basically hate everything though.
The Royal Oak Chrono has to my eyes been slightly ruined by the size increase (39-41mm), as has the Offshore model by increasing from 42mm to 44mm.
- - - Updated - - -
I had a look on C24; not one available with the bracelet; and for me it needs to be a bracelet watch.I would recommend ...the AP diver
Shouldnt your Nautilus be your daily wear?
The AP ROO is nice, the new ones, but just doesnt wear well....Although thats more my problem with small wrists, they are just too big.
Yep. Always nice to have a change though.
I'm sorry if I give you that impression old chap, its really not the case I assure you, I opened this thread with an open mind as many people have such high regard for these watches, and whilst they may be mechanically splendid, I just don't feel the love.
You're certainly not on your own there!
Sad as it is, a minor reason I sold mine was its perception in the watch press and on forums (the major reason was to fund something else). Yes, I know we're all supposed to buy what we like and not be influenced by our peers but there is almost always an element of that.
I was (and am) curious to find what people don't like about the watch; the jewel-encrusted gigantic versions I understand but a 'modest' 42mm early 90s one, I wanted to see if it was met with the same level of scorn, for want of a better word. To me it's just a bigger, tougher version of the original Genta RO concept, to others, clearly not.
For me it just has too many angles going on, too many apparently sharp edges, its half way between a wrist watch and a Hublot
I really like the 42mm version (I have two of them !). The quality of the design, finishing etc I think is just superb. Both the ones I have are non LE versions and IMO great 'sports' watches.
I tried the 44mm version and i agree that they are simply too big (for me at least).
Will likely have to sell one of them as I have my eye on something else but I think I will always keep one.
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned this one on SC:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...l-Oak-Offshore
Just like the one the OP posted a picture of.
Personally I'm a big fan of both the RO and ROO. My next watch will definitely be an addition of some form of PP Nautilus. I quite like the idea of one of these as a point of difference to my AP RO:
It's a few years away for me though unfortunately!
You can acquire a bracelet for it.
There will never be a time when I buy a bracelet watch that's not on a bracelet...
Starts pushing into a whole new price bracket.
It's the reason I started the thread. I'm now looking at a dealer watch for around Ł7k though.
To me they look pointlessly pumped-up and fussy, a bit like a good-looking car with a bad-looking body kit (maybe along the lines of DBS vs DB9).
Plain unadorned 5402 please.
Bracelet certainly takes it over the top
Maybe, just maybe, this guy could get away with that watch. But it's good to know if you are or are not that guy. If you are not, you really shouldn't try to be.Bracelet certainly takes it over the top
Will this do? 😄
they don't float my boat but boy I like what is inside!
I must admit that wears a lot better than you'd imagine just looking at the watch. But on my skinny wrist I think the 'No you are not Drax' principle would be in full effect! ;-)
I prefer the Royal Oaks to the Offshores. Much more classy IMHO.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
You may think the 42mm AP's are "passé" but the public and morst of the AD's I have spoken with would differ in that opinion. I do wish AP would have offered the ceramic bezel in the 42mm RG instead of the Rubber. Love the look of it!
Three of my own, now un trendy AP's. :)
Each to their own but the ROO has been produced since 2003 and has not aged well in 42mm guise IMHO. I had one of the first Rubber Clad and a White Dial later in 2008. They were stunning to me during my ownership but since buying the 44mm Carbon I feel it is a much more modern, comfortable and good looking piece. The fact it has a display case works too. Will it look good in 10 years time? Certainly not. This is the difference between more Contemporary Oversized designs and more traditional styles such as the Nautilus which are perfect to wear daily for numerous occasions. That is why if the 44mm doesn't work I think the Diver does as a more 'fresh' looking model. I can't speak for the public but all my friends with AP ROO has sold out of their 42mm for the same reasons I cited. Some replaced with 44mm some went the other way and bought in to dressier pieces that are far removed such as Calatrava and Chronos. I can't speak for the AD's but I don't think they would last long admitting the 42mm is passe now!You may think the 42mm AP's are "passé" but the public and morst of the AD's I have spoken with would differ in that opinion. I do wish AP would have offered the ceramic bezel in the 42mm RG instead of the Rubber. Love the look of it!
Three of my own, now un trendy AP's. :)
I love them!
39mm ROC is still a fave of mine. 41mm I still don't like too much. Rose on leather 39mm ROC is probably the best combo I think.
What's "classy" is when people post their comments without the need to add in the negative while trying to make a point or express an opinion.
Ex. "I prefer the Royal Oaks to the Offshores." Simple and to the point. If you felt the need to explain yourself further, then just add in what it is about the RO's that you find appealing without insulting every owner of a ROO in the process by telling them their watch is without class.
Same goes for the other chap who also felt the need to bash every 42mm ROO as "passé" which is BS but regardless of whether I agree or not, could have been stated in a manner that wouldn't have been offensive to every owner of said 42mm models.
Not a whiner but just think because you are sitting on your computer or wherever and not face to face doesn't excuse being disrespectful or impolite. IMHO..
Cheers
Last edited by DoxaDavid; 15th December 2014 at 16:16.
I love AP's and their designs. Have been a big fan for sometime now. The RO's I love , the ROO's, there are some I really like and some I don't quite fancy but calling them overstated and bling - not in my book. Everyone has different tastes I guess. I really like the heft and case shape. This one ticks all my boxes and it's my daily wearer currently. Love it!
Love the Rubberclad! Mine gets a lot of wrist time as well.I love AP's and their designs. Have been a big fan for sometime now. The RO's I love , the ROO's, there are some I really like and some I don't quite fancy but calling them overstated and bling - not in my book. Everyone has different tastes I guess. I really like the heft and case shape. This one ticks all my boxes and it's my daily wearer currently. Love it!
Enjoy that beauty and wear it in good health!
I also stated each to their own. I am speaking as someone who has owned the 42mm and 44mm roo alongside the 36 and 39mm roc so feel it is something I can speak with some conviction about. I am not saying my view is correct and yours is not so, not at all. Just stating my thoughts. It is hardly offensive though I don't think there are many people out there who would ever call a ROO in any iteration understated. It is a bold design for those who want to stand out at times. There is nothing wrong with that it is simply a preference! I also think there is some regional preferences. In certain cities/countries/regions for instance.
I think this watch has been a victim of it's own success and the marketing image consequently spectacularly mismanaged. Ever since Georges-Henri Meylan conned Schwarzenegger in a hotel to advertise the Offshore for free (except for gifts of free watches) the company seem to think that celebrity endorsement will somehow make the watch appealing. Faux politicians and cheap rappers don't help the cause, they add to the demise of the reputation. They seem to have forgotten pedigree, the need for capturing a particular market and design evolution. Then there's the latest slogan. My God, that awful slogan: "To break the rules, you must first master them." This just proves the Swiss are still making great cheese.
AP have a reputation as being avant-garde and use the Offshore to spearhead that reputation with developing new materials, but a white ceramic watch only appeals to the cheap celebs I mentioned previously- or the type of Malibu wannabe who pines to join that club set. Endless Limited Editions after stating they were cutting back, design overhauls that completely change the DNA in some instances make my toes curl like Victorian Turkish slippers. The Survivor pusher guards look as though they're made from paperclips.
The detractors state it's not an inhouse movement, the dials are wonky, it's got a sunken date and the hex bolt at 10 is way out. For me, the newer ones have become a Hublot facsimile by offering a rubber strap instead of a bracelet. The Diver should be braceleted as standard. No arguments. In that price range and for being one of the top three it's compulsory.
But here's the thing: the original 42mm design is still refreshing and novel. When I see one in the flesh or online I still have to look and study. Study the edges to see if they're sharp. Study any scratches. Study the hex bolts to see if they're correctly lined. Check to see if it's steel or titanium. It still makes me sit up and pay attention.
Last edited by Tony-GB; 15th December 2014 at 22:31.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
