Like the Royal Oak FAQ thread, this is created to address the various questions I have received via PM for AP ROOs. I will exclude divers from this thread even though they are technically Offshores. They will get a thread of their own. Please remember the answers are my opinions and not based on consensus or what others think. You are welcome and encouraged to do your own research and draw your own conclusions as always.
So here we go, in no particular order:
1. Are the modern rep ROOs accurate to gen, and what are the usual flaws?
The 42mm ROOs in general have these flaws:
- hand base too wide vs gen (26170ST models. The 26470 hand base is also too wide but is a lot less perceptible in real life)
- hand base shape and geometry (26170 models, the 26470 hands are also not 1:1 but the difference is a lot less noticeable in real life)
- date window placement too far to the right (26170 and 26470 models) and touching the tachy edge.
- thickness is about 1.5-2mm more than gen
- datewheel position not sunken vs gen (26170 and 26470 models)
- tachy print
- slow date rollover (A7750 movement, and even LWO283 movements) vs instant date change for the gen
- Datewheel font and magnification (resolved with the JF V2 factory release)
- general dial/tachy color inaccuracy.
- Movements are visually different for open caseback models. Cal. 3126/3840 movement on the gen vs A7750 sec@12 on the rep.
- crown offset (lower on the gen using the 3126/3840 movement) is not present on the rep.
- plots on the rep are not as movable as the ones on the gen. This is true for the 42 and 44mm replica ROOs.
The 26238 models have the following flaws:
- Thickness (though the gen is thicker than its predecessor, the rep is still thicker than the gen by about 1mm+)
- Subdial spacings (symmetrical on the gen, asymmetrical on the rep)
- Second@12 on the rep vs second@6 on the gen
- date font, datewheel base color, and date magnification
- dial, tachy and straps color on the blue "miami" (a misnomer vs the baby blue it is supposed to be) rep
- Usual movement flaw: The cal. 4404 on the gen vs the A7750 movement on the rep.
- ceramic pushers and crown on the rep instead of rubber
- usual hand geometry flaw like the 26170
- A slow date change vs the instant date change on the gen
The 44mm ROOs have these flaws in general
- still 1.5-2mm too thick, though the thickness difference is less noticeable vs the 42mm, being bigger in diameter. It makes the thickness difference less noticeable.
- date window position is incorrect vs gen. This is less evident on the 44mm, though the marker at 3 o'clock is a little shorter as a result.
- AP logo on the dial is a little more to the right than the gen
- Hands are a little different from the gen but not as noticeable as 26170 hands differences
- crown offset (lower on the gen using the 3126/3840 movement) is not present on the rep.
- Datewheel depth is not present due to the different movements used in the rep, but it is not as obvious due to the thicker dials used in the 44mm
- Date font and magnification are different on the rep, but this has been visually resolved in the latter JF releases.
- A slow date change vs the instant date change on the gen
So yes, you can see that compared with the Royal Oaks, the ROOs have a lot more flaws vs gens. Whether these flaws translate to real life concerns depend on each owner. In general the flaws on the 44mm are harder to call out in real life than the 42mms, but they are present nonetheless. The quality of the replica ROOs, accuracy aside, are very good in general.
2. What is the issue of the A7750 second@12 movement and how can one overcome it?
In short, Friction. The natural second@9 is brought to the 12 o'clock position by a series of transfer gears, which increase the friction across the gears and the alignment of the gears are often imperfect, especially in older batches. The design, while conceptually brilliant, lacks the quality parts and execution finesse required for all the extra gears to run smoothly and consistently. In the recent batches, this issue has been improved somewhat. Other implications brought about by these transfer gears are erratic chronograph use and a thicker movement as a result (about 1.8mm thicker than the A7750 movement). A movement service coupled with the replacement of the asian mainspring to a swiss one can help to alleviate the friction issue, but will not be able to completely overcome the design of the movement or movement parts misalignment. When you send in a rep ROO with the A7750 sec@12 movement for service, the expectation needs to be managed right. The movement can be cleaned and oiled and mainspring replaced but the design of the movement will remain precarious by design. The chrono function should be avoided as a rule. Yes I am aware of members in the group who have successfully ran their chronos without issues multiple times but really you do so at your own risk ultimately.
3. Can the thicker cases be thinned in the rep ROOs?
Yes. The closed caseback cases can be thinned to gen spec IF the decoration plates removed, and the decorated rotor changed to a plain and thinner ETA one. Do take note that the thinner and lighter rotor can be a problem autowinding the relatively big caliber. The open caseback cases can also be thinned to gen spec the same way but obviously this will affect the aesthetics of the movement when viewed from the back. If one desires to retain the decoration plates and rotor, the case may still be thinned a little depending on the clearance in the individual watch.
4. What is the implication of the thicker case in real life?
A thicker case will sit higher on the wrist naturally and it is not as comfortable to wear as one with gen thickness. The case profile will also also not be as aesthetically pleasing when viewed from the side. It can be a tell for 42mm rep ROOs in real life even when the watch is worn depending on how snug the watch is worn and the shape of the wearer's wrist. I have personally identified rep ROOs across a large table based on case thickness alone. It is not difficult once you know what to look for.
5. What are some of the mods for rep ROOs if one wishes to improve the watch?
For the 42mm
- Trimming, beveling and polish of the hand base (26170 models)
- Trimming of the tachy to provide that visual space between the tachy ring and the date window. This does not change the date window position but the relative position of the window vs the tachy.
- The datewheel + magnification mods used to be needed with am aftermarket datewheel/cyclop replacement but not anymore with the new JF releases. I am unsure if the JF releases are still ongoing or available.
- Thinning of the case as discussed earlier
For the 44mm
- Mostly the same as the 42mm, but also the replacement of the shorter marker@3 with a longer one plus a tachy trim.
6. What about "AP frankens"? What are these and how do they compare
Frankens are replica watches with gen parts. Typically gen dial, LWO283 movement, a reworked case to fit the LWO movement, and gen or aftermarket hands typically. These resolve a lot of the flaws present on the stock reps, but for open back cases, the movement and/or rotor will still look different unless a gen movement is used. Also, the datewheel and cyclop need to be selected carefully to match the period-correctness of the model. For example I see a lot of 3126 style datewheels being used on models employing the 2226 or 2326 calibers like the rubberclad or older models. The LWO movement is a lot more reliable than the A7750 one, but take note that the 3126/3840 movement used by AP is in itself a modular stacked movement and not the most reliable as well, and examples of problems include the chrono not starting or stopping correcting or hands not resetting to zero or not resetting consistently. The modular movement used by AP ROOs have since been replaced with integrated chronograph calibers like the 4404 and 4401.
7. Can I just put a gen dial into a rep ROO case without changing the movement?
Yes you can. But there will be a slight misalignment of the datewheel with it appearing to be right justified given the date window position on the gen dial. This is typically not done.
8. Can't I replace the A7750 movement used in the rep ROOs with a swiss 7750 movement?
No because there is no swiss 7750 made with the second@12, but you can replace parts from the Asian 7750 with corresponding parts from the Swiss 7750 movement. Not every part can be replaced of course. The design of the A7750 movement does not change from said replacement, but the quality of the parts are improved. The overall movement reliability is replaced by 10-20% from my estimate from such a replacement.
I get less questions on the ROOs than I do on the Royal Oaks, so this list is considerably shorter than the Royal Oaks FAQ thread. I will add on to these when I get more questions on this. I am also happy to answer questions which aren't answered above if anyone has any. Thank you.
So here we go, in no particular order:
1. Are the modern rep ROOs accurate to gen, and what are the usual flaws?
The 42mm ROOs in general have these flaws:
- hand base too wide vs gen (26170ST models. The 26470 hand base is also too wide but is a lot less perceptible in real life)
- hand base shape and geometry (26170 models, the 26470 hands are also not 1:1 but the difference is a lot less noticeable in real life)
- date window placement too far to the right (26170 and 26470 models) and touching the tachy edge.
- thickness is about 1.5-2mm more than gen
- datewheel position not sunken vs gen (26170 and 26470 models)
- tachy print
- slow date rollover (A7750 movement, and even LWO283 movements) vs instant date change for the gen
- Datewheel font and magnification (resolved with the JF V2 factory release)
- general dial/tachy color inaccuracy.
- Movements are visually different for open caseback models. Cal. 3126/3840 movement on the gen vs A7750 sec@12 on the rep.
- crown offset (lower on the gen using the 3126/3840 movement) is not present on the rep.
- plots on the rep are not as movable as the ones on the gen. This is true for the 42 and 44mm replica ROOs.
The 26238 models have the following flaws:
- Thickness (though the gen is thicker than its predecessor, the rep is still thicker than the gen by about 1mm+)
- Subdial spacings (symmetrical on the gen, asymmetrical on the rep)
- Second@12 on the rep vs second@6 on the gen
- date font, datewheel base color, and date magnification
- dial, tachy and straps color on the blue "miami" (a misnomer vs the baby blue it is supposed to be) rep
- Usual movement flaw: The cal. 4404 on the gen vs the A7750 movement on the rep.
- ceramic pushers and crown on the rep instead of rubber
- usual hand geometry flaw like the 26170
- A slow date change vs the instant date change on the gen
The 44mm ROOs have these flaws in general
- still 1.5-2mm too thick, though the thickness difference is less noticeable vs the 42mm, being bigger in diameter. It makes the thickness difference less noticeable.
- date window position is incorrect vs gen. This is less evident on the 44mm, though the marker at 3 o'clock is a little shorter as a result.
- AP logo on the dial is a little more to the right than the gen
- Hands are a little different from the gen but not as noticeable as 26170 hands differences
- crown offset (lower on the gen using the 3126/3840 movement) is not present on the rep.
- Datewheel depth is not present due to the different movements used in the rep, but it is not as obvious due to the thicker dials used in the 44mm
- Date font and magnification are different on the rep, but this has been visually resolved in the latter JF releases.
- A slow date change vs the instant date change on the gen
So yes, you can see that compared with the Royal Oaks, the ROOs have a lot more flaws vs gens. Whether these flaws translate to real life concerns depend on each owner. In general the flaws on the 44mm are harder to call out in real life than the 42mms, but they are present nonetheless. The quality of the replica ROOs, accuracy aside, are very good in general.
2. What is the issue of the A7750 second@12 movement and how can one overcome it?
In short, Friction. The natural second@9 is brought to the 12 o'clock position by a series of transfer gears, which increase the friction across the gears and the alignment of the gears are often imperfect, especially in older batches. The design, while conceptually brilliant, lacks the quality parts and execution finesse required for all the extra gears to run smoothly and consistently. In the recent batches, this issue has been improved somewhat. Other implications brought about by these transfer gears are erratic chronograph use and a thicker movement as a result (about 1.8mm thicker than the A7750 movement). A movement service coupled with the replacement of the asian mainspring to a swiss one can help to alleviate the friction issue, but will not be able to completely overcome the design of the movement or movement parts misalignment. When you send in a rep ROO with the A7750 sec@12 movement for service, the expectation needs to be managed right. The movement can be cleaned and oiled and mainspring replaced but the design of the movement will remain precarious by design. The chrono function should be avoided as a rule. Yes I am aware of members in the group who have successfully ran their chronos without issues multiple times but really you do so at your own risk ultimately.
3. Can the thicker cases be thinned in the rep ROOs?
Yes. The closed caseback cases can be thinned to gen spec IF the decoration plates removed, and the decorated rotor changed to a plain and thinner ETA one. Do take note that the thinner and lighter rotor can be a problem autowinding the relatively big caliber. The open caseback cases can also be thinned to gen spec the same way but obviously this will affect the aesthetics of the movement when viewed from the back. If one desires to retain the decoration plates and rotor, the case may still be thinned a little depending on the clearance in the individual watch.
4. What is the implication of the thicker case in real life?
A thicker case will sit higher on the wrist naturally and it is not as comfortable to wear as one with gen thickness. The case profile will also also not be as aesthetically pleasing when viewed from the side. It can be a tell for 42mm rep ROOs in real life even when the watch is worn depending on how snug the watch is worn and the shape of the wearer's wrist. I have personally identified rep ROOs across a large table based on case thickness alone. It is not difficult once you know what to look for.
5. What are some of the mods for rep ROOs if one wishes to improve the watch?
For the 42mm
- Trimming, beveling and polish of the hand base (26170 models)
- Trimming of the tachy to provide that visual space between the tachy ring and the date window. This does not change the date window position but the relative position of the window vs the tachy.
- The datewheel + magnification mods used to be needed with am aftermarket datewheel/cyclop replacement but not anymore with the new JF releases. I am unsure if the JF releases are still ongoing or available.
- Thinning of the case as discussed earlier
For the 44mm
- Mostly the same as the 42mm, but also the replacement of the shorter marker@3 with a longer one plus a tachy trim.
6. What about "AP frankens"? What are these and how do they compare
Frankens are replica watches with gen parts. Typically gen dial, LWO283 movement, a reworked case to fit the LWO movement, and gen or aftermarket hands typically. These resolve a lot of the flaws present on the stock reps, but for open back cases, the movement and/or rotor will still look different unless a gen movement is used. Also, the datewheel and cyclop need to be selected carefully to match the period-correctness of the model. For example I see a lot of 3126 style datewheels being used on models employing the 2226 or 2326 calibers like the rubberclad or older models. The LWO movement is a lot more reliable than the A7750 one, but take note that the 3126/3840 movement used by AP is in itself a modular stacked movement and not the most reliable as well, and examples of problems include the chrono not starting or stopping correcting or hands not resetting to zero or not resetting consistently. The modular movement used by AP ROOs have since been replaced with integrated chronograph calibers like the 4404 and 4401.
7. Can I just put a gen dial into a rep ROO case without changing the movement?
Yes you can. But there will be a slight misalignment of the datewheel with it appearing to be right justified given the date window position on the gen dial. This is typically not done.
8. Can't I replace the A7750 movement used in the rep ROOs with a swiss 7750 movement?
No because there is no swiss 7750 made with the second@12, but you can replace parts from the Asian 7750 with corresponding parts from the Swiss 7750 movement. Not every part can be replaced of course. The design of the A7750 movement does not change from said replacement, but the quality of the parts are improved. The overall movement reliability is replaced by 10-20% from my estimate from such a replacement.
I get less questions on the ROOs than I do on the Royal Oaks, so this list is considerably shorter than the Royal Oaks FAQ thread. I will add on to these when I get more questions on this. I am also happy to answer questions which aren't answered above if anyone has any. Thank you.
