alterego Posted May 18, 2019 Report Share Posted May 18, 2019 I've heard this in the AP forum. Love the watch though. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kernow Posted May 19, 2019 Report Share Posted May 19, 2019 I had one and couldn’t gel with it so passed it on. They do look lovely though - but I prefer it in white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
horologist Posted May 19, 2019 Report Share Posted May 19, 2019 Agree, very appealing watch but a watch without lugs just doesn't do it for me. I prefer a watch with lugs as it gives you the option of looking appealing in both a leather strap and a bracelet without one compromising over the other! Sort of reminds me of my very first omega which only looked good with a bracelet http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/Z8YAAOSwlfxXGjko/%24_57.JPG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 that is supposedly the 15202 but you need a better pictorial representation when calling it the most beautiful watch ever made lol. That watch in the pic and beautiful have nothing to do with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
508-Fanatic Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 It’s the most beautiful watch ever made. Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timelord Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 6 hours ago, Legend said: That watch in the pic and beautiful have nothing to do with each other. True! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore it is all depends upon a persons tastes! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandshawn Posted May 22, 2019 Report Share Posted May 22, 2019 NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
automatico Posted May 23, 2019 Report Share Posted May 23, 2019 Had a 'same as new' RO in 1994, paid $2400 for it from a NAWCC trader guy. It was a fine watch imho. Long gone. They always looked to me like they were made out of flat washers and knife blades... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted May 23, 2019 Report Share Posted May 23, 2019 21 hours ago, Timelord said: True! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, therefore it is all depends upon a persons tastes! No, I mean I agree with the fact that the AP 15202 is beautiful. I was just saying that the picture is a poor representation of what the watch should look like. Below is a 15202 and I think it is beautiful and also how the watch should be pictorially represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alterego Posted May 25, 2019 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2019 Youare right Legend. It was not he best shot: too much glare, low definition, and who knows what else. Quality wise for pics, I think I'll go for a Huawei cell phone nex time, even if this might pose a threat to privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 On 5/25/2019 at 11:29 PM, alterego said: Youare right Legend. It was not he best shot: too much glare, low definition, and who knows what else. Quality wise for pics, I think I'll go for a Huawei cell phone nex time, even if this might pose a threat to privacy. Lol, no sir. I did not mean that. The watch you had chosen for the pictorial representation simply was a canal street replica of the 15202. I did not mean to insult your photography or your phone. The 15202 is beautiful I agree, but that picture was not a reasonable depiction of the watch in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alterego Posted June 4, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2019 A valid point, but members in this forum rarely make such rude comments about the pics we post. Perhaps it may be that you do not see beyond your own concept of repplica, which I understand. There are thousands of collectors that are happy buying what this diverse market offers. I'm sorry but think your comments are arrogant. I feel I deserve an apology. I also think that a significant number of replica fans ( of which I am part of) know that no matter how close to a gen a replica can be, it still is just a copy, not intended to "pass" for the gennuine watch, unless the owner's intention is to cheat those around as well as himself Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swdivad Posted June 6, 2019 Report Share Posted June 6, 2019 This one's pretty beautiful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 On 6/5/2019 at 12:13 AM, alterego said: A valid point, but members in this forum rarely make such rude comments about the pics we post. Perhaps it may be that you do not see beyond your own concept of repplica, which I understand. There are thousands of collectors that are happy buying what this diverse market offers. I'm sorry but think your comments are arrogant. I feel I deserve an apology. I also think that a significant number of replica fans ( of which I am part of) know that no matter how close to a gen a replica can be, it still is just a copy, not intended to "pass" for the gennuine watch, unless the owner's intention is to cheat those around as well as himself Regards No, I have said nothing wrong and I will NOT apologize. It is you who misconstrued my comments. Firstly, your title asked if the watch in the subject was the most beautiful watch ever made. And then you posted a pic of a cheap and poorly made rep to represent the watch. It is like asking if Paris is the most beautiful city ever and then presenting a drawing of the city made by a normal 5 year old. You could have picked a much better picture to back up the beautiful watch picture implied in your title, but you chose to use your own pic to represent a beautiful watch. I am an AP guy, and I know my APs. The watch in your pic has no business being a 15202, much less being beautiful in any sense of the word. This is not about trying to pass off a replica as a gen, but rather, simply considering and discussing if the 15202 a beautiful watch. I consider the 15202 a very beautiful watch, but the watch in your pic is a poor replica of the 15202 and it looks cheap. I will call it as I see it and I will not apologize. Do some research and you will find there are much better representations of the 15202 replica. Being truthful does not equate to being arrogant. If you cannot agree, then learn not to post pics of cheap, cringe-worthy reps and use them to represent a watch model and then ask if it is the most beautiful watch ever made. Your topic will not even make sense and create confusion as to whether you are referring to the genuine watch or the watch in your picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueTip Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Legend said: No, I have said nothing wrong and I will NOT apologize. It is you who misconstrued my comments. Firstly, your title asked if the watch in the subject was the most beautiful watch ever made. And then you posted a pic of a cheap and poorly made rep to represent the watch. It is like asking if Paris is the most beautiful city ever and then presenting a drawing of the city made by a normal 5 year old. You could have picked a much better picture to back up the beautiful watch picture implied in your title, but you chose to use your own pic to represent a beautiful watch. I am an AP guy, and I know my APs. The watch in your pic has no business being a 15202, much less beautiful. This is not about trying to pass off a replica as a gen, but rather, simply considering the 15202 a beautiful watch. I consider the 15202 a very beautiful watch, but the watch in your pic is a poor replica of the 15202 and it looks cheap. I will call it as I see it and I will not apologize. Do some research and you will find there are much better representations of the 15202 replica. What he said. What is represented in the OP has no dog calling itself 15202. Period. Hello again RWG. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackboxes Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 What a wonderful rep Does that help soothe your battered soul? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 @alterego Case in point: This is my AP 15500. And a good and true representation of the Audemars Piguet 15500.Now if I want to ask if it’s the most beautiful watch in the world, I can use this pic and not some defiled version of the watch to get an opinion. The way I see it, YOU owe all of us AP guys (@quetip,[mention=74693]blackboxes[/mention] etc) an apology for posting a throw-away, rep of a canal st rep, deformed Quasimodo of a watch, calling it a “15202” and trying to get an opinion of its aesthetic appeal based on it. If you are showing enough disrespect to the brand and one of its popular Royal Oak models to do that, then you’re either being sarcastic, ignorant or plain antagonistic, none of which deserves any form of courtesy. Do not push your luck further. This can either end here and now or you can go on to make a bigger fool of yourself. If you had posted a breitling I would not have cared less. But don’t insult the brand by posting an ugly cheap rep and using it to represent the 15202. #disrespectful Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueTip Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, Legend said: @alterego Case in point: This is my AP 15500. And a good and true representation of the Audemars Piguet 15500. Now if I want to ask if it’s the most beautiful watch in the world, I can use this pic and not some defiled version of the watch to get an opinion. The way I see it, YOU owe all of us AP guys (@quetip,[mention=74693]blackboxes[/mention] etc) an apology for posting a throw-away, rep of a canal st rep, deformed Quasimodo of a watch, calling it a “15202” and trying to get an opinion of its aesthetic appeal based on it. If you are showing enough disrespect to the brand and one of its popular Royal Oak models to do that, then you’re either being sarcastic, ignorant or plain antagonistic, none of which deserves any form of courtesy. Do not push your luck further. This can either end here and now or you can go on to make a bigger fool of yourself. If you had posted a breitling I would not have cared less. But don’t insult the brand by posting an ugly cheap rep and using it to represent the 15202. #disrespectful Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk #diswristpectful* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now