Discussion Topic: Case Thickness

[DoctorDark]

So I have been waiting for a good rep for an AP royal oak and doing a lot of research.
(Thank you btw to all the people here for your amazing reviews, pictures, and detailed posts the information has been invaluable)

The current JF 15400v5 seems to be a good rep but 41mm on a watch that already sits big for its case dimensions is not something I can ever think of wearing.

[Don't even get me started on complaining about how JF isn't bothering to attempt to create a better 15202 39mm rep. Ugh]

The JF 15450 (I think they are on V2 now?) is 37mm which is a good size for me but there is one problem I have with it and all other reps from JF (and this seems to be problematic with all AP Royal Oak Reps for some really strange reason).


They are all 1-2mm thicker (sometimes even 2.5mm thicker) than the real deal... even when they are running the same thin Miyota movements as those used in Patek 5711 Reps.
Just for clarification the reason why I am talking about the Patek Nautilus 5711 rep is because recently PFF factory factory have been able to make reps that are measuring an amazingly thin case thinness of 8.8mm (This level of thinness is 0.1mm away from the thinness of the gen 5711 which is at 8.7mm) while still using the same Miyota movement I've mentioned above.

So I'm curious. What is making it so hard to make a Royal Oak rep thinner and closer to gen without resorting to some extreme case thinning mods etc? Is it only the case back construction that is causing issues? Or the struggle over making a thick enough bezel? Or maybe the AP royal oak is just a more difficult watch to rep than the nautilus? I'm just looking for advice from the good folks here who would obviously know more than I do about these kind of things.

 

[bigtiddygothgf]

this is speculative because i dont own an RO rep but i would imagine the decorative plate gets in the way, and the deco plate on the nautilus reps is possibly thinner allowing them to make the watch thinner as well? because as far as i know even with caseback modification you cant get it quite thin enough without the rotor getting in the way. does anyone know if thinning down to gen thickness would be possible with the deco plate removed? couldn't care less about fooling anyone i just love the way thinner watches sit on the wrist.

either that or they're just leaving flaws intentionally so people continually buy updated versions once they fixed said flaws; it happens often. it seems like they wont be updating the 15450 though, especially with the new 41mm that just came out, but one can hope. on the verge of pulling the trigger on a 15450 myself, just having trouble deciding between white and blue.

 

[Nenodm]

I have same issue with thickness. But one question. why you think 15202 is not a good rep? Price is quite high though, cannot be justified with new rotor

 

[DoctorDark]

hmmm. The explanation about the deco plate makes some sense but then there would come the problem of picking up a correct looking closed caseback so that the lack of rotor doesn't look bad.
Yeah I was thinking about the 15450 too but I actually don't like the shape all that much, it looks chunkier than the traditional proportions of the 15202 which is why I am kind of persistently aiming for it.

As for Nenodm 's question. I don't think the 15202 is a bad rep. I just don't think its at the point where its good enough for me yet. But the list generally from biggest problem to least:

1. Thickness. Biggest problem I have with it
2. Bracelet: I am the kind of guy that would 100% franken a watch with an OEM bracelet if I can but I am unsure if the OEM bracelet will fit properly. Also the other problem is sourcing one in the first place.
3. Dial has a number of issues which would be resolvable by frankening a dial but that too is hard because sourcing a dial is almost impossible. Its been a long time since I have seen one available.