In this Sunday morning segment, two of our essayists clash in an epic standoff for the ages. Solid feelings and insane metaphor are welcome (so don’t hesitate to participate with the fun in the comments segment underneath). Furthermore, remember to tell us which watches you’d prefer to see destroyed/profusely magnified one week from now. We’ll attempt to highlight as large numbers of our perusers’ decisions as we can. This week, the disputable Code 11.59 by Audemars Piguet gets its day in the sun. Clutch your caps: This could get messy…
You weren’t anticipating this, right? I’m sure the vast majority envisioned we’d take-on the Audemars Piguet Royal Oak having put the Vacheron Constantin Overseas and Patek Philippe Nautilus through a lot. Don’t stress, we’ll get to the Royal Oak. Be that as it may, before at that point, let’s investigate a gander at its questionable kin: The Audemars Piguet Code 11.59 collection.
After last week’s drubbing, it may have been shrewd to require the path of least resistance this week and go through the following ten minutes despising on the Code 11.59. Nothing more needs to be said. I’m an indulgent person for discipline. Having been altogether battered by Jorg’s safeguard of the Overseas 4500V a week ago (to the tune of 84% Vs — ouch), I’m standing, uncovered chested before Balazs, trying him to bring me down as I endeavor to persuade you that, notwithstanding the heaviness of general assessment, the Code 11.59 isn’t just acceptable, it’s the following extraordinary thing to hit watchmaking.
I’m an enthusiast of curiosity. Be that as it may, I don’t like a lot of it without a moment’s delay. That’s not something I apply to all aspects of my life (I can never have sufficient cheddar, for instance), however with regards to set up brands dabbling with their DNA, I truly lean toward changes to come at a frosty speed. This isn’t truly in light of the fact that I for one can’t think far enough outside of a crate to envision something completely new from a brand, but instead that it is important for a brand to trickle feed its virtuoso to the purchasing public so it seems to have stayed on-message from year spot to the present day.
I scorn it when brands attempt to persuade me that their assortments are associated by their distinction. It is all out garbage. At the point when a brand attempts to reveal to you it is characterized by thoughts as opposed to a thought, it implies they don’t know what their identity is. The absolute best brands are themselves start to finish. No bizarre off-shoots. No efforts to take advantage of a segment they obviously don’t care about or comprehend. Furthermore, certainly no deceptive efforts to urge their main fans to extend their psyche (code for, “please purchase another of our watches”).
Audemars Piguet is superior to most brands at holding a steady message all through its deliveries. It isn’t invulnerable to indiscretion, in any case. The Millenary assortment is, as I would like to think, an unfortunate interruption from all that makes AP superb. Possibly we’ll will include one of those models in this segment. No prizes for speculating which side I’ll be on…
And it is actually that ability that AP has for self-veneration that makes the Code 11.59 such a triumph. Take a gander at it. It is completely new. What’s more, yet… There is something… Something oddly familiar… Eight sides, never a long way from the absolute best models AP has delivered since its commencement, spring up again. The complicated case center of the Code 11.59. is an uncommon creation. Blending commonality in with oddity in an especially complex way that comes across from the outset as a lot less difficult development than it is in reality.
Honestly, I’ve had dreams about that case. The manner in which all that spaces together to make something new yet quickly edible is unbelievable. Definitely, so consider the possibility that the dials aren’t up to speed very yet?
Balazs: Nothing truly. It’s just one of – if not – the main piece of a watch.
Everything about the case and the developments is on point. What’s more, the sapphire precious stones that resemble they’ve stumbled out of a Salvador Dali corrosive outing and onto your wrist? Indeed. If it’s not too much trouble. There’s more to come from this assortment, however what we’ve got as of now is probably as tempting a delivery as we’ve found in the most recent decade. So come on, Ferenczi, reveal to me why I’m wrong.
I’m an enthusiast of you, Rob, so let’s imagine you never composed those words about the 11:59. Likewise, Brexit is simply behind us, hence you, a Brit living in Germany (on the opposite side of the fence), should be genuinely hurt… So I’ll be just about as delicate as could really be expected. Most importantly, I need to say I concur with you on a couple of things. You’re a prepared watch columnist and in a limited way, I think I have something reasonable of involvement with regards to understanding watch PR also. We see through the falsely made fog of copyright messages and press pictures. Also phony history that specific brands use to attempt to captivate us while introducing their most recent pride and joy.
It isn’t not difficult to remain on top and keep up the nature of the items without becoming a one-stunt horse. Then again, in some cases this is actually what you need to do. GoPro is an incredible model (despite the fact that their CEO thinks they’re a flexible brand — better believe it right). There is no GoPro telephone, smartwatch, tablet, or, God disallow, DSLR camera. The brand sticks to what they know and do best. BMW likewise never made trucks, pickups, or vans and I trust they won’t ever will. BMW’s vehicles, let them be SUVs or sports vehicles, take care of business. Audemars Piguet was, is and I think consistently will be the Royal Oak.
Let’s be clear, this isn’t the current management’s deficiency. Numerous things are, similar to the Code 11:59 (just as some messed up iPhone screens) yet not this. The Royal Oak has been the bread and butter of the brand since the ’70s and that’s fine. As I said above, stick to what you know and improve it. Audemars Piguet did incredible with the Royal Oak. More than incredible really, they made astounding, amazingly lovely watches. Hello, I’m not against advancement, don’t get me wrong…but come on, would we say we are truly discussing a watch case? Obviously, it’s delightfully designed. What else did you expect in that value range? Anyway when the case is a higher priority than the watch face itself (as they showed in during SIHH, sideways, not showing the dial unmistakably) at that point there is somewhat of an issue with the product.
It appears to me, my dear Rob, that Dali was by all account not the only one on a corrosive outing. The planners at AP were and presumably so were you when this passage was written. We are discussing a watch that is anything but a Royal Oak however a shiny new idea yet has eight sides. Hang tight briefly, where did I see this example previously? Could it be? No, I don’t think so. Gracious, it can’t be…yet, I’m right. The Royal Oak with an octagonal bezel. So would we say we are making new and trying or attempting to ride our past RO fad by moving the octagonal shape from the bezel to the center case? Furthermore, we haven’t even discussed the dial.
Rob: Firstly, while I don’t excuse the utilization of illicit medications, envision how rapidly Baselworld would pass by on corrosive? They ought to consider supplanting the Basel Times with a tab. That’d get the guest numbers back up to where they need to be…
Secondly, I’m Irish so Brexit didn’t contact me by and by. In any case, a debt of gratitude is in order for your sincere expressions of sympathy. Around half of my companions appreciate them; the other 50% appear to be strikingly glad. I surmise that’s democracy.
And thank the stars we have a popularity based community here on Fratello. The voice of individuals will clearly send your contention back to the shadowy rubbish domain from whence it came.
Balazs: Can’t wait to refute you on this one.
Rob: You may be holding up some time, mate. The Code 11.59 arrangement may not be a totally completed article (and I yield that a portion of the dials could do with somewhat more work) however the establishments are there. It is a noteworthy first foot forward to bring the higher-idea AP stuff (which I love) nearer to the purchasing public.
Yeah, sure, the “buying public for this reach is a lovely little cut of society, yet these pieces are more “accessible” than anything we’ve seen come out of the AP idea lab previously, and, sometimes, they look similarly as cool.
I get your contention about a brand setting out its slow down and staying by it. However, the cool hard truth is that it doesn’t work all around. Indeed, I would remain close by and shout from the roofs that SevenFriday ought to never have considered a subsequent case shape, at the same time, likewise, where might the business be without the Datejust an d the Submariner? We need brands like AP — driving lights in this inventive circle — to fight the good fight. These significant level planners need to push the discussion ahead. On the off chance that they can’t do it, who can?
Balazs: Not all medications are illicit so while I’m additionally not an enthusiast of them, I’d love to see the administration at Baselworld putting them to use to raise the guest number. Despite the fact that I dread this isn’t the issue with the occasion. The interest from fans and writers is there, the polished methodology from the administration is absent. Predominantly with regards to keeping the brands at the show. However, that’s a theme for an entire nother article.
Rob: Pretty sure that sporting medications aren’t connected to an increment in professionalism…
Balazs: That’s the second reasonable thing you’ve said today. The other is: The Code 11.59 arrangement may not be a totally completed article. I wholeheartedly concur. As such it should’ve remained on the designers’ table until they can coordinate the remainder of the watch to the development. That is a show-stopper, there is no uncertainty about that. The case? All things considered, we experienced that. I’ve seen similarly charming watch cases by arbitrary Kickstarter watches. I would prefer not to invest an excess of energy discussing the dial all things considered. Simply visit your neighborhood retail chain (that’s Warenhaus Karstadt for you in Dresden, Rob) and look at the design watch show bureau. I’m sure there’s still space left close to DKNY, Hugo Boss and Emporio Armani. In truth, the sticker price is extraordinary, yet the look is identical.
Rob: Identical is a genuine stretch. Also, I don’t accept you’ve seen cases bragging anyplace close to the level refinement as the 11.59 on Kickstarter. Certainly, a lot of brands attempt to accomplish something similarly as yearning. However, doing it right costs cash (and time). Two things AP has plainly filled this design.
Balazs: Actually, you’re right. The lone brand which is as yet draining the Royal Oak-DNA when attempting to come up with another idea is Audemars Piguet. Yet, man that is so 2013…
But this sort of “look” isn’t about the refinement: It’s about the prompt impression a watch like this can make. It’s a similar sort of strategy as Diesel pushing four quartz modules into one case — sudden stunning exhibition. Neither ages well…
In my assessment, the greatest mix-up the showcasing group at AP made with the Code 11.59 arrangement was the tone of communication. It was forceful and fairly stooping. It was as though they’d welcomed us out for supper and put two or three hours compelling food down our throats prior to revealing to us the amount they appreciated our conversation. That sort of bossy disposition seldom, if at any point, works. Audemars Piguet is the Royal Oak. The brand, over all others, requires to understand that and have somewhat greater lowliness when transparently causing trouble with another delivery. Perhaps one day Audemars Piguet will come up with another idea that will sell well and be viewed as a companion of the Royal Oak. The Code 11:59, in any case, will be a distant memory and failed to remember by then.