AP Rubberclad Review
History
In 1875, two watchmakers met; Jules Audemars and Edward-August Piguet. They decided to join forces and form the company that we know today as the Audemars Piguet brand.
Audemars was primarily involved in the technical aspect of the trade, whilst Piguet took to the sales and marketing of their products. Their business was not a success straight away, but in 1889 their “official founding” took place, and they became the third largest watch manufacturing employer in the world.
In the year of 1889, AP decided to make all of their own components and assemble them in-house. In 1914, they undertook a project so complicated, it took six years to complete. It was released in London in 1920. Unfortunately both founders of the company died before its release.
In 1928, AP produced the first skeletonised pocket watch.
AP now continues to produce some of the most prestigious and complicated watches available on the market. It is firmly among the big manufacturers such as Patek and Vacheron.
Background Information
The ROO Rubberclad currently comes in two different versions. A black dial with whitish subdials, and a white dial with silvery subdials
Some people have sourced the bracelet for it to give it a different look. I think it looks great on the bracelet, but it looks outstanding on the rubber….which is my personal favourite for this particular model.
Vital Stats
Case Diameter – 44mm
Case Height – 14.2mm
Water Resistance – 100m
Power Reserve – 38 Hours (self winding, 54 jewels)
Crystal - Flat sapphire
Calibre AP 2226/2840
Accuracy to the Genuine
Front
The dial layout, and pushers look to be correct to the genuine.
The word Tachymeter on the rehaut touches the larger minute ticks, whereas on the replica, it is a fraction away from the minute ticks.
The AP logo near the date display is a fraction too far to the right on the replica (we’re talking fractions of a mm here – only noticeably upon a heavy zoom/under a loupe)
The numbers on the dial are a fraction too wide, and the markers at 6 and 9 o’clock are also too wide, therefore making it look closer to the subdial itself.
The wording SWISS MADE is also a fraction too tall.
Overall, the replication is magnificent. The only way you would tell the rep from the gen would be to have them side by side and to study them under a loupe.
It is important to note that older models had a silver date surround, and also a bezel where the rubber would peel away easily. Both of these things have been fixed on the latter models.
Genuine on the left in all pictures
Back
The back is very well done indeed. The engravings and brushed finish looks very nicely done.
I can’t see any flaws. If there are any, they certainly aren’t worth mentioning.
Other
Again, the rest of the watch is replicated to a very high standard.
Due to the different types of movements, the replicas crown is inline with the two chrono pushers. However, on the genuine, the crown is located slightly further towards the back of the case. This is also seen on other watches such as the Breitling Blackbird.
Conclusion of flaws
Conclusion of flaws on front
Tachymeter too far from minute ticks
AP logo a fraction too far to the right
Dial numbers to wide (fat)
Markers at 6 and 9o’clock too thick
‘Swiss Made’ is too tall
Conclusion of flaws on rear
None that I am aware of
Conclusion of other flaws
Crown is in line with the chrono pushers (should be lower)
Final Thoughts
The Genuine
Audemars Piguet is a brand that just rolls off of the tongue so effortlessly. Instant thoughts of elegance and quality come to mind. The Rubberclad is by far my favourite of the AP ROO line. I have never held the genuine, and am unlikely to. However, from my research, I have come to understand that the fit and finish on an AP is second to none.
One thing I don’t like about AP’s current approach to this line of watches is the Hublot-esque release of many different dial and bracelet combinations. I personally find that this cheapens the brand image of the ROO. However, I guess business is business at the end of the day.
The Replica
I am actually pretty impressed with the Rubberclad. Aside from the bezel problem (which pertains only to the Rubberclad), the standard lume and the metal case which needs to be reworked (edges softened, case cleaned and sanded) for a more gen-like feel, the watch is pretty good.
The case construction is very solid. The differences are very subtle (like the quality of the bezel screws in close-up). Most of the problems on my watch come from the lack of QC that is inherent to the rep world. The rubber strap is excellent (comfortable and picks up no dust at all). The only caveat is the sec@12 movement, which needs a proper service with some graphite treatment (or similar) to make it a solid daily beater.
My conclusion for the Rubberclad is that at less than 5% of the cost of the gen, it offers maybe 85% of the real deal.
The flaws on this model are minimal. It isn’t perfect, but no replica is. If you want an Audemars Piguet replica, and don’t mind the price, then this is as close to the genuine that you will get. It’s up there in the 90+% accuracy bracket with the rest of the ‘super-reps’. My advice, go buy one now :)
Thanks for reading.
