ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

meloncap78 · 8 October 2011, 11:38 PM

Your friend has the AP ROO yet he wants your Explorer. What does that tell you?

Mickey® · 8 October 2011, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRY

For me, absolutely not. I will never give up any of my Rollies for any watch that runs on a battery. Then again, maybe it's just me.

I think the OP is kinda well....pulling our leg, really out of the loop or a

ALSO a heavy watch case does NOT make a quality watch IMHO. If that were the case we would all be posting on the FOSSIL Forum. LOL!

kilyung · 8 October 2011, 11:54 PM

It's not a ROO but a RO - very different watch. I'd do a trade for a ROO and flip it.

While I'm an AP owner, I wouldn't do the trade. I don't think AP is a single watch time piece. Meaning its purpose is somewhat focused while most Rolex are extremely versatile. There's also the matter of depreciation, Rolex is better. Keep your ExpII and ask your friend what he's going to pay for service - I guarantee it'll be a little more than you. Did I mention I love my APs?

clarencek · 9 October 2011, 12:03 AM

My AP is definitely more refined and given it's size, better finished than my Rolex. But it's also WAY more fragile. At 9 or 10 mm thick, I'm sure a hard bump would do some damage - there's just not a lot of room for error.

As others have said - Rolex seems much more robust, versatile and rugged. If you're at the office all day (like I am) then an AP is fine. But I would never wear it when any sporting activity is involved.

mrbill2mrbill2 · 9 October 2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dsaltydog

The ROO's are more robust; mine make all my Rolex feel light, and as does the PAM in comparison. ROO are robust.

I don't understand how a watch being heavier makes it a higher quality watch. My Breitling Steelfish, with its solid link bracelet and beefier case, is weighs a lot more than my Sub. Does that make it a higher quality watch?

firstOwatch · 9 October 2011, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRY

For me, absolutely not. I will never give up any of my Rollies for any watch that runs on a battery. Then again, maybe it's just me.

Count me in!

firstOwatch · 9 October 2011, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dddrees

Sounds to me that the AP owner doesn't share your feelings. He desires the Rolex and you desire the AP. Sounds like a perfect trade for the both of you.

Go for it ! Make your day

MoBe · 9 October 2011, 01:19 AM

Don`t do it , I guarantee you`ll regret it,,,,,,,,,forever.

Welshwatchman · 9 October 2011, 01:20 AM

This would be the model, right?

Certainly very nice quality but the 33mm case width and the quartz movement would have me looking up the AP range if you were smitten by one.

As far as Exp II being junk, just bin it, I dare you.

Mickey® · 9 October 2011, 01:23 AM

Yeah...now that I think of it...Do the Trade!
Just let the new Explorer Owner know where to find us here!!!

masterserg · 9 October 2011, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey®

Yeah...now that I think of it...Do the Trade!
Just let the new Explorer Owner know where to find us here!!!

x2

Rollie2011 · 9 October 2011, 01:27 AM

There is some solace in a hefty watch. I wouldnt want a watch that was light and felt like a childs plaything. But that does NOT equal quality

firstOwatch · 9 October 2011, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey®

Yeah...now that I think of it...Do the Trade!
Just let the new Explorer Owner know where to find us here!!!

learpilot · 9 October 2011, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRY

For me, absolutely not. I will never give up any of my Rollies for any watch that runs on a battery. Then again, maybe it's just me.

MY-WATCH · 9 October 2011, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by padi56

Have to agree although in the mechanical side the RO is a very fine movement up there with the best.Just don't like the style IMHO its a very over rated watch perhaps its the expensive price.While the RO is quite a large and heavy watch which many like today, some say heavy always means better, but thats not always the case especially in watches.

I agree

hdrazor251 · 9 October 2011, 01:41 AM

Not a deal for me. I guess I'm just a junkman.

BTW: Great pic ArcticMoose

rossi46 · 9 October 2011, 01:58 AM

I can understand this feeling a little junky, as when I tried on a Sub no-date at an AD I was shocked by the cheap feeling:

However, I would never swap an EXP for a quartz AP. That's about as dumb a thing as you could do. Save up and get a proper mechanical Royal Oak, either the Jumbo or 15300.

esm · 9 October 2011, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polarexplorer

The owner of the TT Royal Oak offered me a swap situation.

Basically my Rolex Explorer II + $3000- for his TT Audemars Piguet Royal Oak.

His AP is a box and papers piece. My explorer II is early 90s.

Seriously considering the deal...

So you were offered a deal.

Am I to assume that the TT AP RO owner have actually strategically made you to feel that your EXPII is inferior, therefore you felt it is a piece of junk.....

Think about it - if that TT AP RO is that good, why would the TT AP RO want to offer the exchange + cash on top?!? (unless he needs the cash, but it might not be the case since he is an AD?!?)

Freedom fighter · 9 October 2011, 02:25 AM

AP can kiss rolex butt....I would NEVER swap any of my rolex for an AP I don't like the brand at all but rolex...different story....

ArcticMoose · 9 October 2011, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdrazor251

BTW: Great pic ArcticMoose

Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossi46

I can understand this feeling a little junky, as when I tried on a Sub no-date at an AD I was shocked by the cheap feeling:

Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't, depending on my mood.

Either way, it is easily remedied with a NATO.

Kanger · 9 October 2011, 05:13 AM

It's not the EXP II, which is a great piece. The Royal Oak just happened to be among the best sport watches ever made by man.

Speed · 9 October 2011, 05:25 AM

Just don't like that AP style...

Paul B · 9 October 2011, 05:28 AM

I've never been a fan of AP, to big and clunky looking for my tastes, also find the RO to busy looking with those fake screws in that large bezel.
I do appreciate however that AP is a manufacturer of fine quality time pieces, variety is the spice of life.

Paul

Paulie 50 · 9 October 2011, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polarexplorer

The owner of the TT Royal Oak offered me a swap situation.

Basically my Rolex Explorer II + $3000- for his TT Audemars Piguet Royal Oak.

His AP is a box and papers piece. My explorer II is early 90s.

Seriously considering the deal...

why ? no serious watch enthusiast wants a Quartz, stick with your Explorer.

TSW · 9 October 2011, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul B

I've never been a fan of AP, to big and clunky looking for my tastes, also find the RO to busy looking with those fake screws in that large bezel.
I do appreciate however that AP is a manufacturer of fine quality time pieces, variety is the spice of life.

Paul

Fake screws

They only goes thru the hole case of the watch.

MoBe · 9 October 2011, 05:43 AM

If I want a watch with a battery in it I`ll go to Wal Mart.

Paul B · 9 October 2011, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSW

Fake screws

They only goes thru the hole case of the watch.

Those would be nuts on the front, the screws are at the back.
I don't like the fake screw slots in the nuts, maybe it's just me, but to my eye they look silly since they can't be turned.
The face of the dial is beautiful though.

Paul

RolexPete32 · 9 October 2011, 06:46 AM

I would not take that trade. But the AP is a great watch.

Maxseven · 9 October 2011, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul B

Those would be nuts on the front, the screws are at the back.
I don't like the fake screw slots in the nuts, maybe it's just me, but to my eye they look silly since they can't be turned.
The face of the dial is beautiful though.

Paul

I agree, the front nuts/screws appear to be faux - non-functional.

rossi46 · 9 October 2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul B

Those would be nuts on the front, the screws are at the back. I don't like the fake screw slots in the nuts, maybe it's just me, but to my eye they look silly since they can't be turned.

As has been posted, they're not "fake." Per TimeZone:

Quote:

The hexagonal "nuts" (in Audemars Piguet's parlance) that adorn the bezel are not nuts, but screws (below right). They do have a screw slot cut in the heads, but they cannot rotate in the hexagonal holes in the bezel. The "screws" on the case back (above right) are not screws, but nuts. They also have a screw slot cut into the heads so that the nut can be screwed onto the stationary screw.

http://www.timezone.com/library/horo...70172488072079

9 October 2011, 12:03 AM	#34
clarencek "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: New York Posts: 400	My AP is definitely more refined and given it's size, better finished than my Rolex. But it's also WAY more fragile. At 9 or 10 mm thick, I'm sure a hard bump would do some damage - there's just not a lot of room for error. As others have said - Rolex seems much more robust, versatile and rugged. If you're at the office all day (like I am) then an AP is fine. But I would never wear it when any sporting activity is involved. __________________ Citizen AQ4020-54X, NB6005-05L, NB6006-02X, Casio GMW-B5000TFC, MRG-B5000B, MTG-B1000XB, Hamilton Field Khaki H70605731, IWC IW356501, IWC387902, Longines Spirit L3.810.4.93.0, MKII PMWF Graywater GMT, Project 300, Omega 210.92.42.20.01.001, 304.33.44.52.03.001, Rolex 116400GV, 116520, 116610LV, 126600, 326933, Seiko SBGA001, SLA019, Sinn U1-ST

9 October 2011, 01:20 AM	#39
Welshwatchman "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Paul Location: Wales, UK Posts: 14,578	This would be the model, right? Certainly very nice quality but the 33mm case width and the quartz movement would have me looking up the AP range if you were smitten by one. As far as Exp II being junk, just bin it, I dare you. __________________ ..33

9 October 2011, 01:41 AM	#46
hdrazor251 "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Real Name: Jeff Location: Arizona Watch: is recovered!! Posts: 4,255	Not a deal for me. I guess I'm just a junkman. BTW: Great pic ArcticMoose __________________ 16753 GMT Master, 16613 Bluesy, 16710 GMT Master II, 16570 Polar Explorer II-Stolen & Recovered!! Card Carrying Member of the Global Assoc. of Retro-Grouch-Curmudgeons

9 October 2011, 01:58 AM	#47
rossi46 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: May 2008 Real Name: Dan Location: CT, by a lake Watch: 16570 Posts: 1,544	I can understand this feeling a little junky, as when I tried on a Sub no-date at an AD I was shocked by the cheap feeling: However, I would never swap an EXP for a quartz AP. That's about as dumb a thing as you could do. Save up and get a proper mechanical Royal Oak, either the Jumbo or 15300. __________________ A watch is about the entire package, not just its appearance. Any large watch company not making its own movement is not making a watch at all; they’re just playing dress-up. --The Watch Snob

9 October 2011, 05:28 AM	#53
Paul B "TRF" Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Real Name: Paul Location: Canada/NY Watch: Don't go there... Posts: 366	I've never been a fan of AP, to big and clunky looking for my tastes, also find the RO to busy looking with those fake screws in that large bezel. I do appreciate however that AP is a manufacturer of fine quality time pieces, variety is the spice of life. Paul __________________ Time is what we want most, but what we use worst. William Penn

8 October 2011, 11:38 PM	#31
meloncap78 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Real Name: Joshua Location: Syracuse, NY Watch: LV C Posts: 2,204	Your friend has the AP ROO yet he wants your Explorer. What does that tell you?

8 October 2011, 11:54 PM	#33
kilyung 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Cave Watch: Sundial Posts: 33,940	It's not a ROO but a RO - very different watch. I'd do a trade for a ROO and flip it. While I'm an AP owner, I wouldn't do the trade. I don't think AP is a single watch time piece. Meaning its purpose is somewhat focused while most Rolex are extremely versatile. There's also the matter of depreciation, Rolex is better. Keep your ExpII and ask your friend what he's going to pay for service - I guarantee it'll be a little more than you. Did I mention I love my APs?

9 October 2011, 01:19 AM	#38
MoBe "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 6,773	Don`t do it , I guarantee you`ll regret it,,,,,,,,,forever.

9 October 2011, 01:23 AM	#40
Mickey® Banned Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Mickey® Location: Atlanta, GA Watch: Swiss Made Posts: 5,801	Yeah...now that I think of it...Do the Trade! Just let the new Explorer Owner know where to find us here!!!

9 October 2011, 01:27 AM	#42
Rollie2011 "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Real Name: John Location: Palm Beach, FL Watch: Sub-C + Exp 42 Posts: 1,654	There is some solace in a hefty watch. I wouldnt want a watch that was light and felt like a childs plaything. But that does NOT equal quality

9 October 2011, 02:25 AM	#49
Freedom fighter Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Real Name: Bill Location: London Watch: SS yachtmaster Posts: 202	AP can kiss rolex butt....I would NEVER swap any of my rolex for an AP I don't like the brand at all but rolex...different story....

9 October 2011, 05:13 AM	#51
Kanger Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Real Name: Daniel Location: North Carolina Watch: Sea Dweller Posts: 5,524	It's not the EXP II, which is a great piece. The Royal Oak just happened to be among the best sport watches ever made by man.

9 October 2011, 05:25 AM	#52
Speed "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: USA Posts: 19,706	Just don't like that AP style...

9 October 2011, 05:43 AM	#56
MoBe "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 6,773	If I want a watch with a battery in it I`ll go to Wal Mart.

9 October 2011, 06:46 AM	#58
RolexPete32 "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Real Name: Peter Location: Canada Watch: You know... Rolex Posts: 1,520	I would not take that trade. But the AP is a great watch.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)