AP ROO thickness- measured to crystal or bezel?

[Jurgenk]

A question for gen owners, including @legend: is the thickness of AP ROO closed caseback models measured from the caseback to the front of crystal, or front of bezel? And for open caseback models, similar question, crystal to crystal or caseback sides to bezel?

Since there’s a lot of play in franken builds, would be helpful to have guidance from gen specs but anticipate a lot of variability there too.

Thanks!

 

[legend]

Hi jurgenk

Ok just a few facts:

1. There is no official “method” given to measure or determine the gen AP case thickness but going by the thickness of 14.3mm given for one of my gens, it coincides with the bezel to caseback measurement exactly.

2. Some models are very slightly different in terms of thickness, and variance is between 0.02-0.04mm from past measurements, measuring from the bezel to caseback, using the same set of calipers.

3. Crystal height and see through caseback sapphire height can be ignored IMHO when it comes to the case thickness, because visually what matters is that the crystal is the correct height from the bezel and the caseback crystal does not protrude from the caseback and also it’s not seen when worn.

4. The case thickness IMHO will be influenced by bezel thickness + crystal gasket + midcase thickness + caseback thickness + the tightness of the screws. As mentioned the crystal height should be referenced against the bezel surface and it too can be adjusted by the amount of “pressing”. The protrusion of most modern ROO crystals are minimal and almost flush against the bezel surface, but not quite. I have not taken time to determine this elevation height

5. To be honest, once you get the franken down “close to” gen thickness, colloquially speaking, say 14.6mm, it will not be a tell once watch is worn. Trimming it to 14.3mm or even 14.2mm is no issue at all. So forget about the crystal height in this regard, from a visual aspect.

6. Crystal height should be considered separately as nobody will visually add the crystal height into how thick the watch looks. Case in point, the 16mm ROO looks like a miniature phonebook primarily because the caseback is ugly and thick and severely out of proportion and nobody will suggest trimming the crystal height to improve the thickness. Therefore, if you can solve >99% of the thickness issue through midcase/caseback thinning, then crystal height will not be part of the thickness equation visually but rather a separate question of how accurate is it elevated from the bezel. Likewise for any see through sapphire crystal on the caseback.

I hope this helps. To me the thickness is measured from bezel surface to caseback surface when talking about case thickness.

Also as a reference, the case thickness of a Rolex dssd, listed at 17.7mm, excludes the 5.5mm (unmounted) domed crystal. I think AP uses the same methodology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jurgenk]

Thank you legend for the fantastically detailed and informed response.

Love that you have enough gens to know the variation.

I haven’t done midcase thinning myself, that’s something I’ll leave to pro modders. I’ve just sanded casebacks, refinished warped midcases and bezels, and mixed parts from different builds. In the process of setting up different (2.5-3.0 mm) crystals to address proper tachy-crystal spacing I wanted to remain close as possible to gen spec.

Domi makes his AP ROO builds precisely 14.3 mm up to the bezel, and does not typically shave his donuts to achieve this. An excessively thinned donut is a tell to my eyes. The crystal is just the tiniest bit proud, clearing just enough to reveal the bezel, putting the crystal at 14.45 or so, but as you said the bezel is the dimension that matters visually.