Horological Meandering

ThomasM
[PuristS]
14331

• Show profile
• Show other posts

You know, Jos, statements like your last...

"with its flawed movement design in a sporty looking case for prices ranging into the high quintuple digits is a strong candidate for biggest ripoff in all horology." when so many SUBJECTIVE aspects are stated as indisputable fact, are what more often than not the first step down the slippery slope to interminable flamewars.

In all candor, I'd really have much prefered you said the same thing, but phrased more as personal opinion than strong fact.  As it is, my "defensive" mechanism (not just for AP ROOS, even on the topics in the abstract such as just how bad planar aligned pushers and crowns are; how legible the date is; etc) is called to action by your strong words regardless of whether I personally agree with your opinions or not.

Context is important in any intelligent conversation; otherwise, the man running the red light is nothing but a lawbreaker, even though in his back seat is his wife with her water broken, being rushed to the hospital.

Historically, when the original cal. 2126/2840 was released in the early 1980's, there were very few automatic chronographs, integrated or modular. Immediately to mind are the Seiko, the Heuer consortium cal. 11; and the Zenith group El Primero. Very little (none that come timmediately to mind?) else.

The cal. 2126/2840 is thus now c. 30 years old and "one of the first."

Was the deepset date considered a flaw? At the time, the date optic was considered a suitable solution to the legibility issue, and in fact, for me, makes the date legibility a non-issue.

In fact, given my now presbyopic middle aged eyes, ANY standard date window is hard to read, so for me, and for more than a few, the deepset date is NOT a flaw. In fact, some consider it a nice aesthetic - it adds to the perceived "depth" of the dial.  Should I then stridently conclude that any non-big date movement is "flawed" and given how many big date designs are available, from PP, GP, et al, that "standard" sized date designs are a RIP OFF? Especially when the same company - PP, GP - which have very successful and beautiful big date designs already in their repertoire, and still more often than not charge "high quintuple digits" prices for their old, hard to read, standard size date display models?

What about the planar aligned pusher and crown issue? For me, a big "yawn" - so what? But of course, that's my OPINION, just as if I prefer Sisley to Manet.

Thank you for your many very relevant and important points - that in high horology, execution IS paramount.

This too is a very excellent point - "The way I see it, integrated and modular are just different design strategies, nothing more, nothing less. Whether one is to be preferred over th'other for me completely depends on the outcome and little else."

But wouldn't it be apropos to further clarify the CONTEXT of the design - the Apple II is not expected to be as "elegant" as the MacBook Pro due to its place in the development/evolutionary timeline of personal computers, and also, unlike computers, constant technical evolution in the world of watches is hardly THE, or even A, priority. Otherwise, there would be NO mechanical watches extant, would there? Thus, again, in context, the AP automatic chrono movement was one of the first (a decade and a half after the Cal. 11 and El Primero and Seiko, but still about the only other game in town in the early 1980's) and for most people, can be "forgiven" design choices like deep date plate or non-planar chrono pusher and crown.

Just some food for thought; I know what my opinions are, but I will not present them as gospel, dogmatic "truth."

BTW - just for the benefit of readers who may not be personally familiar with the chronograph movement under discussion, like any long lived, widely used mechanical design, the AP cal. 2126/2840 has its vocal proponents and its vocal detractors.

The facts are, without judgement -

it does have a deepset date ring relative to the dial surface, and so the design was fitted with a "cyclops eye" to make it (more) easily legible.

The pusher and crown planar alignment when viewed from the outside of the case is on two planes, due to the chronograph module being on top of the base movement.

This design does tend to allow more possiblity for poor adjustment, resulting in sloppy pusher feel and engagement; given what AP has actually done with delivered pieces, it seems they put in much work, for which they are famous, to properly adjust and finish this aspect of the mechanical interfaces, so that final delivered Offshore chronographs, if in proper adjustment and well maintained, have a pusher feel comparable to "the best" (whatever that means)

This movement can be problematic if not properly maintained and serviced by someone who knows what they are doing, and familiar with this movement. But isn't this true of any high grade movement?

(at the risk of a malaproprism in the metaphor; I am NOT comparing this movement to a Ferrari or Lamborghini movement) The corner mechanic may be able to service most Chevy's and Fords (or Peugeot or Fiat) but I wouldn't be comfortable even letting an experienced Ferrari mechanic work on a Lamborghini if he didn't have specific training, knowledge, and experience with Lambo engines, even the SPECIFIC iteration of the specific Lambo engine that needed work.

When in good condition, and adjusted properly, this movement is well proven with many 10's of thousands of pieces in the field, over c. 30 years - it is reliable, "accurate" and robust, and now more so with the 3126 base. (this last still needs to be time tested, but so far, the field reports are good.)

And yes, in a perfect world, I'd prefer chrono pushers and crowns on the same plane (actually, I care very little about this) and I'd like a BIG DATE - not dial level date, a BIG date like the GP, PP, and Lange.

I also wish there weren't earthquakes, wars, bigotry, and hatred in this world.

Cheers,

TM

Site Info.