Ref 26480: the future of the 42mm ROC or a temporary fix

[tosoboso]

Yesterday we were kindly alerted by Tompa that the new 42mm ROC ref 26480 is already an official release by AP (can now be found on their website).

To be honest I was hoping that the brand will release new generation of 42mm ROCs using their new in-house chrono calibre. Instead they used the well known (third party) 2385. While I love everything about the 2385, I wonder if the closed case back of the new ref is a sign of AP’s intentions to conceal a movement which will eventually get replaced by the cal 4401... Or they just might not want to exhibit a non-in-house movement (as in their ROC line).

Either way, what do you guys think? I love the design and am seriously excited about the change in design language.

 

[Tompa]

I love the new design. Lets hope JF is alredy in full production


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk

 

[R3w1nd]

It’s more of a noob job I think than JF. At 12.8mm thickness the only hope is noob can add a date module to their Daytona movement or else we’re going to have 15mm bricks with A7750.

This new design is growing on me although I still think i prefer the old sub dials layout.

 

[slaughterer62]

[h=2]I actually hate the Ref 26480. In some speculative TRWF discussion, somebody said the 26480 is actually a prototype of the new Offshores, ie. that the Offshores will convert to a 3-6-9 chrono output. If so, the Offshore line is also dead for me. AP should get rid of Bennahmias. His ideas, vision and leadership do not lead to smart designs or even attractive marketing.[/h]

 

[tosoboso]

[h=2]I actually hate the Ref 26480. In some speculative TRWF discussion, somebody said the 26480 is actually a prototype of the new Offshores, ie. that the Offshores will convert to a 3-6-9 chrono output. If so, the Offshore line is also dead for me. AP should get rid of Bennahmias. His ideas, vision and leadership do not lead to smart designs or even attractive marketing.[/h]

I think this is a first: I have to kindly (somewhat) disagree. Not about the management, there’s no question that AP is not RM in the design and horology departments. But the new design (movement aside) is in fact a cool devepment of the ROO DNA. Yes, there are design changes, but I guess market dictates some changes every now and then. What I’m particularly excited about is the slimmer case, the alignment of the crown and pushers and the fact that with this new line I don’t have actually to choose between a ROC and a ROO item (if I wanted to own one only). But that’s me. I’m glad that we can have a dialogue here. Not that AP care about our preferences

 

[SuperLory]

[h=2]I actually hate the Ref 26480. In some speculative TRWF discussion, somebody said the 26480 is actually a prototype of the new Offshores, ie. that the Offshores will convert to a 3-6-9 chrono output. If so, the Offshore line is also dead for me. AP should get rid of Bennahmias. His ideas, vision and leadership do not lead to smart designs or even attractive marketing.[/h]

I’m with you. Bringing new stuff in is always welcomed but you can’t lose your distinctive design like in the code 1159 or make a ratatouille like in the case of this. I can save the nicely done caseback and the thickness, the rest is just badly done. Those hands are yucky.

In my personal opinion obviously.

 

[BIONONE]

Good design is less design and this model represents exactly what overdesigning or drawn to the opposite of life could possibly define.

I am a big fan of the base idea genta brought to the market back then - it was simple yet very complex till today. The redesign and reinventing of a watch that suits a more modern zeitgeist was also a wise move.

The 44mm ROO line was driven by trends in the watch world and was IMO the last necessary refinement of an already sporty watch without drowning in too much „concept of a good watch“.

This new release tries to implement the bespoken ideas and if that wouldnt be enough they tried to add even more by combining it with even more futuristic design elements and complex details like the enamel color on pushers and crown and the weird shape of the hands for a too small dial (a extraordinary hand shape worked for different LE‘s but this time they overdid it with „try out innovation“)

i can understand what their intention was with that reference but for a reason it was one of the quitest releases...

maybe i am too biased by the whole dial layout and the DW at 5... but in this watch too much is going on - too much thoughts - but too little intuition (and i dont mean intuition like on the RO sketch of genta drawn in a couple of minutes... hehe)

and maybe we should take it with a grain of salt as there were always releases that seemed to be the most controversial and afterwards very precious novelties.

 

[tosoboso]

Hm. I admit my iPhone screen is black and white, so I don’t see much colour either way. My computer screens too have blue light filters so I can’t make out the colours most of the time. But I still see the contours and lines and I can’t see much wrong with this release. It’s definately a departure from the Genta design, but so was the original ROO. It’s been almost half a century since that 5402 design, so it’s only natural for changes in the silhouette. Have you noticed how much the design of the 911 has changed since it was introduced in the 1960s? What amazes me is that not that many people appreciate the relative thinnes of this release (and the fact that there’s no piggy chrono module; I too won’t be too saddened by the departure of the rubber pushers and crown). Either way, what I’m most excited about, being me, are the possibilities to franken this. The 2385 is a great movement that can (still) be sourced relatively easy, and cheaply too. And then of course those new dial will start finding their ways through the usual channels to our esteemed community members. We thus need an Ok base watch (like that OMF chrono ROC) and voila But that’s just me (being a franken fan and not an esteemed gen collection owner).

 

[MrOptional]

I agree, it does have a lot going on. Also, not sure if I am liking the placement of DW. But in any case, I don't think we will see a decent rep of this thing anyways...

 

[Jurgenk]

So many nuggets of wisdom here

SuperLory I agree those hands just try so hard and fail, and the layout seems to be regressive and stale at this point.

BIONONE I am all for novelty and risk taking but using a ROC movement and dial design in an Offshore size format seems to be neither, and not very appealing IMO.

R3w1nd totally agree this is a job for Noob, as much as this watch disappoints it would be almost a “slam dunk” for their capabilities, after their 4130 cloning...

slaughterer62 tosoboso they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Couldn’t AP just take the SIHH 2018 42 mm 6-9-12 offshore designs and put them into an 11-12 mm case format with an in-house integrated chrono? This would be a Daytona killer if there ever was one.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[slaughterer62]

... and the weird shape of the hands for a too small dial (a extraordinary hand shape worked for different LE‘s but this time they overdid it with „try out innovation“

BIONONE, I agree with every well-written sentence you added here. When I saw the new 15500 (which I also hate) live in the local boutique, I was asking myself: where have I seen that seconds hand design for the 15500? Then, when I got home, and started to pack up a watch I completed for somebody, I had my answer: they put the chrono seconds hand from the Survivor (a completely over-designed ROO) on the latest iteration of the RO. It is like they are not even striving for a harmonious design anymore, just taking riffs from their past legacy and looking around at the competition to steal little twists and turns to add to a final product that has no inner balance, and which people will only buy out of blind brand loyalty and/or what they ogle on Instagram. At the completion of my last appointment at the local boutique, I told them I hated everything new I saw, and that they should fire their CEO. I expected them to be stunned, but there was a look of recognition and silent complicity in their facial expression and demeanor. Get rid of Bennahmias.

 

[ap@12]

the new design doesnt it for me,i think they look very cheap
the hands are soooo ugly
also the stripe in the hands and crown doesnt work for me
the thickness is offcourse a big plus thats for sure,as the old ones are bulky
never was a fan of Rolex but the wears so much more comfy,and they have growing on me

 

[SuperLory]

Get rid of Bennahmias.

If someone could make t-shirts or Polos with such line I'd buy

 

[slaughterer62]

If someone could make t-shirts or Polos with such line I'd buy

Same thought: with a photo of him on his yacht in southern France underneath.

 

[Garuda]

protest already started :rofl:

 

[Egret11]

Yesterday we were kindly alerted by Tompa that the new 42mm ROC ref 26480 is already an official release by AP (can now be found on their website).

To be honest I was hoping that the brand will release new generation of 42mm ROCs using their new in-house chrono calibre. Instead they used the well known (third party) 2385. While I love everything about the 2385, I wonder if the closed case back of the new ref is a sign of AP’s intentions to conceal a movement which will eventually get replaced by the cal 4401... Or they just might not want to exhibit a non-in-house movement (as in their ROC line).

Either way, what do you guys think? I love the design and am seriously excited about the change in design language.

Just wondering did any Factory offer rep of the 26480 yet?


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk