Reply With QuoteWhich model ROO?
Generally I prefer ROO's to the 5 digit LV any day of the week.
A first-world problem on which I'd very much appreciate some views:
Earlier this year I was lucky enough to acquire a 2007 16610LV, a watch I've wanted for ages and missed out on before. I'm not really a big Rolex fan, but I've always loved the LV, and for me the clamour for them and the attendant effect on values is little more than a happy side-effect of ownership; I bought it because I love it, fully intending it to be the proverbial keeper.
However, I'm now presented with the opportunity to get my paws on something on another level - a rather lovely Royal Oak Offshore. This is a watch I started lusting after years ago when I was living overseas and it was constantly being advertised on TV. I tried this on yesterday - it's a brilliant example, and I'm smitten.
Needless to say, I want both, but the finances don't permit it, so the dilemma is: do I sell the LV to buy the RO (a cash-adjusted trade is also possible), or hold on to it? The RO is from 2012 and I'm guessing its value has plateaued, so economics would presumably dictate keeping the LV while it continues to appreciate. Head doesn't always rule heart, though, and the RO is a stunner - I'm torn.
What would you do?
Which model ROO?
Generally I prefer ROO's to the 5 digit LV any day of the week.
I would say think about whether you are looking to wear and enjoy or for some potential value increase over time. From what you've said, the increase in value is a happy side-effect of owning the LV you already have.
Would the ROO be in scope in terms of £ if:
(a) the LV had not increased in value
(b) the ROO had not depreciated (I'm just guessing that it has) from the RRP
When you look at it that way, the LV has allowed to you trade-up to the ROO. Obviously whether it is indeed a trade-up or not is subjective. But if you'll miss the LV on your wrist then it'll be hard to get another without paying whatever the prices are at the time you decide to get another.
Out of interest, what is the difference between the cost of the ROO new and used?
Should've said that: Ref 15703ST.OO.A002CA.01
Been trying to upload a pic, but Tapatalk isn't having it at the moment.
Last edited by DMC102; 9th August 2018 at 14:32.
Interesting predicament. That ROO reference is the offshore diver which is a stunning watch.
I'm presuming the escalating price of the LV has put you within sniffing distance of the AP.
Purely from an investment perspective the LV will continue to rise but not probably at the rate it has done in the last few years. The AP is unlikely to depreciate much more but won't go up.
From a watch perspective, you are comparing an AP with an RRP of £16-17k against a £6k sub (taking the LV bit out of the equation).
The AP is by far the better watch but head and heart play a big part in the final decision.
For me it would be the AP all day long as I'm not a Rolex fan.
Last edited by Top Cat; 9th August 2018 at 14:34.
Diver is a great watch. Check whether it needs a service (given age) and how fresh strap and pushers are as well as condition of bezel.
These all cost a it with AP.
Much of this sums up the way I'm thinking, and answers a previous question - thanks for that.Originally Posted by Top Cat
Easy for me, the 16610LV.
I appreciate AP is a brand people aspire to but having owned a couple its not for me. HOWEVER that particular model of ROO is one of the only ones that could tempt me at some stage, but if it meant parting with an iconic LV to do it, nope.
I love AP but not the diver and so would keep the LV however, judging by your reaction to the AP, it sounds like it's the one for you.
Having never bought a watch based on what it may be worth in the future, what enormous profits I can make and what my ROI is going to be, go with the one you like.
Rolexes are common as muck and the AP has always been a fave of mine.
For those who want to know what it looks like, it's this one
- - - Updated - - -
Having never bought a watch based on what it may be worth in the future, what enormous profits I can make and what my ROI is going to be, go with the one you like.
Rolexes are common as muck and the AP has always been a fave of mine.
For those who want to know what it looks like, it's this one
- - - Updated - - -
Having never bought a watch based on what it may be worth in the future, what enormous profits I can make and what my ROI is going to be, go with the one you like.
Rolexes are common as muck and the AP has always been a fave of mine.
For those who want to know what it looks like, it's this one
It's in excellent condition and has been to AP recently - comes with a 12 month warranty and a letter from AP stating it's been inspected and doesn't require a service.
The watch in question:
Thanks for posting the pic.
I've never factored those things in either, but sadly I'm not in a position to have both watches.
Point taken on the brand comparison, but I do think the LV is a bit special.
In that case id say definitely diver. One of my favourite ROOs and blows the LV out of the water build-wise
LV for me, I just can’t get on with how the AP looks
The LV hasn't appreciated enormously during my ownership, and the RO is currently worth more. The RO has depreciated from the RRP of about £16K to a point where the LV and a bit of cash would secure it.
I'd definitely miss the LV, but the AP is a very desirable watch IMO, and I see it as a trade-up. However I'm struggling to decide whether economics should dictate the choice - will LVs go up and up forever, and how much further can the AP drop..?
It's not a position I ever thought I'd find myself in, but I'm extremely fortunate to have a few weeks to chew it over.
Last edited by DMC102; 9th August 2018 at 16:40.
:) i wont repeat myself again
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's the mistake everyone makes, best to think about whether or not you like it enough that you see yourself wearing it 5,10,20 years down the line.
The market could fall out on both pieces tomorrow, and which one would you prefer to get stuck with.
It is great that the LV has put you in a postion where the Diver is attainable, but the worst thing is regretting the change and losing cash on the change back.
Ultimately, I'm with verv, Diver>LV any day.
I own both LV lives in a safe, Diver is in the rotation pile.
I would hold onto the LV. A Rolex fan, but aside from that, the costs of owning an AP, services and so on are rather a lot for my pocket.
Yes, definitely worth noting that it's going to cost a lot more to keep the AP running than the Submariner.
I do like the 15703, but I wouldn't part with my 2003 LV to get one. The slimmer Sub is a classic watch that I could wear stress-free every day for the rest of my life, while I've never had the same feeling about any of AP's Offshore models.
I just don't like green watches...
Excellent perspective and summary and I would jump at the AP personally as well as being an AP, the diver is a great watch.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Until about three weeks ago I owned both. I had the same dilemma as I needed some cash but for me was an easy decision; sold the LV and I still have my AP. I’ve owned it 4.5 years now and it always brings a smile to my face.
I wouldn’t contemplate the swap. The only AP that does anything for me is the 15202. I think the ROO are a bit vulgar, but then I’m a restrained guy. The old Rolex Exp II does it for me, so blingy watches aren’t to my taste. It’s your taste though, and only you can decide
Best
Dave
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ROO would be too much for me personally because of relatively thin wrists. However, it's in a different league and, I assume, is a better watch to own.
I reckon that I would have to trade for the AP, I think the opportunity to step up from a Sub to the ROO would prove to good an opportunity to pass up.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just how much do you like the LV? That will be more difficult to replace if you want to swap back. The offshore diver will always be around as an option.
Personally I would go for the AP every day of the week, but this is about what you want to wear
I love the LV - it's the only Rolex that's ever really interested me, and if it goes it'll be missed. But it's hard to dismiss the chance of moving up to one of the big three, and like the LV, the AP would be worn and enjoyed.
Is the AP really a 'better' watch? I wonder. Certainly higher on the 'street cred' scale but Rolex make tougher, at least as well-designed watches that are easier to service and probably more accurate . I bought a 5711 and was pleased to return to Rolex.
But, as they're all men's toys, the sensible thing is to buy whatever gives you most pleasure. And that's probably the AP. A lot of people love them.....
Do it! The fact your asking means you want to....
Rolex will always be obtainable again in the future if you want one - if you bide your time you can always find one despite the hype.
You may not get a good deal on an AP again as they are many fewer out there.
Just be ready for £900 services in stead of £550 and you will be OK. Though if you get it done every 5 years you can justify it with man maths.
Higher on the WIS street cred scale perhaps, but I'd wager that the Rolex is more instantly recognisable to normal people than the AP. This isn't a factor for me anyway.
A Rolex service for the LV costs £853, so we're already in that territory.
Just spotted your edit - had it been a 16610LV, would you still have traded?Ironically, I traded my LV (albeit a Hulk) for a ROO Diver, and some weeks later can say with honestly that I rarely take it off. It's an incredible watch, and probably one of my all-time favourites.
Last edited by DMC102; 10th August 2018 at 10:54.
No it doesnt
Good question, as it wasn't apples with apples (my fault for not reading the OP carefully enough). It would be a much harder decision; knowing what I know now about the ROO Diver, I suspect that I'd try to fund it another way, because it's by far the better watch. I'm not sure that I'd be able to let an LV go if I had one, though.
Ah this again! That's what I was quoted, but I know there's been some confusion about it as the watch is over ten years old (see HERE).
Was it ever definitively resolved?
Last edited by DMC102; 10th August 2018 at 10:53.
The AP is a lovely watch but looks to much of an actual tool watch to me to be worn for anything other than its intended purpose, I would also put the Ploprof and Deepsea in the same category.
The Sub is a far more versatile watch in my opinon and if it were me I would be keeping the LV, plus you have the added bonus it should continue to rise in value.
Last edited by boring_sandwich; 10th August 2018 at 11:13.
Another vote for the ROO from me. It’s currently on my wish-list. In terms of Rolexes, I’d probably consider myself a fan with a 14060M and ceramic Daytona and probably with that sub in the collection I’d be able to cut loose a (to me) hypothetical LV. I’ve just never understood what all the fuss was about...
I’ve toyed with the idea of owning an AP Diver as well.
I think they look fantastic, but I can’t swap my LV for one as I think I’d scratch and damage it far easier then the LV.
I’m pretty hard on my watches and this is the only reason I’ve held back.
If you wore them lightly then yes, I’d do the swap.
Is the ROO diver still a low beat movement?
I'd probably still take it over the LV.
Had both and ended up selling the AP with in 6 months was very very unimpressed with it, I sent it back 3 times
from new, trouble with the crown and then time keeping the 3rd time they didn't want to know saying 9 sec a day
was ok as there not COSC rated watches
I still have the LV and still love it
DMC, I have owned an AP ROOD which was on a bracelet and it's a truly beautiful watch. It's down side (which might seem obvious) was its size, in particular it's depth. I lost count of the number of times I dinged the poor thing from a door frame, each time with feeling of dread looking for a chunk from the bezel, I have to say it held up well but did my nerves no good. If you can get used to the bulk it is a real winner.
I have not had the pleasure of an LV but have had subs such as the 5513, very nice but not in the same league in terms of quality.
If I had the chance to have either back it would be the AP in a heart beat, especially on the bracelet.
That model AP is one of my favourite AP’s, and I’d have bought one if it came on a bracelet. It’s a great watch - but... the LV is imho the best Submariner Rolex have made to date, I wouldn’t trade one f mine for the AP - but I’d consider sellling other things to raise the funds for that AP.
It's just a matter of time...
That’s great Tony, but... I don’t own the AP diver, yet...
It's just a matter of time...
AP’s are lovely and I’m craving one big time but as I have been told by a AP watchmaker non COSC and tolerances less than your old common Rollie...!
I once had an AP ROO diver like the one in question.....I found it top heavy on the wrist and uncomfortable - I sold it not long after acquiring it. The Rolex LV would be my choice....
The diver is a great watch but I would much prefer it without the extra crown. Functional I know, but for me, it ruins the clean lines of what could be, dare I say it, the almost perfect AP sports watch.
Have a look at some Google images of the watch being worn with the second crown for the rotating inner bezel being obscured by a shirt cuff to know what I mean. A bit picky perhaps, but it prevented me from taking the plunge and I opted for a ROO chrono instead.
The Kermit is a classic sports Rolex and extremely subtle when compared to the more recent Hulk.
Prices are extraordinarily high for both watches at present and they may just sit where they are for a while now, but I believe that in ten years or so the Kermit will have a little more room for movement with it's relatively low, in Rolex terms, production numbers.
Posting Permissions
