Reply With QuoteSlim too
... goodness sake.
New Royal Oak "small" for anyone who wants one.
"Small" but perfectly formed?
https://monochrome-watches.com/audem...eid=eacc7253c1
Gray
Slim too
Gray
Only 1mm smaller than the previous 39mm "mans" size.
Look good though as the dial is back into proportion. The 41mm to me just looks stretched
"Smaller sizes are big today"
I'd say (for the average sized person) "proper" sizes are big today, as it is a return to classy stylish luxury watches rather than massive dinner plate bling rapper rubbish which, thankfully, is now a dying trend
Apparently Omega didn't get that memo.
Not looking good for Panerai either, like that AP a lot
Agreed, though I would've preferred them to make the subdials' sizes equal again, like they were in the 90s (I'm thinking reference 25860). But my question here is whether this size is really what AP are frimly standing behind now, or whether they're just experimenting again - they seem terribly unsure of themselves these days.Originally Posted by nunya
Loving that dial
Id say it was perfectly formed, and the dial is definitely to my tastes.. It was my favourite AP release at SIHH this year.
Why does a company have to stand behind one size? Why can't they simply offer a choice?
The blogs will talk about there being a push towards smaller sizes, as if there can only be one thing in fashion at a time. As consumers, we should be very pleased to be offered a choice, rather than being pulled around, following fashions set by pretty doubtful human beings.
And that means celebrating choice, rather than jeering at it as a sign of a company's weakness.
A legitimate point, obviously, but especially when it comes to classic designs, I like to see that a company understands the design and employs it in a sustainable manner, which for me includes changing it as little as possible. The Submariner has been 40mm forever and I think Rolex understand that it really works in that size and will not deviate from it. The way I see it, the Royal Oak, exceptional and beautiful as it is, is less flexible as a design in terms of size and like Nunya pointed out earlier, the fact that the chrono version wasn't really designed with 41mm in mind showed in some of the compromises. I would prefer AP to study the various sizes of the case in connection with the movement and then go with the ideal proportions which are implicitly dictated by the two designs - it's hardly surprising that 38 mm chrono works so well since the original RO was 39. But in general, I believe that if, as a company, you have been blessed with such a classic as AP have, you should sacrifice being fashionable in case it hurts the design, or the heritage which these companies emphasise so much.
Can’t afford it and that’s the only criticism I have. I think it’s stunning
Yeah. The proportions, design, subtle touches - like the grey date wheel, make it a real tease
Gray
That's going to be perfectly sized for me, probably better than any other RO. However the dial is a bit too shiny and I'd prefer it without the chronograph.
At 24,000 Euros and some change though it doesn't make much difference what I think, unless they drop like a stone pre-owned.
It'd look alright without that shoe-horned in date window. Why do manufacturers keep doing it? I mean, look at it –*not even centred between the markers.
If you can't find a place for it, leave it off. Grrr …
Fantastic watch from the front but must agree with the date window issue!
Posting Permissions