Reply With QuoteToo easy. The screw in the middle is rotated 60 degrees wrong.
This is an original Ap Offshore catalog picture from 93-94 with an big fault.
Can you see the problem ?
I bought one anyway.
Hans.
Too easy. The screw in the middle is rotated 60 degrees wrong.
Last edited by GrandS; 23rd March 2015 at 09:29.
One of the screws is not in line!!! AAGGGHHHH!!! Who let that past for photo's!!??
Chris
It's not a sterile render?
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Hopefully they would accept that as a valid warranty issue
Never! He could get the screw rotated, but only if he pays for a full service, polish and the replacement of any parts they deem to be worn. Fine watchmakers have standards you know.Originally Posted by petethegeek
Hopefully they would accept that as a valid warranty issue
the light on those two screws looks suspiciously identical, i don't think this would deb possible given the spacing.
I'm almost certain one of the screws is a photoshop clone and reshape of the other. Not sure why they would do that though
do i win a prize?
Last edited by LonginesManiac; 23rd March 2015 at 09:41.
I've seen that on quite a few different makes (re the screws) Hublot in particular where non of the screws around the face lined up at all, they were all over the place.
Hublot....
They are intentionally like that on a Hublot to show the 'randomness' of them apparently.
These are not screws however, they are white gold bolt heads so it's a lousy job from the assembler!
It's not a screw, it's a bolt head. Maybe you should learn about watches?Never! He could get the screw rotated, but only if he pays for a full service, polish and the replacement of any parts they deem to be worn. Fine watchmakers have standards you know.
- - - Updated - - -
Sliiiiiightly elongated :)Looks fine to me.
Well that's what AP call them but what would they know?
http://www.audemarspiguet.com/en/wat...tion/royal-oak
A disruptive and downright revolutionary timepiece, the Royal Oak is immediately recognizable thanks to its state-of-the-art engineered strongbox case, octagonal bezel secured by eight hexagonal screws, visible water resistance gaskets, dials adorned with exclusive engine-turned “Grande Tapisserie” motif.
"A disruptive and downright revolutionary timepiece, the Royal Oak is immediately recognizable thanks to its state-of-the-art engineered strongbox case, octagonal bezel secured by eight hexagonal screws, visible water resistance gaskets, dials adorned with exclusive engine-turned “Grande Tapisserie” motif."
I suppose our local "expert", DB9 will have to teach the ignoramuses at AP about watches...
Bolt heads made to be pretend screws = poor design.
I suspect it is a "machine screw" which many knowing what it is will shorten to screw in the knowledge that screws are not used in watches ...
People often get bolts confused with machine screws ...
Machine screws the shank is threaded all the way ... bolts the thread is only on the end of the shank and the section near the head is not threaded ...
This is how the top 'screws' into the bottom:
More here:
http://people.timezone.com/library/h...70172488072079
Technically it's a hex 'bolt' or 'screw' (the screw cut out is for aesthetic purposes.)
Last edited by LonginesManiac; 23rd March 2015 at 11:18.
It looks like a photoshop fail. There must have been a finger print or mark on the original screw/bolthead and rather than try to remove it they've cloned the screw from above.
It's a legitimate criticism of the design. In my opinion, the slot in the bolt head is unnecessary, and is dishonest, in that it implies one thing, ie screw, but is a bolt. I don't think the 8 bolts add anything to the overall design, and the fixings could be easily done in a concealed way. This, in my opinion is poor design. Overall I quite like the case design of the original ROO, though the modern chrono iterations do not appeal to me. YMMV :)
Let's just get over it.
"The words "bolt" and "screw" are ambiguous. Bolt or screw is not a physical thing; it is a matter of how a physical thing is used. However, there are those who have set about trying to define these words as precise engineering terms. The very nature of the common English use of these words renders that impossible."
http://engineerexplains.com/answr/Screw-vs-Bolt1.html
AP calls it a screw. If some self styled expert want's to call it something else, so be it.
Just your opinion of course.
I thought the cut out was to hold the 'nut' while the screw is screwed in from underneath, the idea being that if you rely on the case to hold the 'nut', then eventually, especially with steel screws and precious metal bezels, you'll wear the hexagonal holes in the bezel and round them off a bit.
It's possible!
What part of that post was my opinion?
My post contained a quote to an article.
A suggestion: "Let's just get over it."
An easily verifiable statement: "AP calls it a screw."
and another suggestion: "If some self styled expert want's to call it something else, so be it."
Are you having trouble understanding English or is there some other reason for your strange post? I hope you are not having senility issues.
Last edited by GrandS; 23rd March 2015 at 11:39.
I thought that screws were singular and tightened using a screwdriver and that bolts were a set, along with a nut and were tightened using spanners or a socket set.
Shows what I know?!
Trouble with English?
Ok, your just a troll. Fine.
oh, the irony. Bless.
Shame to see another thread going down this road. There's a trend lately.
.... FFS ..!
I thought all fasteners that have a thread going all the way from the head to the tip are screws, and the thread on a bolt stops some way before the head. No?
Correct. Generally...
The length of a thread doesn't dictate whether the fastener is a screw or a bolt – not all screws and bolts are full length threaded. It'll depend on the engineering solution being addressed.
Indeed. With the same poster every single time.
There is only one, and it's you.
Have you owned an AP out of interest?
Almost, on a SS version the nuts and screws are white gold, the slot is there to ensure they can be tightened to the correct torque without distorting the nut against the SS bezel.
The Hublot ones are 'all over the place' as they use round slotted screws tightened to a set torque too, and it is near on impossible to get the same torque and screws in the same position. better water tight than looking right.
Maybe, until you try to order what you want from a supplier of fasteners. Then they need to know which you want, or you order screws and they go "Hm, not got those in stock but we have bolts of the same thread size, how much thread length do you need?"
I stand corrected however, and while suppliers use the terminology to distinguish different types of threaded thingummies - basically a bolt is held stationary while a nut is turned onto it - while a screw turns its way into whatever material it is fastening: http://euler9.tripod.com/bolt-database/boltdef.html
Last edited by Sara; 23rd March 2015 at 15:40.
+1
Therefore the AP uses bolts by that definition, as the case is held together by being compressed together but the nut and bolt
Then how can AP be take seriously if they don't know the correct term for the fasteners they are using?Therefore the AP uses bolts by that definition, as the case is held together by being compressed together but the nut and bolt
I would like to suggest from this day onwards, any thread referring to an AP RO case fastening system shall henceforth be known as 'BOLTS'. If we can all accept this term on TZ here, there will be harmony & peace amongst us.
As you were. :)
Dishonest? Jesus, it's only a tiny design feature. I don't think there's anything like this level of bad-tempered pickiness to be found anywhere in the world. It certainly sets the anoraks off every time - a slotted screw *that can't be turned*!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
You may not like the look, but they are there to hold the sandwich of the case together front to back.
The slot is necessary as it is used when tightening up the sandwich to the correct torque, to hold the head so it does not get deformed against the case. (the bolts/ screws are white gold, the case SS)
Yes they could have been concealed, but the octagonal design of the bezel with external fastening are reflective of a ship's pothole, which was the inspiration for the watch.
I agree it's a poor design, Genta didn't have a clue what he was doing!!
So we're all in agreement that they're bolts then? Good, I'm glad that's settled.
They have a screw thread, they even have the appearance of a slotted screw head, but they don't screw into anything. They are a recessed bolt and the nut screws on.
Try and learn about watches.
Now that's interesting - I didn't know the bolts were gold, and therefore a lot softer than the case.
The flip side of this discussion is the unaligned bolts/screws holding a square B&R together. Unless the heads are slotted with exact reference to the thread, there's no guarantee that an even application of torque would result in aligned slots - and even then, it would depend on identical machining of whatever the screws go into (presumably the back half of the case). Some people like the unevenness, others think it looks unfinished. Their mileage, more than ever, may vary!
...but what do I know; I don't even like watches!
No indication that that is the case, Andrew. We've discussed materials on here plenty of times in the not-so-distant past, and each time, we debunk the myth that the 18 Karat gold used, is soft.
More likely than not, the gold is work-hardened, which increases its level of hardness.
Last edited by PJ S; 24th March 2015 at 12:28.
Posting Permissions
